Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000712

Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on :
 
I've seen a lot of people referring to the Christus Victor account of the atonement, on threads like the UCCF/Spring Harvest bust-up thread, and also read this excellent article which someone (Jolly Jape, possibly) linked to on that thread.

As someone disillusioned with PSA, I find Christus Victor appeals to me a lot and I want to understand it better, so I thought I'd start a thread devoted to it.

What does CV mean to you?

How would you describe CV to someone else (say, a non-Christian, or a Christian who only knew PSA)?

Also, I gather that it's not as neatly formulaic as PSA and has to be appreciated more as a drama or story instead. But I'm wondering to what extent it can be understood rationally. It says wonderful, inspiring things about how Christ's death and resurrection made right all the things that were wrong in the world, rescued us from the devil and our sin, etc; but it gets a bit hand-wavey about how this was achieved. So I'm wondering whether that's an inherent part of CV and it's just a mystery to be accepted, or whether there are better explanations which I just haven't come across yet.

Thanks!

[ 29. October 2009, 07:43: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
If it's any help...

Humanity is constantly defeated by sin. We all know this, so did Paul in his "I do what I don't want to do" bit in Romans. When we go head to head against sin, it wins. As a rule. We win occasional battles, but we lose the war.

Enter a champion on our behalf - Jesus. Fully human, so able to fight in the battle between sin and humanity. But also fully God, so able to bring the power of God into the fight.

So Christ undergoes temptation. And wins. He then takes on the ugliest powers of sin - rejection, shame, injustice, suffering, torture, murder, alienation from God, and death. He counters these evils not by repaying evil with evil, but by facing them with love and forgiveness, forgiving the evildoers even as they nail Him up. He lets evil do its worst to Him, even to the point of letting it kill Him. But because He is greater than they are, He wins. Just as He won against temptation where we failed, He wins against sin where we fail. Hence Paul's imagery of Christ taking sin captive and leading it shamed through the streets in a victory parade, as Roman generals of his time would have done with their defeated prisoners.

Any help?
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Good stuff Karl.

It's also like Obi Wan Kenobi...

'If you strike me down, Darth, I'll become more powerful than you could possibly imagine....'.

God takes the weapons of the enemy and turns them on themselves. As our Orthodox brothers and sisters sing at Pascha:

'Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and on those in tombs bestowing life'.

[Axe murder]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
But I'm wondering to what extent it can be understood rationally. It says wonderful, inspiring things about how Christ's death and resurrection made right all the things that were wrong in the world, rescued us from the devil and our sin, etc; but it gets a bit hand-wavey about how this was achieved.

"Hand-wavey" - I love that. [Killing me]

I love Christus Victor. It is eminently rational and biblical, in my opinion. I'm sure someone can explain it clearly. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
I like Karl's explanation.

One of the keys, I guess, is seeing how Christ's victories over hell were not just personal triumphs but were permanent and far reaching. They not only meant that He was stronger than they, but they permanently weakened the power of evil.

The other overarching concept, as Karl points out, is that Christ's apparent defeat is really victory, and what it is that dies and what lives in a spiritual triumph.
 
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
Christus Victor, as with PSA - fine, but don't take it as the only valid description.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
The great advantage of Christus Victor is that salvation is something that Christ achieves rather than the result of being something that he passively endures. Karl Barth approvingly observes somewhere in the Dogmatics in Outline that all the Apostles Creed says of Christ's life is that he suffers and says that this sums it all up really. With respect to the Greatest Theologian Of The Twentieth Century I think the Incarnation amounts to really rather more than that.
 
Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on :
 
Karl: thanks, that is helpful. Although I still don't get how, in CV, Christ's being victorious over sin and death achieves anything for us, as opposed to just for him. Is it just because he was human and so he was "united to us" in some sense, and/or represented us? How does his victory actually fix the problem of sin in our lives?
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
One of the keys, I guess, is seeing how Christ's victories over hell were not just personal triumphs but were permanent and far reaching. They not only meant that He was stronger than they, but they permanently weakened the power of evil.

OK, but how come?
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Christus Victor, as with PSA - fine, but don't take it as the only valid description.

I know. AIUI, how the atonement really works is beyond our understanding, so we have a selection of metaphors/analogies which help. Like a lot of people, I personally don't find PSA helpful, and I find that the little I know of CV so far is more useful for me in drawing me closer to God etc so I want to find out more about it.

[edit: code]

[ 17. May 2007, 11:50: Message edited by: Talitha ]
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Talitha,

I raised this point on another thread.

The 'victory' of Christ effects us because we are physically united with him. We become part of his physical body, so when we suffer - he suffers (remember the road to Damascus 'where are you persecuting me?'), and when he suffers - we suffer ('if they persecuted me, they will persecute you').

When he dies - we die. When he is raised - we are raised.

I can't really overemphasise this enough since it is no 'theory' of the atonement but actual FACT!

Of course we struggle (in our current 'one body'/'one mind' self-understanding) to engage with this fact, so we need to act it out.

PSA removes the discomfort of having to 'see' what is (to us now) 'unseeable' since it postulates atonement in terms of a legal construct. As with ALL laws/legal constructs, these are abstract concepts which help point to a greater reality (well, reality itself!), and it's the 'abstractness' which sooths our confused minds.

I guess it's the difference between reading an illustrated book about embryology, and actually being present for the birth of ones child.

When the 'daylight' comes, one has no need for the 'candles'.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
Karl: thanks, that is helpful. Although I still don't get how, in CV, Christ's being victorious over sin and death achieves anything for us, as opposed to just for him. Is it just because he was human and so he was "united to us" in some sense and/or represented us?

Take out the word "just" and yes. This is why we are baptised into Christ; this is why we are His body; this is why we die to sin and are alive in Christ; this is why we must decrease and He must increase, to use various NT formulae.

quote:
How does his victory actually fix the problem of sin in our lives?
Just as He identified with us, so we identify with Him. Through the indwelling Holy Spirit we share His victory over sin.

quote:
OK, but how come?
Because humanity now has its reconciliation to God and His power through the one who is man and God. Evil gets its power over us through our weakness in the face of it, but in Christ we have one who can overcome it in us.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
I've seen a lot of people referring to the Christus Victor account of the atonement, on threads like the UCCF/Spring Harvest bust-up thread, and also read this excellent article which someone (Jolly Jape, possibly) linked to on that thread.

Well, it wasn't me, but if I had discovered it I would certainly have linked to it. It sums up, pretty well, all that I believe about the Atonement. And the icing on the cake was the quote from Moltmann at the end:
quote:
"God is not greater than he is in this humiliation. God is not more glorious than he is in this self-surrender. God is not more powerful than he is in this helplessness. God is not more divine than he is in this humanity".
How it works, it seems to me, is exemplified in that quotation. The full power of God is not in the legions of angels and the thuderbolts, but in the hummility and helplessness of the Jesus who "conquers by His own defeat and wins by losing all", as Michael Card put it. He won the victory because He really was more powerful than sin and death, but that power is not anything that a fallen world recognises as power.

We participate in it, because we are identified with Him in His death, and raised to life with Him in His resurrection. This is not merely an intellectual assent to Christ, but an objective change in our nature. But that isn't really any different to what happens under the other models of the Atonement.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
How does his victory actually fix the problem of sin in our lives?

I don't disagree with what Karl said. We share His victory through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I would add into it a cosmic view of the connection between the spiritual and physical worlds.

This concept is predicated on the idea that heaven and hell are influences that really do affect the lives of every person on earth. When humanity is wicked, hell becomes an increasingly powerful influence on human minds. When people sincerely follow God, hell's power is diminished.

The need for the Incarnation was that hell had become so powerful that humans with their limited power, or with the limited means at their disposal, could no longer resist its influence. Utter damnation threatened.

What God did to remedy this was to take on a human nature through birth into the world, take on the sins of the world, use His power to overcome them, and in this way reduce the power of hell.
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
One of the keys, I guess, is seeing how Christ's victories over hell were not just personal triumphs but were permanent and far reaching. They not only meant that He was stronger than they were, but they permanently weakened the power of evil.

OK, but how come?
The important thing to remember, as I understand it, is that Christ was not overcoming hell in absolute terms. There is actually no contest there whatsoever. Hell cannot even begin to challenge God. The contest was for the minds and hearts of humanity.

The challenge involved in the Incarnation was to give people the means to resist the power of evil while leaving their freedom intact. At any point God could have simply blown hell out of the water, miraculously saving all people. This, however, would have completely undermined the whole point of creation. The whole point of creation, as I understand it, is to have an object for God to love that can return that love freely and receive eternal happiness because of it. This is simply what love is about, and God is love.

So God's strategy was two-fold. One part was to create a body of knowledge that was accessible and helpful to people for the purpose of allowing them to willingly reform their lives according to His will. This is the Gospel.

The other part was to free the human mind of the oppressive spiritual influences of the hells.

He did this by entering into spiritual combats with them by taking on a human nature - which they could attack just as they attacked all people. As He resisted and fought against their influences the effects successively subdued the entire population of hell.

So the events of Jesus' life, as described in the Gospels, are just the external appearance of enormously significant spiritual contests that Jesus was continually engaged in throughout His life.

When Jesus was victorious in a contest, through doing His Father's will, through the words that He spoke, through refuting the arguments of His opponents, through healing, through feeding and other miracles, the effects were much greater than the stories would indicate. These incidents represented entire societies of hell being put in their place, and their power reduced.

The effect on humanity as a whole was not that no one would be inclined to evil, but just that the balance between heaven and hell was restored. People could then freely choose between the two.

In addition, the effect of the information that Jesus taught, and which is preserved in the Gospels, is that people can know Him and choose to follow Him with much more powerful means at their disposal. Knowledge is power. This is why Jesus is the Word of God and why He speaks so consistently about His mission being to teach the truth and use it to overcome evil, setting us free.
 
Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
Although I still don't get how, in CV, Christ's being victorious over sin and death achieves anything for us, as opposed to just for him. Is it just because he was human and so he was "united to us" in some sense, and/or represented us? How does his victory actually fix the problem of sin in our lives?

A reading appointed for today, Ascension Day, seems to address this:

quote:

...For just as he remained with us ever after his ascension, so we too are already in heaven with him, even though what is promised us has not yet been fulfilled in our bodies. Christ is now exalted above the heavens, but he still suffers on earth all the pain that we, the members of his body, have to bear. He showed this when he cried, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? and when he said: I was hungry and you gave me food...

While in heaven he is also with us; and we while on earth are with him. He is here with us by his divinity, his power and his love. We cannot be in heaven, as he is on earth, by divinity, but in him, we can be there by love...

These words are explained by our oneness with Christ, for he is our head and we are his body. No one ascended into heaven except Christ because we also are Christ: he is the Son of Man by his union with us, and we by our union with him are sons of God... [A]lthough he ascended alone, we also ascend, because we are in him by grace...
-St. Augustine of Hippo, Sermo de Ascensione Domini

I found this quite profound last night saying the Offices, and thought it was apropos.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
W, that's a wonderful quote! Thanks for sharing it.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Pastorgirl (# 12294) on :
 
IMHO, all four of the major theories of the atonement (satisfaction, substitution, ransom, and Christus Victor have biblical support. They are images, metaphors, to explain a transcendent reality. Most transcendent things need to be explained with metaphors because they are non-empirical. As with all metaphors, they reveal one aspect or "slice" of the reality, but if pressed too far, they break down and don't fit. Thus, I think it's a mistake to choose one theory over the others, or to fault one for the places where it doesn't work (e.g. the "bloodthirsty" aspect of substitution). Rather, you look at each to see what it has to say to us that is true.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
IMHO, all four of the major theories of the atonement (satisfaction, substitution, ransom, and Christus Victor have biblical support. They are images, metaphors, to explain a transcendent reality. Most transcendent things need to be explained with metaphors because they are non-empirical. As with all metaphors, they reveal one aspect or "slice" of the reality, but if pressed too far, they break down and don't fit. Thus, I think it's a mistake to choose one theory over the others, or to fault one for the places where it doesn't work (e.g. the "bloodthirsty" aspect of substitution). Rather, you look at each to see what it has to say to us that is true.

But it is also important to raise up the ways that each is false, for exactly the reasons you cite.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Tom,

This is a valid angle.

On various threads we've all been banging our heads against various walls trying to explain the advantages of our various positions. What if we were to honestly try and explain the difficulties of our positions.

So, what are the potential problems with CV and (pertinent to several debates I've been having with Johnny) what are the potential problems with PSA?

One of my concerns is that on a good number of blogsites, you can hear rehearsed again and again that 'PSA is the glorious heart of the gospel'. Any dissent from this position immediately brings down the curse of 'blasphemy'. However, if PSA is only an analogy then where are it's weaknesses and do it's devotees see these?
 
Posted by Pastorgirl (# 12294) on :
 
quote:
But it is also important to raise up the ways that each is false, for exactly the reasons you cite.
Good point. Yes, I agree.
 
Posted by Pastorgirl (# 12294) on :
 
The obvious deficiency of PSA is it's tendency to picture a "bloodthirsty" God who needs to be somehow "appeased". The worst critics will describe it's depiction of the Father as a rageaholic abusive dad who has a bad day at work and comes home to beat the kids.

But the advantage is the element of sacrifice. PSA emphasizes that the atonement cost something. It wasn't just a one-off, "oh, never mind." The "costliness" ensures that we will never take the atonement lightly, as some small thing. It emphasizes the "darkness" of our situation, the great need that we have for God's saving grace. At the same time it emphasizes the enormous love God has for us, that he would not withhold even this great price.

Again, I think we have to embrace this as a metaphor not a literal transaction, and therefore embrace the "truthful slice" (God's great and costly love for us) while rejecting the false (God as bloodthirsty rageaholic).
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pastorgirl:
Again, I think we have to embrace this as a metaphor not a literal transaction, and therefore embrace the "truthful slice" (God's great and costly love for us) while rejecting the false (God as bloodthirsty rageaholic).

I'm thinking about the idea that each model has "truthful slices" as well as false aspects of a greater picture that is out of our reach.

Hmmm.

I tend to be skeptical about the value of the PSA model and to think that Christus Victor explains everything.

Not that I object to or disagree with "God's great and costly love for us" but I worry about the way that this comes across in PSA. It seems to say that a price is literally somehow paid by death, that justice somehow demands this, and that this is what salvation is about - rather than any kind of actual reformation or improvement on the part of the individual.

But probably Christus Victor has drawbacks as well. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Certainly the 'first look' type of justice that this model embodies is retributive justice.

I'm not saying that if you twist it this way and that one can't rehabilitate this notion a bit, but - as far as models go - the 'gut reaction' is 'God is angry with human Sin and wants/needs to punish it'.

CV/Resurrection motifs provide a more 'restorative' model and, since our current earthly lives are tied up with becoming 'restored', this is why I would rather focus my energies and thoughts on these models.

I simply fail to see how PSA makes an existential difference in my life NOW.
 
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :
 
For me, the whole point of PSA falls apart at the resurrection. PSA seems to assume that Jesus died, is dead, is removed from reality as we experience it. Because when I look at the crucifixion, it's only one event in a continuum of events that characterize the Presence of Christ in the world. PSA seems to me to start and end with the Passion.

Coincidentally, most people I know who believe in PSA also seem to be hanging around waiting for the Apolcalypse to bring back into material reality the Christ they seem to think departed from it in the first place.

CV, to me, is the victory of the Christ Logos over the fabric of material reality. The Logos is an inescapable quintessence that now underpins and supercedes all laws of physical reality, including those laws we think are so scientifically sacred like Newtonian, quantum mechanical, and structural laws of reality.

He's here, He's more Real than Reality, more live and immediate than we can possibly comprehend, and there's nothing but nothing that will not be turned to His Law and purpose in the end.


LAFF

[ 17. May 2007, 20:13: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]
 
Posted by Tubifex Maximus (# 4874) on :
 
quote:
From Talitha
Karl: thanks, that is helpful. Although I still don't get how, in CV, Christ's being victorious over sin and death achieves anything for us, as opposed to just for him. Is it just because he was human and so he was "united to us" in some sense, and/or represented us? How does his victory actually fix the problem of sin in our lives?

Because it acurately models the psychological healing process which means that we can use it to find healing for ourselves. We all of us have a "voice" inside which can be critical and harsh. It is easy to identify this as our "conscience", even worse, to identify it with God criticising us and punishing us for falling short. The people who criticised Jesus represented legitimate authority; the church and the state, as it were. These people were, in the thinking of the time, doing God's work, but they punished God for falling below their standards. If we ignore the critical voice inside our heads but accept ourselves as we are with all our fears and our shortcomings, and don't deny them or argue against them, they begin to loose their power. We become less afraid, we gain the power to act independantly of our most powerful emotions; we gain a space to reflect, not simply to react. We gain the opportunity to act in love. We can learn to care for ourselves, address our shortcomings with creative solutions that do not depend on our fears and limitations. We can learn to treat ourselves without anger and violence.

We can also do this with the real people we share the world with. If we are no longer impressed with the critical voices of our own "conscience" because we know that it isn't our conscience or the voice of God, we can see that those who are critical and violent towards us need not hold our attention either. In a very real sense, the power of Sin is broken here. We now have the chance to accept those around us in their brokenness, to listen to them instead of flying off the handle, and to begin a conversation, to build relationships.

The power that is broken on the cross is the power of violence. It is unmasked; it can no longer be seen as the power of God, on the contrary the power of God is revealed as power of Love, as God accepts the worst we can dish out to Him, but does not punish us in return.

[ETA correct attribution of the quote]

[ 17. May 2007, 20:36: Message edited by: Tubifex Maximus ]
 
Posted by Wolfgang (# 10809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
For me, the whole point of PSA falls apart at the resurrection. PSA seems to assume that Jesus died, is dead, is removed from reality as we experience it. Because when I look at the crucifixion, it's only one event in a continuum of events that characterize the Presence of Christ in the world. PSA seems to me to start and end with the Passion.

Coincidentally, most people I know who believe in PSA also seem to be hanging around waiting for the Apolcalypse to bring back into material reality the Christ they seem to think departed from it in the first place.

CV, to me, is the victory of the Christ Logos over the fabric of material reality. The Logos is an inescapable quintessence that now underpins and supercedes all laws of physical reality, including those laws we think are so scientifically sacred like Newtonian, quantum mechanical, and structural laws of reality.

He's here, He's more Real than Reality, more live and immediate than we can possibly comprehend, and there's nothing but nothing that will not be turned to His Law and purpose in the end.


LAFF

Well I'm quite sympathetic to PSA and whilst you are of course right to emphasise the fact that the resurrection follows the crucifixion, the first Christian writers see the cross as the turning point of all history; not one event among many, but the decisive crux. Rather than starting with the passion narratives of M, M, L and J a correct understanding of PSA begins with Genesis 1-3, through Exodus and the rest of the OT. That on the cross Jesus did what Israel and the world could never do for themselves, becoming a curse that the righteous requirements of the law might be met in us. Jesus' reconciling work is achieved at the cross Col 1:20: this is, as Colossians emphasises, a victory, but it is a victory achieved as the power of sin is spent on Jesus, indeed as God the father condemns that sin in God the Son, the willing sacrificial lamb (Ro 8:3). The resurrection, then, evidences this victory, as Jesus emerges from the tomb as the first-fruits of the new creation.

You're right in saying that Jesus is the new reality, but it is also true to say we do not experience this reality as we one day will. God is present in his creation through his Spirit, but that's not to say that one day Christ won't come down (or appear) from heaven to liberate creation from it's bondage to decay. Only then will we see him as he is (1Jn 3:2), when he appears and fills the world with his presence (I think "parousia" means presence, doesn't it?), when he transforms our bodies to be more like his glorious body, and when he rids the world of sin and evil. But this all hinges on the cross. New creation is, to use a cliche, free but not cheap, it came at price which only Jesus' blood was good enough to pay.
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubifex Maximus:
The power that is broken on the cross is the power of violence.

I have problems with a lot of your post, Tubifex, because it does not deal with the real pangs of conscience for real sin - I know we can have false guilt but we can also very much have real guilt.

However the statement above, I think, gets to the very heart of recent readings of Christus Victor. Mennonites such as Denny Weaver and other 'radical' scholars such as Walter Wink, tend to favour a modified form of CV, in which the non-violence of the cross overcomes the violence of the 'powers' or the 'domination system'. This means the resurrection, rather than being a sort of divine 'I told you I was the Son of God!', becomes the demonstration that love is stronger than hate and non-violence is stronger than violence.

I find this personally more satisfying than PSA because it says to me that God 'absorbs' the power of human and cosmic evil, and in so doing neutralizes it. I think PSA can only make emotional sense to you if you have been brought up with strict ideas of wrongdoing and punishment - for people who feel every sin must be punished, it can be very liberating. But for those like me who were brought up with ready forgiveness and not many rules, it just doesn't scratch where we're itching.
 
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
Well I'm quite sympathetic to PSA and whilst you are of course right to emphasise the fact that the resurrection follows the crucifixion, the first Christian writers see the cross as the turning point of all history; not one event among many, but the decisive crux.

Agreed, this is a critical juncture: the moment at which the Christ Logos passed out of the body of Jesus and into the sphere of reality. The Temple veil was torn, signifying no more separation between God and the Creation. Solar eclipse, earthquake, the whole thing. Material reality was turned on its ear by the permeation of the Logos at every material and etheric level. A cataclysmic transformation worked on Creation. Thank God.

quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
The resurrection, then, evidences this victory, as Jesus emerges from the tomb as the first-fruits of the new creation.

The first fruits of those that sleep. Interesting turn of phrase. In other words, yo, everybody! Wake up! This is the New Reality! The laws of physics are turned on their heads. All He has done, we will do, and more, just like He promised.

quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
You're right in saying that Jesus is the new reality, but it is also true to say we do not experience this reality as we one day will.

I don't know what you are waiting for, or what anyone else is waiting for, for that matter. As far as I am concerned, it's here, now, live immediate and more Real than real. It's a "Way of Being" that is accessible to me here and now.

quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
God is present in his creation through his Spirit, but that's not to say that one day Christ won't come down (or appear) from heaven to liberate creation from it's bondage to decay.

The wages of sin is death. Give it up, and the problem of decay goes with it. It seems pretty simple to me: the only bondage I am under is that of my own devising, my sin. My salvation and healing are already accomplished, I just have to hand my sin to Christ for its proper disposal. Why would I carry my crap into the Kingdom? How can I celebrate the Kingdom if I insist on carting my crap everywhere with me as if it would kill me to give it up? It's killing me to carry it!

quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
Only then will we see him as he is (1Jn 3:2), when he appears and fills the world with his presence (I think "parousia" means presence, doesn't it?), when he transforms our bodies to be more like his glorious body, and when he rids the world of sin and evil.

He has already filled the world with His presence. What's preventing you or anyone from seeing Him right now "as He is", (whatever that means)?

quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
But this all hinges on the cross. New creation is, to use a cliche, free but not cheap, it came at price which only Jesus' blood was good enough to pay.

Agreed, see paragraph 1.

LAFF
 
Posted by Tubifex Maximus (# 4874) on :
 
quote:

From EsmeraldaI have problems with a lot of your post, Tubifex, because it does not deal with the real pangs of conscience for real sin - I know we can have false guilt but we can also very much have real guilt.

I could have expressed myself better. We have the power to destinguish between self abuse and real falling short (the meaning of the Greek word Hamartia that we translate as Sin). If one feels pangs of conscience for real sin, then act; act creatively to make amends, we now have the power. Learn where one fell short and do better in the future. Genuinely wicked people do not experience crises of conscience.

Jesus, on the other hand, was not justly punished; He was without sin.

My own experience, and I see it in the people who I know also, is of being overly cowed by anxiety and self rejecting. We try to bash ourselves into being good instead of loving ourselves. Your mileage may vary, of course.
 
Posted by Pastorgirl (# 12294) on :
 
quote:
I'm thinking about the idea that each model has "truthful slices" as well as false aspects of a greater picture that is out of our reach./B]
Part of my self-acknowledged bias is that, as an evangelical, I see all of Scripture as authoritative. Substitution (not necessarily PSA, but substitution) is in the Bible, so I have to do something w/ it. But then, satisfaction, ransom, and Christus victor are also in the Bible. The best way to make sense of it for me is to understand all four as metaphor, just as we have various images for God-- shepherd, rock, mother hen, Father. They give us different perspectives on our relationship to God, but all will fall short if pressed too far.


quote:
[B]I tend to be skeptical about the value of the PSA model and to think that Christus Victor explains everything...

But probably Christus Victor has drawbacks as well[

I think different metaphors speak better to different people in different places. Even in the NT, you will find allusions to substitution primarily in the books written for Greeks, where it seems to fit with their philosophical worldview. You find allusions to satisfaction in books written for Jews, since it resonates with their understanding of the Temple sacrifice. Ransom theory probably most appealing to the poor and to slaves.

Christus victor seems to be very popular today, and justifiably so. (It was also very popular in the patristic period). If it speaks to you powerfully, I wouldn't mess with that. Just realize that the other models are biblical as well, at least when understood as metaphors, rather than legalistic, literal (and exclusive) transactions.


quote:
Not that I object to or disagree with "God's great and costly love for us" but I worry about the way that this comes across in PSA. It seems to say that a price is literally somehow paid by death, that justice somehow demands this, and that this is what salvation is about - rather than any kind of actual reformation or improvement on the part of the individual.
I think perhaps the problem is not so much with substitution as it is alluded to in the NT per se, but rather the way PSA in particular is articulated and argued among fundamentalist Christians today.

As an aside, I would add that another problem in the whole discussion is thinking of salvation ONLY as "getting into heaven when I die", when the NT seems to see it as much more than that. It is "abundant life"-- not just eternal life, but abundant. The abundant life doesn't begin after death, but today. It is a life of freedom from the slavery to sin, slavery to what Walter Wink describes as "the powers that be"-- the cycle of violence and oppression. Freedom from a "fruitless way of life" (McLaren).
 
Posted by Pastorgirl (# 12294) on :
 
quote:
I could have expressed myself better. We have the power to destinguish between self abuse and real falling short (the meaning of the Greek word Hamartia that we translate as Sin). If one feels pangs of conscience for real sin, then act; act creatively to make amends, we now have the power. Learn where one fell short and do better in the future. Genuinely wicked people do not experience crises of conscience.
In psychological terms, you're talking about the difference between shame and guilt or remorse. Or what Paul calls in 2 Cor. "godly guilt" vs. "worldly guilt".
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
For me, the whole point of PSA falls apart at the resurrection. PSA seems to assume that Jesus died, is dead, is removed from reality as we experience it. Because when I look at the crucifixion, it's only one event in a continuum of events that characterize the Presence of Christ in the world. PSA seems to me to start and end with the Passion.

Well I'm quite sympathetic to PSA and whilst you are of course right to emphasise the fact that the resurrection follows the crucifixion, the first Christian writers see the cross as the turning point of all history; not one event among many, but the decisive crux.
And yet, the guy who wrote this would seem to find some midcom of significance for the faith in that anti-climactic act of resurrection...

--Tom Clune

[ 17. May 2007, 22:18: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Well I'm quite sympathetic to PSA and whilst you are of course right to emphasise the fact that the resurrection follows the crucifixion, the first Christian writers see the cross as the turning point of all history; not one event among many, but the decisive crux. Rather than starting with the passion narratives of M, M, L and J a correct understanding of PSA begins with Genesis 1-3, through Exodus and the rest of the OT. That on the cross Jesus did what Israel and the world could never do for themselves, becoming a curse that the righteous requirements of the law might be met in us. Jesus' reconciling work is achieved at the cross Col 1:20: this is, as Colossians emphasises, a victory, but it is a victory achieved as the power of sin is spent on Jesus, indeed as God the father condemns that sin in God the Son, the willing sacrificial lamb (Ro 8:3). The resurrection, then, evidences this victory, as Jesus emerges from the tomb as the first-fruits of the new creation.

I think that the problems with this analysis are twofold.

Firstly, it reduces the problem of sin to merely human beings failing to be able to obey the law. At the very least this is a somewhat privatised view of what is happening in the Atonement. The thrust of the Old Testament longing for Messiah is not a seeking for personal "salvation", but for the redemption of the whole creation - for a re-ordering of the world where God's restorative justice is seen to triumph. Of course, that is one of the reasons why I believe that CV is the model most consonant with the mission of Messiah.

Secondly, it undervalues the resurrection, making it merely an add-on to the Cross, just the proof that the death of Jesus was efficatious. This seems to be a long way from how the New Testament authors viewed things. Rather, it seems that Paul was so insistant on preaching the resurrection that the Athenians considered that he was preaching two Gods, Jesus and Anastasius. I agree with you that Jesus victory over the forces of evil was acheived on the cross, but it was a victory for a purpose. That purpose was the remaking of the whole of creation (in fulfilment of the Messianic dream) and that remaking was acheived by the resurrection. Yes, we die with Him on the cross, but we are able to be raised to life with him as he bursts out of the tomb. It isn't just the evidence for the victory, it is the victory. It's what it was all for, and without it the cross would have no meaning.
 
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :
 
I agree with Jolly Jape, here. The resurrection is the perfection and completion of God's plan for the healing of the world. It's the alpha and omega: the omega of the old creation and the alpha of the new. It's the event that "closes the loop" of the lemniscate of infinity.

Befor Christ, reality was on a linear/dualistic track that showed good/evil as opposite sides of a continuum. Like two sides of a long magnetic tape. The resurrection brought an end to the beginning, a beginning to the end, and an end to all beginnings and endings. It opened the door back to the infinite and joined all in unity with the Creator.

So, sometimes I will play a role on the "A" side of the tape, but that role will inevitably and seamlessly lead me into a role on the "B" side. Awareness of Him as my boon companion, acceptance of my roles, surrender, grace, forgiveness and "travelling lightly" will forever lead me in the paths of light and darkness in joy without pain, remorse or travail.

LAFF
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[QB] [QUOTE] Well I'm quite sympathetic to PSA and whilst you are of course right to emphasise the fact that the resurrection follows the crucifixion, the first Christian writers see the cross as the turning point of all history; not one event among many, but the decisive crux. Rather than starting with the passion narratives of M, M, L and J a correct understanding of PSA begins with Genesis 1-3, through Exodus and the rest of the OT. That on the cross Jesus did what Israel and the world could never do for themselves, becoming a curse that the righteous requirements of the law might be met in us. Jesus' reconciling work is achieved at the cross Col 1:20: this is, as Colossians emphasises, a victory, but it is a victory achieved as the power of sin is spent on Jesus, indeed as God the father condemns that sin in God the Son, the willing sacrificial lamb (Ro 8:3). The resurrection, then, evidences this victory, as Jesus emerges from the tomb as the first-fruits of the new creation.

I think that the problems with this analysis are twofold.

Firstly, it reduces the problem of sin to merely human beings failing to be able to obey the law. At the very least this is a somewhat privatised view of what is happening in the Atonement.

Addressing just this one point, I think that models other than PSA sidestep the depravity of the human condition caused by sin. The rot in our nature is so fundamental that God himself had to shed his own blood to reverse it. The law as the guideline of God's righteousness served mainly as a demonstration to the man who tried to keep all 613 of the commandments, that the standard of righteousness was an impossible one of him in his natural state.
To me this is clearly Paul's view,(Ro 4-6) Peter's view (1Pet 1:18,19) and the view of the writer to the Hebrews (see Ch 9:12-14). Christ is certainly the victor in the sense of his conquest of Satan's scheme to keep mankind in the thrall of sinfulness. The resurrection is God the Father's vindication of the Son's propitiatary act or sacrifice. To any who find the God of PSA a bloody and vengeful being, one could perhaps point out that in the atonement he became the victim of his own vengefulness for the express purpose of sparing his creation whom he has redeemed thereby.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[QB] [QUOTE] Well I'm quite sympathetic to PSA and whilst you are of course right to emphasise the fact that the resurrection follows the crucifixion, the first Christian writers see the cross as the turning point of all history; not one event among many, but the decisive crux. Rather than starting with the passion narratives of M, M, L and J a correct understanding of PSA begins with Genesis 1-3, through Exodus and the rest of the OT. That on the cross Jesus did what Israel and the world could never do for themselves, becoming a curse that the righteous requirements of the law might be met in us. Jesus' reconciling work is achieved at the cross Col 1:20: this is, as Colossians emphasises, a victory, but it is a victory achieved as the power of sin is spent on Jesus, indeed as God the father condemns that sin in God the Son, the willing sacrificial lamb (Ro 8:3). The resurrection, then, evidences this victory, as Jesus emerges from the tomb as the first-fruits of the new creation.

quote:
I think that the problems with this analysis are twofold.

Firstly, it reduces the problem of sin to merely human beings failing to be able to obey the law. At the very least this is a somewhat privatised view of what is happening in the Atonement.

Addressing just this one point, I think that models other than PSA sidestep the depravity of the human condition caused by sin. The rot in our nature is so fundamental that God himself had to shed his own blood to reverse it. The law as the guideline of God's righteousness served mainly as a demonstration to the man who tried to keep all 613 of the commandments, that the standard of righteousness was an impossible one of him in his natural state.
To me this is clearly Paul's view,(Ro 4-6) Peter's view (1Pet 1:18,19) and the view of the writer to the Hebrews (see Ch 9:12-14). Christ is certainly the victor in the sense of his conquest of Satan's scheme to keep mankind in the thrall of sinfulness. The resurrection is God the Father's vindication of the Son's propitiatary act or sacrifice. To any who find the God of PSA a bloody and vengeful being, one could perhaps point out that in the atonement he became the victim of his own vengefulness for the express purpose of sparing his creation whom he has redeemed thereby.


 
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Good stuff Karl.

It's also like Obi Wan Kenobi...

I went to school with a chap whose parents were from Africa (I forget which country), and whose surname was Wankenobi. Bear in mind that he was conceived and born in the early 1980s, you can perhaps not forgive that, but at least understandy why, his parents named him Obi.

He and I also went to the same college, and our head of year came into our English class one day looking for Obi. He wasn't there, and she asked what his surname was. When we told her, she laughed, thinking we were joking, (much to my confusion) until she realised that we were being serious. It must have been about a year later that I came across a reference to the name Obi-Wan Kenobi in relation to Star Wars and realised why she thought it was funny. I didn't grow up in a house of sci-fi fans and don't much care for it, which is why I didn't know.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I went to school with a chap whose parents were from Africa (I forget which country), and whose surname was Wankenobi. Bear in mind that he was conceived and born in the early 1980s, you can perhaps not forgive that, but at least understandy why, his parents named him Obi.

[Killing me]

I think that beats Nicholas If-Jesus-Had-Not-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barbon
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Addressing just this one point, I think that models other than PSA sidestep the depravity of the human condition caused by sin. The rot in our nature is so fundamental that God himself had to shed his own blood to reverse it. The law as the guideline of God's righteousness served mainly as a demonstration to the man who tried to keep all 613 of the commandments, that the standard of righteousness was an impossible one of him in his natural state.
To me this is clearly Paul's view,(Ro 4-6) Peter's view (1Pet 1:18,19) and the view of the writer to the Hebrews (see Ch 9:12-14). Christ is certainly the victor in the sense of his conquest of Satan's scheme to keep mankind in the thrall of sinfulness. The resurrection is God the Father's vindication of the Son's propitiatary act or sacrifice.

Part of the problem here, ISTM, is that there is a tendency7 to critique models of Atonement other than PSA through the lens of PSA. Thus rejection of PSA is often seen by its proponents as necessarily a rejection of a lot of other concepts not actually inherent in PSA, but more generally evangelical. Thus, I have no problem with agreeing with you, Jamat, that Jesus' death was a precondition for our reconciliation to God. What I don't see is why, if this is a given, that CV in any way sidesteps the problem of sin. It's not our view of the toxicity of sin that divides us, but our view of the nature of the remedy, our view, if you like, of how the Atonement "works".

quote:
To any who find the God of PSA a bloody and vengeful being, one could perhaps point out that in the atonement he became the victim of his own vengefulness for the express purpose of sparing his creation whom he has redeemed thereby.

Really, this is beside the point. The debate is not whether or not God loves us. We both accept that He does. The debate is whether or not God is, as you put it, "the victim of His own vengefulness". Becacause, as I see it, if God were constrained to deal with sin by violence, directed against whoever, even Himself, it would have made the whole of Jesus ministry, with its insistance on conquering evil by good, void. It would have been perpetuating the whole ugly lie, that might is right.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Addressing just this one point, I think that models other than PSA sidestep the depravity of the human condition caused by sin. The rot in our nature is so fundamental that God himself had to shed his own blood to reverse it.

I suppose that there are different conceptions of Christus Victor, but my understanding of it in no way does this. The rot in our nature is so fundamental that God himself had to come into the world, take on a human nature, and take on these evils one by one and overcome them to reverse it. At the end He overcame even the most fundamental natural love of survival itself, and the sins attached to it.

So in dying on the cross He was victorious over the power that wishes us to see our own survival as the number one priority.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
JJ,

I agree with you.

Johnny has (rightly) pointed out that 'Sin' must not be reduced to some 'external/impersonal' entity which allows us to say, 'Well, the Devil made me do it...', but I've not heard anyone of us (who support CV) try to 'excuse' (in the real etymological sense of that word) human Sin.

Salvation may be MORE than individual, but it certainly isn't LESS! Human free will is totally in operation (both for good and for bad), yet the point of the CV thinking is that we are ALSO (in a way which imperceptably intertwins with free will) 'trapped' in a corrupt system.

PSA tells me that my personal culpability is 'dealt with', but beyond that it doesn't speak about how one can escape the corrupt system. As a legal model it speaks very well to individuals who commit moral crimes with full culpability, but it is silent on the cause/background of those crimes. Tough on crime, but not so tough on the causes of crime!

I was thinking last night that this debate probably needs to look at the interplay between 'enslavement' to sin and 'free will' to sin. But this will probably take us into Augstine-Pelagius territory!

On a side note, I would like to know from our Orthodox brethren/sistren how the Eastern fathers (and church) reconcile this seeming paradox?
 
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
I would like to ask a question about the CV in isolation from SA, if I may.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
How does his victory actually fix the problem of sin in our lives?

Just as He identified with us, so we identify with Him. Through the indwelling Holy Spirit we share His victory over sin.

8< ----- SNIP ----- 8<

Because humanity now has its reconciliation to God and His power through the one who is man and God. Evil gets its power over us through our weakness in the face of it, but in Christ we have one who can overcome it in us.

How are 'indwelling', and being 'in Christ' understood? Are they sacramental things? Is this why many people believe the Real Presence to be so important?

I'm currently trying to wade through the article linked to in the OP, but it's taking me a while! Perhaps my questions are answered there.

Many thanks.
[Smile]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
How are 'indwelling', and being 'in Christ' understood? Are they sacramental things? Is this why many people believe the Real Presence to be so important?

That pretty much depends on their churchmanship. Evos would probably think of it in terms of a personal committment to Christ and regeneration by grace through faith, whilst those of more Catholic persuasion would indeed probably hold to a sacramental view. The advantage to being an Anglican is that you can hold to them both! [Snigger]
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
JJ,

You're right, and this probably explains the differences of views over the atonement (something which I tried to develop on the 'Sin thread').

For those whose 'connection' to Christ is through 'rational' means (faith as belief/mental ascent) then the atonement fits better into a rational system (i.e. a legal one).

For those whose connection is sacramental, atonement language fits best into the therapeutic understanding.

The charismatics are a hard one to place since, they're often the opposite of the purely 'rational' (e.g. strict baptist) type, but not quite so 'physical' as the sacramentals (although there is a lot of crypto-sacramentalism within charismatic worship)! I guess they would exist along a continuum between both positions.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
(although there is a lot of crypto-sacramentalism within charismatic worship)
As a bona fide card carrying charismatic open-evo type with sacramentalist leanings, I can identify with this! [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
I've been thinking about these issues a lot for the last few weeks (or since I started the atonement thread a while ago). I'm still confused! I'm pretty sure that my confusion is rooted in the fact that I was brought up a Nice Little Evo and I'm only just beginning to appreciate the limitations of this view of theology. I therefore have many, many hangups which I have to overcome.

I think my fundamental problem is that to me, CV seems to 'work very nicely' when describing humanity (or creation for that matter) as a whole, but SA seems to make much more sense from the point of view of each individual.

I can see that the fallen state of the universe is rectified by the incarnation and by Christ identifying himself with creation and causing the fundamental shift of paradigm which has been described earlier. But on the other hand, I find it hard to see how a God who surely cannot abide direct communion with sinners can allow himself to take them 'into Him' without compromising Himself. Surely the justification of the individual has to happen before the God can receive? Surely the problem of sin has to be dealt with while there is still some distance between God and the individual? I can see how that happens in SA, but not in CV.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
[/QUOTE]Part of the problem here, ISTM, is that there is a tendency7 to critique models of Atonement other than PSA through the lens of PSA. Thus rejection of PSA is often seen by its proponents as necessarily a rejection of a lot of other concepts not actually inherent in PSA, but more generally evangelical. Thus, I have no problem with agreeing with you, Jamat, that Jesus' death was a precondition for our reconciliation to God. What I don't see is why, if this is a given, that CV in any way sidesteps the problem of sin. It's not our view of the toxicity of sin that divides us, but our view of the nature of the remedy, our view, if you like, of how the Atonement "works".

... as I see it, if God were constrained to deal with sin by violence, directed against whoever, even Himself, it would have made the whole of Jesus ministry, with its insistance on conquering evil by good, void. It would have been perpetuating the whole ugly lie, that might is right. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Fair observation. Do not all of us tend to critique opponents of our view with our own particular tint of spectacle? You, JJ, regard PSA as a violent model because of your preconceptions and definition of violence I think.

However, The issue for me is what scripture clearly states about Jesus' blood. One cannot, in my view, do anything other than believe the apostles saw the shedding of blood as a necessary precondition for forgiveness and imputed righteousness. The OT clearly prefigures the blood atonement concept in many places but particularly in the Passover celebration where an innocent lamb was slaughtered. The sinfulness issue required the death, yhe shedding of blood. This is why I maintain that any model which denies this, really doesn't recognise the seriousness of sin.

However, the issue here is not my or your opinion, it is the
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
]Originally posted by Jamat:

Part of the problem here, ISTM, is that there is a tendency7 to critique models of Atonement other than PSA through the lens of PSA. Thus rejection of PSA is often seen by its proponents as necessarily a rejection of a lot of other concepts not actually inherent in PSA, but more generally evangelical. Thus, I have no problem with agreeing with you, Jamat, that Jesus' death was a precondition for our reconciliation to God. What I don't see is why, if this is a given, that CV in any way sidesteps the problem of sin. It's not our view of the toxicity of sin that divides us, but our view of the nature of the remedy, our view, if you like, of how the Atonement "works".

... as I see it, if God were constrained to deal with sin by violence, directed against whoever, even Himself, it would have made the whole of Jesus ministry, with its insistance on conquering evil by good, void. It would have been perpetuating the whole ugly lie, that might is right.[/QUOTE]


Fair observation. Do not all of us tend to critique opponents of our view with our own particular tint of spectacle? You, JJ, regard PSA as a violent model because of your preconceptions and definition of violence I think.

However, The issue for me is what scripture clearly states about Jesus' blood. One cannot, in my view, do anything other than believe the apostles saw the shedding of blood as a necessary precondition for forgiveness and imputed righteousness. The OT clearly prefigures the blood atonement concept in many places but particularly in the Passover celebration where an innocent lamb was slaughtered. The sinfulness issue required the death, yhe shedding of blood. This is why I maintain that any model which denies this, really doesn't recognise the seriousness of sin.

However, the issue here is not my or your opinion, it is the
[/QUOTE]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
]Originally posted by Jamat:

Part of the problem here, ISTM, is that there is a tendency7 to critique models of Atonement other than PSA through the lens of PSA. Thus rejection of PSA is often seen by its proponents as necessarily a rejection of a lot of other concepts not actually inherent in PSA, but more generally evangelical. Thus, I have no problem with agreeing with you, Jamat, that Jesus' death was a precondition for our reconciliation to God. What I don't see is why, if this is a given, that CV in any way sidesteps the problem of sin. It's not our view of the toxicity of sin that divides us, but our view of the nature of the remedy, our view, if you like, of how the Atonement "works".

... as I see it, if God were constrained to deal with sin by violence, directed against whoever, even Himself, it would have made the whole of Jesus ministry, with its insistance on conquering evil by good, void. It would have been perpetuating the whole ugly lie, that might is right.

Fair observation. Do not all of us tend to critique opponents of our view with our own particular tint of spectacle? You, JJ, regard PSA as a violent model because of your preconceptions and definition of violence I think.

However, the issue here is not my or your opinion, it is what scripture clearly states about Jesus' blood. One cannot, in my view, do anything other than believe the apostles saw the shedding of blood as a necessary precondition for forgiveness and imputed righteousness. The OT clearly prefigures the blood atonement concept in many places but particularly in the Passover celebration where an innocent lamb was slaughtered. The sinfulness issue required the death, yhe shedding of blood. This is why I maintain that any model which denies this, really doesn't recognise the seriousness of sin.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
But on the other hand, I find it hard to see how a God who surely cannot abide direct communion with sinners can allow himself to take them 'into Him' without compromising Himself. Surely the justification of the individual has to happen before the God can receive? Surely the problem of sin has to be dealt with while there is still some distance between God and the individual? I can see how that happens in SA, but not in CV.
I realise there is a lot of evo back-story to this idea that somehow God cannot abide direct communion with sinners, but I must say that I don't see that there is much biblical evidence for this. It is certainly true that for sinful people communion with God is problematic, but the difficulty is all on our side, not His. If this were not the case, then how could the sinless Son of God find that the company most congenial to Him was that of criminals, prostitutes and traitors (well, OK, an exaggeration maybe, but it's what He was accused of by His enemies). The thing is, God doesn't have a problem with moral guilt. He has a way of dealing with it which is the same today as it has always been. That way is forgiveness. The Atonement at a personal level is not, it seems to me, about forgiveness (and hence about moral guilt) but about reconciliation, the transformation of the individual. As Freddy put it, He's not concerned about apportioning blame for the system going wrong. He just wants to fix it.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
However, The issue for me is what scripture clearly states about Jesus' blood. One cannot, in my view, do anything other than believe the apostles saw the shedding of blood as a necessary precondition for forgiveness and imputed righteousness. The OT clearly prefigures the blood atonement concept in many places but particularly in the Passover celebration where an innocent lamb was slaughtered. The sinfulness issue required the death, the shedding of blood.

Just an historical question: did the Jewish people ever believe that the lamb that was killed on Passover was intended as a sacrifice for the sins of the Jewish people? I know that a lamb was killed and eaten before the Jewish people left Egypt, but it was not presented as a sin sacrifice -- the blood was simply a sign for the angel of death, and the meal was needed for the long march.

Certainly, in Christian iconography, the Lamb of God has become a sacrifice for sin. But were the real lambs of Passover ever intended as such by the Jewish people? Or was it more intended as a remembrance of God delivering His people than as an act of contrition by those people?

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Jamat, you wrote:

quote:
Do not all of us tend to critique opponents of our view with our own particular tint of spectacle? You, JJ, regard PSA as a violent model because of your preconceptions and definition of violence I think.

Well this may well be generally true, but the point I was making was, not that it is necessarily bad that we do this, as long as we are aware that this is what we are doing, but rather, that it means we are more likely to attribute to our opponents views that they don't necessarily hold. Thus, I oppose concept A you consider it essential, for reasons B,C,D and E. The temptation is to believe that, because I dispute concept A, I also dispute concepts B,C,D, and E. Now, of course, I may so dispute them, but it is equally possible that I could hold them, and merely dispute the association which you believe exists between them and concept A.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Jamat, as an aside, the principle reason behind my rejection of PSA is that I believe it makes God less than He is, by implying that there are external constraints upon who he may and may not forgive and under what circumstances. This seems to me not merely to be without Biblical support, but to be wholly against the manifest thrust of revelation. The point I made about violence is not my primary concern, but is telling supporting evidence.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Certainly, in Christian iconography, the Lamb of God has become a sacrifice for sin. But were the real lambs of Passover ever intended as such by the Jewish people?

The New Testament analogy is not only to the Passover lamb but also to the lambs or goats at Yom Kippur - one of which was sacrificed, and one released, the "scapegoat" which bore the sins of the people into the wilderness, literally the "Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world".

Jesus is explicitly likened to the lambs in the Scriptures - to the Passover lamb by impliction in Luke and explictly in 1 Corinthians 5, to the scapegoat by John the Baptist in John 1, to the lamb that is sacrificed for sin in 1 Peter.

And I have no idea which one, if any, the Lamb on the throne in the Revelation is, the Atonement lamb or the Passover lamb.

"Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"

Christus Victor [Smile]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And I have no idea which one, if any, the Lamb on the throne in the Revelation is, the Atonement lamb or the Passover lamb.

Whatever lamb it was one that was slain, and 'with your blood purchased men for God from every tribe...' PSA [Razz]

I know that it is my background that probably needs to be deconstructed ... I've just finished watching 'The Last King of Scotland' about Idi Amin. The ending was pretty gruesome but the thing that hit me hardest was the fact on the screen right at the end - he died in exile in Saudi Arabia in 2003. Do we really believe that God won't judged him for that?
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Of course God judges. I can assure you that I wouldn't want to live in that guy's conscience, assuming he had any left.

But now that he's gone, are we to try to enact revenge, as God would do? Or should we just let the incident go and focus instead on repairing the damage he did to his own people and to his own country?

And what of the people that promoted him? And what of the people who helped him along the way, and the ones who fought in his name? Or the ones who killed in opposition to him?

When in doubt, after all is said and done, you have to forgive, IMO. Otherwise you can become the very monster you set out to destroy.

I don't think that kind of evil is just personal. It runs through the entire society...

Best to just end it.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Of course God judges.

But how? If it is the same for everyone then that is hardly fair.


quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I don't think that kind of evil is just personal. It runs through the entire society...

Best to just end it.

Absolutely ... that would be an atonement model that dealt with all the sins of the entire society in one go then ... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny S:
But how? If it is the same for everyone then that is hardly fair.

Of course it's the same for everyone. In this life, you get what you give. If we're all of one body, then a sin against one person is a sin against all. It is the same for everyone. We are all loved equally, whether we want it or not.

I'm also tempted ot quote a comment by an old boss that "fair is a place where pigs compete for ribbons." What's fair to a being like God?
quote:
Absolutely ... that would be an atonement model that dealt with all the sins of the entire society in one go then ... [Big Grin]
Atonement, sure. I'm all for atonement. It's the penal part that bugs me. Ending it doesn't mean killing one more scapegoat, sacrificing one more cow, one more lamb. The Israelites had been doing that for years, and that's what did them in in the end. Isaiah essentially said, "God doesn't want anymore of your stinking cows! He wants an honest heart!"

And so he gave us one as example. And look what we did with it. Killing God's messengers is the epitome of sin.

And even then he said, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do." He didn't give in. Whatever the fuck else he did, he didn't give in to the need to call down divine retribution, or ask for another miracle, or to slay every priest that conspired against him in a divine thunderbolt. He basically said, "It is finished."

And if that isn't gutsy then I don't know what is.

And FWIW, I'm not out to destroy PSA. I just think the way many people read it is harmful, and it also drives a lot of people away from God. It's not the be all and end all of Christianity, IMO. YMMV
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
In this life, you get what you give. If we're all of one body, then a sin against one person is a sin against all. It is the same for everyone. We are all loved equally, whether we want it or not.

What colour is the sky in your world? [Ultra confused] As I look out my window I don't recognise the world you describe.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
It's blue.

ETA: [Razz]

[ 18. May 2007, 23:07: Message edited by: mirrizin ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Well it's black here ... but that would be because it's night time.

Night night. [Snore]
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
G'night. [Angel]
 
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
Jolly Jape - I would like to thank you for your replies to me. It is clear that I am viewing CV through the lens of SA, just like you said, and that is why I'm not getting it!

I'm going to read the thread a few more times, finish the article linked at the top and see if that helps. I may be back with more thoughts later! Anyhow, thanks again for your time. I appreciate it.

Dave
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
To go back to a great statement by Karl earlier:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
He then takes on the ugliest powers of sin - rejection, shame, injustice, suffering, torture, murder, alienation from God, and death. He counters these evils not by repaying evil with evil, but by facing them with love and forgiveness, forgiving the evildoers even as they nail Him up. He lets evil do its worst to Him, even to the point of letting it kill Him. But because He is greater than they are, He wins.

To me one of the more compelling arguments for Christus Victor is the way it turns Christ's defeat into His victory. He somehow wins by allowing evil to do what it does.

As He says:
quote:
John 12:24 Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.
If His death is really a victory, then it is a fruitful death. While there is something of this in PSA as well, since Christ's death lifts the penalty from us, there isn't the direct implication of fruitfulness coming from the death itself. Yet this is a concept that Christ repeatedly emphasized:
quote:
Matthew 10:39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Matthew 16:25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

Mark 8:35 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.

Luke 9:24 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.

Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

John 12:25 He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

Luke 17:33 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.

Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.

In this paradigm death leads directly to life and fruitfulness. It is both about Christ's death and about a kind of death that happens in every person's life. The sinful life needs to die so that the godly life can live. We need to overcome old habits so that we can prosper with new ones. We need to value the life of the spirit over the life of the body.

Jesus teaches this on almost every page:
quote:
Luke 12:23 Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing.

John 6:27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Matthew 6:19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Luke 12:21 “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”

Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

So Christus Victor has direct application and implications for what God expects from every person. Our task in life is for one part of us to die so that the other can live - and this is the way to life.

Jesus explains that this process is a difficult one, but that it is possible for us because He is the one who really does it for us:
quote:
Matthew 7:14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.

John 6:27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”

John 16:33 These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”

Christ overcame the world by letting evil do its worst, even to the point of apparently killing Him, and yet this apparent defeat was actually a victory. It was a victory for all the reasons stated above, and also because the actual internal contests, which Jesus underwent in the temptations connected with them, subdued the power that valued physical life as the first priority. We are therefore also able to value the spiritual over the physical, and are able to live the way that Jesus taught, finding joy as a result.

It seems to me that this approach accounts for more biblical teaching than PSA and fits more closely with Jesus' words. The concepts of sacrifice, mediation and reconciliation fit nicely into it as well, I think.
 
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :
 
I think you've hit on something really important, Freddy. One of the weaknesses of PSA is that it doesn't connect very well to Jesus' life and ministry - proponents have a way of talking as if all he came for was to die - and nor does it have implications for how we live our lives, except that we are to live them in gratitude for his sacrifice. It leads to a negative view of discipleship as mainly consisting of avoiding doing naughty things.

CV OTOH includes the dimension of the defeat of the powers which rule this earth, and invites us to join Jesus in continuing to defeat the powers by our non-violent resistance. We too are to live a cross-shaped life which will lead us into conflict with the 'domination system', and may ultimately lead to our death at their hands as well. So it leads to positive discipleship, working for peace and justice but not by the sword.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
I think you've hit on something really important, Freddy. One of the weaknesses of PSA is that it doesn't connect very well to Jesus' life and ministry - proponents have a way of talking as if all he came for was to die - and nor does it have implications for how we live our lives, except that we are to live them in gratitude for his sacrifice.

I don't think that's fair Esmeralda. PSA is a model that attempts to explain the death of Jesus. It appears that you are complaining that a model of the death of Jesus focusses too much on the death of Jesus [Confused]

However, if you are saying that as a model it dominates some folk's theology to the exclusion of everything else then that is another matter.

'...except ... in gratitude of his sacrifice' could you explain that further? I find it an extremely powerful motivation and don't understand why so many dismiss it so lightly?

John.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
'...except ... in gratitude of his sacrifice' could you explain that further? I find it an extremely powerful motivation and don't understand why so many dismiss it so lightly?

Maybe it was several years of sitting through dry-as-dust sermons where we were admonished how we 'should/ought feel grateful for what Christ did for us'.

If this does 'it' for you Johnny, then I'm very happy, but all it ever produced for me was guilt upon guilt.

My wife, until recently, whenever I would say (sincerely) something like, 'you deserve a break darling', would reply almost instinctively, 'no, I deserve Hell'. It's taken a while to get such negativity out of our experience of God.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Maybe it was several years of sitting through dry-as-dust sermons where we were admonished how we 'should/ought feel grateful for what Christ did for us'.

If this does 'it' for you Johnny, then I'm very happy, but all it ever produced for me was guilt upon guilt.

My wife, until recently, whenever I would say (sincerely) something like, 'you deserve a break darling', would reply almost instinctively, 'no, I deserve Hell'. It's taken a while to get such negativity out of our experience of God.

Wow - you have had a negative experience of church. I'm surprised you're still hanging in there!

I didn't say anything about 'ought / should' though did I? You added that bit. I find that thinking about what Christ has done for me comes out naturally. Where is the 'ought' in grace?

I don't want to turn this into a 'pop' at Charismatic churches ('cos there are some very good ones) but IME a lot of them are high on exhortation and low on content and therefore I'm not surprised by your reaction.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Johnny,

I've been thinking about this question of 'what motivates us?'.

I think it has to involve a transformation of the 'will', that centre of all human desire and motivation. Without some sort of transformation of our desires then the Christian life would be impossible.

'Will' is so much more than thoughts and ideas, hence the need for an engagement of more than just our rational senses.

PSA, as it's been utilised around me, makes Christ's sacrifice into a 'logical system' which makes rational sense but fails to 'warm my heart'. In the presence of this cold heartedness, trying to whip up gratitude is like chastising a deceased equine!

CV works like a 'hero story' which has me cheering for the good guys and booing the bad guys. Seeing how God outwits evil and turns it in on itself is impressive and I'm left desiring to be part of this drama.

PSA is like saying, 'Boy and Girl on a new ship, just starting to get it together, ship hits an iceberg, boy dies and girl survives - now doesn't that make you feel sad?', CV is like watching 'Titanic' and finding yourself weeping when Di Caprio died (which I did - I'm quite in touch with my feminine side [Biased] ).
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Christus Victor, as with PSA - fine, but don't take it as the only valid description.

I don't see a conflict between the two, anyway.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Johnny,

I've been thinking about this question of 'what motivates us?'.

I think it has to involve a transformation of the 'will', that centre of all human desire and motivation. Without some sort of transformation of our desires then the Christian life would be impossible.

'Will' is so much more than thoughts and ideas, hence the need for an engagement of more than just our rational senses.

PSA, as it's been utilised around me, makes Christ's sacrifice into a 'logical system' which makes rational sense but fails to 'warm my heart'. In the presence of this cold heartedness, trying to whip up gratitude is like chastising a deceased equine!

Agreed. However, we seem stuck on this merry-go-round of 'so why can't we have both?'


quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
CV works like a 'hero story' which has me cheering for the good guys and booing the bad guys. Seeing how God outwits evil and turns it in on itself is impressive and I'm left desiring to be part of this drama.

PSA is like saying, 'Boy and Girl on a new ship, just starting to get it together, ship hits an iceberg, boy dies and girl survives - now doesn't that make you feel sad?', CV is like watching 'Titanic' and finding yourself weeping when Di Caprio died (which I did - I'm quite in touch with my feminine side [Biased] ).

You had me there ... right until the end! Not the blubbing but the Di Caprio. I have hated him ever since he ruined 'The Beach' by trying to play a Brit. I've never forgiven him for that ... is that because he hasn't shown any repentance or ... [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Johnny,

I've been thinking about this question of 'what motivates us?'.

Although not directly linked to PSA another major aspect of motivation is the return of Christ.

Of course this is a relational metaphor. Just as I don't want my wife to find me with another woman when she comes home (because I love her [Axe murder] ) so I want Jesus to find me as faithful as possible when he comes back. [Smile]
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Interesting you see it like this, because my view is that Jesus is always present. I think it was Tom Wright who first helped to disabuse me of the notion of Jesus being 'somewhere-up-there-in-heaven', instead heaven and earth (according to Wright and, as far as I can make out, Orthodoxy) are interlocking spheres so that Jesus (and the angels, and the 'souls of the righteous who have been made perfect' et al) are literally surrounding us, but in a dimension that we cannot (yet) see.

When the shepherds saw the myriad angels on that 'Heiligeabend' they hadn't 'come down' from Heaven, instead the veil separating the two dimensions had been (temporarily) ripped apart and they got a glimpse of the worship and glory in 'heaven'.

Jesus 'returning' will be see this veil - finally - torn apart.

His second coming is, of course, expected and will be glorious, but this will merely make what is 'already', visible!
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Interesting you see it like this, because my view is that Jesus is always present.

Good point. However, his present presence ( [Big Grin] ) is not very personal (or doesn't feel it to me). John 14-17 describes the work of the Spirit being 'another Jesus' to his disciples. He is with us all the time. I just long for the day when 'the veil is taken away' and we see him as he is.

In fact the second coming can only work as a motivation to stop sinning if I believe that he is with me now - otherwise there is no shared 'history'. Nevertheless it brings a personal 'face to face' element that brings focus to my life.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I just long for the day when 'the veil is taken away' and we see him as he is.

Amen! Maranatha! [Votive]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Jamat, as an aside, the principle reason behind my rejection of PSA is that I believe it makes God less than He is, by implying that there are external constraints upon who he may and may not forgive and under what circumstances. This seems to me not merely to be without Biblical support, but to be wholly against the manifest thrust of revelation. The point I made about violence is not my primary concern, but is telling supporting evidence.

Fair comment. In reply, the constraints are what he has set in place himself. The fundamental issue is the nature of his holiness and the basis on which we fallen beings can have access to his love. This is why the issue of the blood is so vital; and why sin is less drastic if we don't need the blood atonement to expunge it. What, incidentally do you do with the scriptures I referred to above, namely Romans 3:25, 1 Pet 1:19 and Heb 9:14. In each case a different NT writer assumes blood atonement as a prerequisite for forgiveness and consequent relationship with God.

Richard, I have total sympathy for your view of dry as dust sermons which seem to have no point except to make us feel bad. I hate them too. However, it seems a bit sad to dismiss a scriptural model because of some idiot preaching.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Jamat, as an aside, the principle reason behind my rejection of PSA is that I believe it makes God less than He is, by implying that there are external constraints upon who he may and may not forgive and under what circumstances. This seems to me not merely to be without Biblical support, but to be wholly against the manifest thrust of revelation. The point I made about violence is not my primary concern, but is telling supporting evidence.

I don't think most people who hold to PSA see God as having external constraints on who he may and may not forgive (I certainly don't). The only "constraint" is God's own sense of justice; his own holy and righteous character means that he "has to" to deal with sin, choosing self-sacrifice rather than "just forgiving".

quote:
Originally posted by Esmerelda:One of the weaknesses of PSA is that it doesn't connect very well to Jesus' life and ministry - proponents have a way of talking as if all he came for was to die - and nor does it have implications for how we live our lives, except that we are to live them in gratitude for his sacrifice. It leads to a negative view of discipleship as mainly consisting of avoiding doing naughty things.

CV OTOH includes the dimension of the defeat of the powers which rule this earth, and invites us to join Jesus in continuing to defeat the powers by our non-violent resistance. We too are to live a cross-shaped life which will lead us into conflict with the 'domination system', and may ultimately lead to our death at their hands as well. So it leads to positive discipleship, working for peace and justice but not by the sword.

PSA leading to a solely negative view of discipleship is not my experience at all. Last summer, for example, I was helping on a conservative evangelical youth conference called Contagious. The topic of the week was "The Cross" (this year the topic is "The Resurrection"). Several of the leaders are involved with Oak Hill in various ways, so unsurprisingly there was a strong emphasis on PSA. But it wasn't in any way to the exclusion the "cosmic" dimension to the atonement of Christ's victory. There was also a strong emphasis on discipleship as living "cross-shaped lives" (the same phrase was used through the week).

The connection for me would be that the breaking through of the Kingdom of God into our present reality comes about by our own hearts being changed as individuals as we follow Christ as king, and the effects work outwards from there. The problem of sin in the world and all the division and alienation is tied up with the division and alienation of sin between individuals and God. PSA explains the personal aspect of our reconciliation with God, the way we as individuals can be forgiven and made righteous, and this then is the basis from which cosmic change is effected.

quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:I've been thinking about this question of 'what motivates us?'.

I think it has to involve a transformation of the 'will', that centre of all human desire and motivation. Without some sort of transformation of our desires then the Christian life would be impossible.

'Will' is so much more than thoughts and ideas, hence the need for an engagement of more than just our rational senses.

PSA, as it's been utilised around me, makes Christ's sacrifice into a 'logical system' which makes rational sense but fails to 'warm my heart'. In the presence of this cold heartedness, trying to whip up gratitude is like chastising a deceased equine!

The transformation of the will and of our desires you describe sounds very reminiscent of the kind of thing Jonathan Edwards and John Piper describe. Hardly opponents of PSA either! [Smile]

I think one of the great things about PSA, properly understood, is that it's all about the love of God, and is the ultimate expression of that love. I don't see how Father and Son, out of love for one another, purposing in eternity past to willingly sacrifice the Son's life out of love for the Father and for humanity so that sin may be dealt with and also forgiveness offered, so that we may be brought into that communion of love that exists between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is cold-hearted, a mere logical system.

It seems to me that the problem is not with PSA itself, but that PSA is often badly taught. This needn't be the case, and I think last year's Contagious is a good example of where the Cross, including PSA, was taught well. The main talks are available to download, and if anyone's interested in hearing the kind of way the Cross and PSA are taught by conservative evangelicals, I'd thoroughly recommend them. PSA needn't and shouldn't exclude other aspects of the atonement, nor be just a cold, logical system - it's all about the love of God being poured out.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
In reply, the constraints are what he has set in place himself. The fundamental issue is the nature of his holiness and the basis on which we fallen beings can have access to his love. This is why the issue of the blood is so vital; and why sin is less drastic if we don't need the blood atonement to expunge it. What, incidentally do you do with the scriptures I referred to above, namely Romans 3:25, 1 Pet 1:19 and Heb 9:14. In each case a different NT writer assumes blood atonement as a prerequisite for forgiveness and consequent relationship with God.

Well, I think that there are two issues here. The first is whether in fact, as you say, God does indeed put these constraints on Himself, and whether or not His holiness is a constraint upon accepting sinners into relationship with Him. I think that you would have a hard time justifying such claims from scripture. On the contrary, Jesus, God incarnate, had no problem at all in eating and drinking with sinners. I think anyone making such claims as you have would have to account for this. What I think is scriptural is that we have a problem relating to Him because of our sinful nature, but that is a horse of a very different colour.

The second point is the necessity of blood sacrifice. My view is absolutely that in order to acheive the Atonement (which I consider a cosmic, as well as a personal, event) it was necessary for the forces of evil to be conquered, so to speak, and that in order to acheive that, it was necessary for Jesus to die "as a sheep who before its shearers was dumb". So I don't have a problem with references to "blood sacrifice" as such. The question is not "was it necessary for Jesus to die", but, "were my sins being punished by God in the person of Jesus when He died on the cross". The first I would wholeheartedly assent to, the second I reject as sub-Biblical, to use Tom Wright's phrase.

Interestingly, the verse you quote from Romans is, in my view, a key scripture, because, quoted in context with v 25 it describes quite well what is happening on the cross with regards to God's justice. If I might quote the verses in the NIV translation:
quote:
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. 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
Here, Paul is quite clearly saying that, though we might deserve punishment, and God would be quite justified in punishing it at any time, He wants to demonstrate clearly to us that His justice does not, in fact, mean that sin has to be punished - rather that there is a better way, the way of Christ, in which, by apparently being defeated on the cross, Jesus does actually conquer sin, and, in the resurrection, initiates a new creation where His definition of justice, the unmaking of sin and all its effects, whether on the victim, the perpetrator or the whole of creation, will finally be brought to fulness. It's clear that Paul was here addressing the very point that PSA proponents say is a strength of their model, that it reconcies love with justice. Paul is saying, no, the cross demonstrates how different God's idea of justice is to ours.

Now, why you feel that the the absense of a punitive dimension towards sin diminishes the seriousness of sin, I'm not sure. To me, it just makes the righteousness of the sin-forgiver that much greater, because it is so unlike us. When we are wronged, we want vindication. When He is wronged, He forgives. Does that not make Him all the more transcendent.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
quote:
I don't think most people who hold to PSA see God as having external constraints on who he may and may not forgive (I certainly don't). The only "constraint" is God's own sense of justice; his own holy and righteous character means that he "has to" to deal with sin, choosing self-sacrifice rather than "just forgiving".

I don't know why you think "just forgiving" is not "dealing with sin". Surely, the whole thrust of Jesus teaching on forgiveness is just that - we deal with sin by "just" forgiving it (that is, by forgiving unconditionally). When someone sins against us we are to forgive, when we sin, we are to receive forgiveness. How is the way of the cross not "just" forgiving. "Father, forgive them" and all that; even if we kill God incarnate. That, surely, is the priority that God puts on forgiveness. And yet, how can we put the word "just" before it. You would almost think that forgiveness wasn't costly, wasn't the hardest thing in the world. You can't put forgiveness up against self-sacrifice. Forgiveness is self-sacrifice. So I think the cross does speak, subjectively, into forgiveness - it is God saying "if you forgive, you will get crucified, but the good news is that, after you are, I will raise you to life again".

But that isn't, it seems to me, what the cross is primarily about. In objective terms, it's not about forgiveness, but about breaking the power of sin to hold us in bondage to death, thus allowing already forgiven people to inherit eternal life, and, on a cosmic scale, the beginnings, at the resurrection, of a new heaven and a new earth, which will be fully realised at the eschaton.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
I think one of the great things about PSA, properly understood, is that it's all about the love of God, and is the ultimate expression of that love. I don't see how Father and Son, out of love for one another, purposing in eternity past to willingly sacrifice the Son's life out of love for the Father and for humanity so that sin may be dealt with and also forgiveness offered, so that we may be brought into that communion of love that exists between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is cold-hearted, a mere logical system.

Well I would whole heartedly agree with the thrust of that statement, though there may be a couple of minor points I would quibble with. But the problem is, re PSA, that what you have described is the Atonement, not PSA. The defining feature of PSA, istm, is that God is vicariously punishing our sins in Jesus on the cross. The fact that Jesus and the Father are in accord in coming up with this plan is neither here nor there. The issue isn't, pace Chalke, that of cosmic child abuse, but rather, is it possible to deal with sin by punishment (of whoever), or is it, rather, that only forgiveness is powerful enough to truely deal with sin.
 
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
... You can't put forgiveness up against self-sacrifice. Forgiveness is self-sacrifice. So I think the cross does speak, subjectively, into forgiveness - it is God saying "if you forgive, you will get crucified, but the good news is that, after you are, I will raise you to life again".

...In objective terms, it's not about forgiveness, but about breaking the power of sin to hold us in bondage to death, thus allowing already forgiven people to inherit eternal life, and, on a cosmic scale, the beginnings, at the resurrection, of a new heaven and a new earth, which will be fully realised at the eschaton.

Not for nothing does pride top the list of "mortal" sins in Christian lore. It's the only sin that makes all the lists in the Abrahamic faiths.

In simple terms: my ego is killing me. Any wounds, grudges and resentments I opt to schlep around with me will drag me to my death. The only part of "me" that is sacrificed though forgiveness is my ego, and I am finding out how good it feels to be nobody and no-thing.

There's a perfect weightlessness that arrives when I decide that not only do I not need to be offended or hurt, I don't even need to be the identity that is offended or hurt. Then all of it falls away, like the end of a charade. The burden of identity and the pain that attaches to it is completely dissolved. I am left with a ground of pure energy and vital, creative potential, and that is resurrection, indeed.

I can't do this by myself. I need the Christ Logos to heal those fragmentary selves. This is the Good News, as I hear it, and live it.

LAFF
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
I was wondering about some of the overlap between PSA and CV. It occured to me that 'he took our place' makes sense in both theories. In other words, Christ is victor in our place, much like a hero is victorious on a battlefield in our place; fighting and winning a battle that we had no hope of winning (or even really fighting).

K.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
'He took our place...'.

I think the detail is in what each add to that phrase:

PSA - '...instead of us.'

CV - '...along side us.'

And from this flows many differences.
 
Posted by Pastorgirl (# 12294) on :
 
quote:
It seems to me that the problem is not with PSA itself, but that PSA is often badly taught.
Exactly.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
It occured to me that 'he took our place' makes sense in both theories.

That's fine, it is nice to think that Christ fought for us against evil, and also nice to think that He took our punishment for us.

The problem comes when we think about who did the punishing and what effect the taking of a punishment has.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by the Revolutionist:
It seems to me that the problem is not with PSA itself, but that PSA is often badly taught.

You could say that for many of the problems in religion (and other circles).

In Aikido, there's a common refrain that "it isn't that Aikido doesn't work, it's that your Aikido doesn't work."

The obvious follow up to this is that if it's so hard to keep people honest and to stay true within the system, doesn't that mean somebody needs to do something to change the system?
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:
Originally Posted by the Revolutionist:
It seems to me that the problem is not with PSA itself, but that PSA is often badly taught.

You could say that for many of the problems in religion (and other circles).

In Aikido, there's a common refrain that "it isn't that Aikido doesn't work, it's that your Aikido doesn't work."

The obvious follow up to this is that if it's so hard to keep people honest and to stay true within the system, doesn't that mean somebody needs to do something to change the system?

If by the system, you mean the system of Christian beliefs, then I don't agree with that. Just because we're not very good at putting something into practice doesn't make it untrue.

But if by the system you mean the way that we "do" church and theology and teaching and discipleship and so on, our surrounding practices, then yes, I'd agree that we need to change those to try and make us better able to live and teach Christianity properly.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by The Revolutionist:
If by the system, you mean the system of Christian beliefs, then I don't agree with that. Just because we're not very good at putting something into practice doesn't make it untrue.

But if by the system you mean the way that we "do" church and theology and teaching and discipleship and so on, our surrounding practices, then yes, I'd agree that we need to change those to try and make us better able to live and teach Christianity properly.

In the case of Christianity, I strongly agree on the second statement. As someone that practices Aikido, I obviously don't intend to knock the art, though I do think there are flaws in the way it is commonly taught. I'd say the same for Christianity as a whole. We need to re-examine the way we do things, especially as mainline denominations. We can't take our own culture for granted anymore.

On the other hand, on PSA, I'm not as sure. I found the CV article very uplifting and I do believe that it's a stronger analysis for the crucifixion, at least to my eyes and to the sort of people I talk to.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[QB]
quote:
His holiness is a constraint upon accepting sinners into relationship with Him. I think that you would have a hard time justifying such claims from scripture. On the contrary, Jesus, God incarnate, had no problem at all in eating and drinking with sinners.
The whole of scripure teaches that God wants to reach man but is constrained by his own nature from doing so easily. He dwells in unapproachable light,..no man has seen his face. Remember Moses' veil and the whole issue of how Israel was nearly destroyed by their idolatry which provoked God's anger. God needed to clothe Adam and Eve with skins. This implies blood sacrifice in Genesis. Cain's offering was not acceptable to God since there was no blood sacrifice as there was with Abel's. The reason the good news is so good is that God chose to punish himself, in the person of Christ, in order to reach us.

quote:
The second point is the necessity of blood sacrifice. My view is absolutely that in order to achieve the Atonement (which I consider a cosmic, as well as a personal, event) it was necessary for the forces of evil to be conquered, so to speak, and that in order to acheive that, it was necessary for Jesus to die "as a sheep who before its shearers was dumb". So I don't have a problem with references to "blood sacrifice" as such. The question is not "was it necessary for Jesus to die", but, "were my sins being punished by God in the person of Jesus when He died on the cross". The first I would wholeheartedly assent to, the second I reject as sub-Biblical, to use Tom Wright's phrase.
But you need to explain why the writers of scripture depict God as seeing it (blood sacrifice) as essential if your POV is to hold up. I'm unfamiliar with Wright but the issue would seem to be, as you pose the question, why precisely DID Christ have to die? Christ could more economically and less tragically have demonstrated his victory if the shedding of blood was not needed to cover sin.

quote:
Interestingly, the verse you quote from Romans is, in my view, a key scripture, because, quoted in context with v 25 it describes quite well what is happening on the cross with regards to God's justice. If I might quote the verses in the NIV translation:
quote:
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. 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
Here, Paul is quite clearly saying that, though we might deserve punishment, and God would be quite justified in punishing it at any time, He wants to demonstrate clearly to us that His justice does not, in fact, mean that sin has to be punished - rather that there is a better way, the way of Christ, in which, by apparently being defeated on the cross, Jesus does actually conquer sin, and, in the resurrection, initiates a new creation where His definition of justice, the unmaking of sin and all its effects, whether on the victim, the perpetrator or the whole of creation, will finally be brought to fulness. It's clear that Paul was here addressing the very point that PSA proponents say is a strength of their model, that it reconcies love with justice. Paul is saying, no, the cross demonstrates how different God's idea of justice is to ours.


The issue here then seems to be your definition of justice. Justice to me is by definition retributive. A wrong suffered must be paid for,atoned for. Only after retribution is restoration possible. in The NAS version the word propitiation is used. The word carries the import of covering. It was associated with the value of sacrifice with blood as shielding the sacrificer. from consequence by attributing that punishment to the sacrifice animal. Christ, Paul is clearly implying, volutarily became our sacrifice animal.

quote:
Now, why you feel that the the absense of a punitive dimension towards sin diminishes the seriousness of sin, I'm not sure. To me, it just makes the righteousness of the sin-forgiver that much greater, because it is so unlike us. When we are wronged, we want vindication. When He is wronged, He forgives. Does that not make Him all the more transcendent.
The issue is the basis of the forgiveness. Forgiveness is only possible because of the fact that Christ's blood covers sin. Sin by definition is less serious if a life need not be sacrificed to expunge it. I agree with the greatness of the 'sin forgiver'.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

The issue here then seems to be your definition of justice. Justice to me is by definition retributive. A wrong suffered must be paid for,atoned for. Only after retribution is restoration possible. in The NAS version the word propitiation is used. The word carries the import of covering. It was associated with the value of sacrifice with blood as shielding the sacrificer. from consequence by attributing that punishment to the sacrifice animal. Christ, Paul is clearly implying, volutarily became our sacrifice animal.


quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The reason the good news is so good is that God chose to punish himself, in the person of Christ, in order to reach us.

Longtime lurker, first time poster on this thread to say that I'm having a really hard time wrapping my brain around this: my entire view of punishment, retribution, and sin-fixing, as it were, is so different, and I think my understanding of Christianity has shaped those differences.

Why does justice demand punishment? To me, justice demands that the wrong thing END. Not be transferred to someone else, not play out in hell forever, not bounce back on the wrongdoer a dozen times over, just END. We bollocks that up all over the place in our current system of criminal "justice", where our focus on punishment results in people coming out of prison more dangerous and broken then they were when they went in.

The idea that God punishing himself instead of us would be the ultimate "good news" to me shortchanges God. The good news of God, to me, is that God (in Christ) stands outside our systems of retributive punishment and beckons us towards another way of doing things.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
We bollocks that up all over the place in our current system of criminal "justice", where our focus on punishment results in people coming out of prison more dangerous and broken then they were when they went in.

The idea that God punishing himself instead of us would be the ultimate "good news" to me shortchanges God. The good news of God, to me, is that God (in Christ) stands outside our systems of retributive punishment and beckons us towards another way of doing things.

I partially agree with you. This has been a point made by JJ and others on the ship before. However, I'm having a hard time trying to work this out in practice.

What is this different way of doing things? Please would you describe a criminal justice system where these principles were put into practice. Doesn't human nature need things like deterrent? If Jesus is showing us a better way, what is that better way? (Don't say 'forgiving people unconditionally' ... I mean apply this to a national criminal justice system!)
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
infinite_monkey,

Welcome....!

....and Amen!
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Let me follow up my last post with an example. I was once talking to a church leader about having a child protection policy (this was YEARS ago I should stress!)

He told me that he didn't want to involve the police. If someone in his church had abused a child and had repented then church discipline should be enough. 'We can handle it ourselves, the outside bodies don't need to know'. I was horrified.

Now, I'm not for a moment suggesting that all you CV people out there would be happy with that either! However, isn't the penal system also about publicly recognising that something is wrong and sending out a strong deterrent that we shouldn't behave this way?
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Johnny,

I'm not sure that we COULD apply God's idea of 'Justice' fully within our criminal justice system.

The reason being, that this very system is located (and designed to operate within) our current corrupted world (like armies, wars and state punishments).

This isn't to say that I don't wish it could be otherwise, but that when 'restorative' justice trumps 'retributive' justice we are seeing one of those 'glimpses' of the Kingdom which won't be fully revealed until all things are summed up in Christ.

So I fully expect that the 'way of the world' (and thus the 'way of society/government') will be based around retributive ideas, but that our very vocation is to articulate a 'new and better way' i.e. restorative justice.

How do we do this? Well, perhaps by 'forgiving others as we ourselves are forgiven', or, 'turning the other cheek' etc...

Clearly, the more these ideas gain acceptance within a society the more it will influence the operation of that society, but I'm not so naive as to think that any individual country/society will get it all right. It's like the parable of the mustard seed, these ideas take a LONG time until they become predominant.

I guess this is why I'm so personally concerned re: those traditions of Christianity which propogate the notion of retributive justice via PSA-teaching, precisely because they are still operating within the fallen 'paradigm' of the surrounding culture (although directing the 'punishment' towards Jesus). Different outcome, but similar assumptions (violence is needed to pay for Sin/Crime).
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Johnny,

Re: your 'child abuse' scenario.

I still hold that a 'just' outcome, for me, would be that the individual concerned would change his/her nature so as to never feel the need/urge/temptation to act like that again.

However, there is also the issue of 'justice' for the child/family affected by their original actions. Within our society the only 'justice' the state can legislate for is retributive, but 'restorative' justice would be for all past hurts/memories/feelings/scars to be 'wiped away'. In one could talk to the individuals/parents in such circumstances I guess their 'hearts wish' would NOT be that the individual is appropriately 'punished', but that the whole thing had NEVER happened...

Obviously achieving such a 'state' is totally beyond the power of the Home Office and requires a 'new creation' from God.

Again, we can get glimpses and partialities of such 'healing' within this life (and there a many testimonies of how God can heal emotional/relational/physical wounds), but the fullness will need to wait.

Because we live between the two creations we still need to operate within our current 'system', and this will include elements of retributive justice. Because of this I would clearly cooperate and act within the requirements and laws of our society (and St. Paul makes the point that often the state is authorised by God to 'enact' judgement ahead of the 'great judgement') - however this doesn't stop me imaging a 'better' justice system ...
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
however this doesn't stop me imaging a 'better' justice system ...

I hear what you're saying Richard. I suppose that is the tension we all live with.

I guess my question is this - are you basically giving up on the 'better' justice system in this life? If so, then how does Jesus show us a 'better way'? Is that way just for nice Christians and not for the rest of the world?

IME PSA bridges that gap. As it were it gives the last down payment on the old order and makes the new world (of which you speak) possible. It ends retributive justice once and for all!

John.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Johnny,

I'm not giving up on hope of a 'better way', but live with that tension between:

'Make Poverty History' and 'The poor you will always have amongst you'.

Something has just occured to me that the difference between our positions is how we perceive that 'transition point' between the two worlds.

I agree with you that PSA CAN be seen (but isn't always taught) as the END of the old system articulated in terms which arise from within that system whereas CV is understood as the BEGINNING of the new system, articulated in terms arising from with that system.

They are both looking at the same transition point but PSA seems to be approaching it from the 'old side' and CV approaches it from the 'new side'.

However, since we spend most of our time within the 'old side' I guess the risk is to compromise the transition point and to drag it back into our current existence (which is when PSA teaching merely propogates the old problem). The 'benefit' of such an approach, though, is that it can use language which we are all too familiar with (as with the example given re: the 'power' of the PSA model for those who have experienced legal punishment).

Since CV 'lives' in the world which we are aiming for, it doesn't suffer this potential compromise - and can, actually, pull us into the new system. I guess, following this logic, the 'weakness' of CV might be that it is 'alien' to our current understandings and uses thought concepts/paradigms which are so different as to make it 'hard' to imagine.

Certainly understanding that the 'first will be last and the last will be first' and 'one must loose to win' etc... goes against our 'modus normalis', but then I would say that acquiring this 'different' (=redeemed) mindset is the 'work' of Christianity and so I would rather stick with a CV model than a potentially compromisable PSA one.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
The whole of scripure teaches that God wants to reach man but is constrained by his own nature from doing so easily. He dwells in unapproachable light,..no man has seen his face. Remember Moses' veil and the whole issue of how Israel was nearly destroyed by their idolatry which provoked God's anger. God needed to clothe Adam and Eve with skins. This implies blood sacrifice in Genesis. Cain's offering was not acceptable to God since there was no blood sacrifice as there was with Abel's. The reason the good news is so good is that God chose to punish himself, in the person of Christ, in order to reach us.
I'm sorry, but I can't see, either that your analysis of the Bible is correct, or that the references that you quote could be in any way supportive of such a point of view. The reason for the veil, the description of God dwelling in unapproachable light, and so on, all point to the difficulty we have as sinners in approaching God, not the other way round. Those concessions were for our benefit, not His. He is always there alongside us, whatever the state of our souls, as it were. Again I would ask, if the difficulties are such as you suggest, then how was it possible for God incarnate to walk around first century Palestine, mixing with and enjoying the company of sinners.

quote:
But you need to explain why the writers of scripture depict God as seeing it (blood sacrifice) as essential if your POV is to hold up. I'm unfamiliar with Wright but the issue would seem to be, as you pose the question, why precisely DID Christ have to die? Christ could more economically and less tragically have demonstrated his victory if the shedding of blood was not needed to cover sin.

As an aside, I would heartily recommend reading Tom Wright's stuff. His heaviweight works are published under "NT Wright", his more popular style of book he publishes as "Tom Wright". You can get a feel for his writings by visiting this site.

I think the point about why Jesus had to die (and the way in which He had to die) has been covered extensively on this thread and also here. But, in short, Christ had to die because that was the only way in which the power of evil in humankind and in the cosmos could be defeated. Evil can never be defeated by returning violence for violence, because the cycle merely perpetuates itself. But in sacrificing Himself, Christ defeats evil with good, assuming it into Himself and thus exhausting it. Evil is so powerful that only the full might and power of God can break its hold, and that might and power is at its most mighty and powerful in humility and apparent weakness.

quote:
The issue here then seems to be your definition of justice. Justice to me is by definition retributive. A wrong suffered must be paid for,atoned for. Only after retribution is restoration possible.
So, with those few words, you set aside the whole of Jesus teaching on forgiveness. I'm sorry, I don't for the life of me see how anyone who has read the Gospels (or even the Old Testament) can write that. Again and again, Jesus teaches that we should forgive our enemies, do good to those who persecute us, etc, etc. Show me a single example where He so much as hints that we should not give such forgiveness unconditionally. And unconditional means just that, without conditions. No need for payment or retribution, in fact those things are expressly forbidden by Him. Furthermore, the whole of the Old Testament is full of examples where the people of Israel long for justice, the putting right of wrongs, the remaking of the order, (though most often thought of in political terms). Retributive justice is just the result of the inability of restorative justice to operate in a fallen world, as Richard so eloquently demonstrates.

Furthermore, with reference to OT blood sacrifices, if you are suggesting (correctly) that they prefigure Christ's sacrifice, then in order to use that fact to support the theory that our sins, in Christ, were being punished, you would have to demonstate that the lamb being sacrificed was bearing the sin of the people. But of course, that can't be done from the scriptures, since the "sin-bearer" was the scapegoat, driven out into the wilderness, not killed. The sacrificial animal, had it been bearing sin, would have been unclean, and thus not "perfect and spotless", the requirement for an acceptable sacrifice. So, was Christ sacrificed, yes, but was God, in Him, punishing our sin, no.

quote:
The issue is the basis of the forgiveness. Forgiveness is only possible because of the fact that Christ's blood covers sin. Sin by definition is less serious if a life need not be sacrificed to expunge it. I agree with the greatness of the 'sin forgiver'.

The basis of forgiveness is in the heart of God. It needs no other basis. Even on a practical lever, it is the only way that is powerful enough to neutralise the power of sin. Punishment doesn't do it. If it did, our prisons would be empty. We're good at punishment. We don't need the concept of an angry, wrathful god to teach us how to do that. But forgiveness, well that's a whole different story.

No, Jesus didn't die that we could be forgiven, whatever that ghastly hymn says. He died in order to release us from the power of sin, which is not at all the same thing.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Since CV 'lives' in the world which we are aiming for, it doesn't suffer this potential compromise - and can, actually, pull us into the new system. I guess, following this logic, the 'weakness' of CV might be that it is 'alien' to our current understandings and uses thought concepts/paradigms which are so different as to make it 'hard' to imagine.

Certainly understanding that the 'first will be last and the last will be first' and 'one must loose to win' etc... goes against our 'modus normalis', but then I would say that acquiring this 'different' (=redeemed) mindset is the 'work' of Christianity and so I would rather stick with a CV model than a potentially compromisable PSA one.

This is a really excellent point, Richard, and one which I hadn't considered. I do think that you have to look more deeply to "make sense" of CV, than you do for PSA.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Thanks JJ!

Also, Johnny, following this hypothesis I would most certainly say to Rico Tice, therefore, that the 'way in' (from a PSA perspective - which he would support) is NOT the 'way on', and this is my problem with the 'whole PSA and nothing but PSA' crowd.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Since CV 'lives' in the world which we are aiming for, it doesn't suffer this potential compromise - and can, actually, pull us into the new system. I guess, following this logic, the 'weakness' of CV might be that it is 'alien' to our current understandings and uses thought concepts/paradigms which are so different as to make it 'hard' to imagine.

Certainly understanding that the 'first will be last and the last will be first' and 'one must loose to win' etc... goes against our 'modus normalis', but then I would say that acquiring this 'different' (=redeemed) mindset is the 'work' of Christianity and so I would rather stick with a CV model than a potentially compromisable PSA one.

... grudgingly [Biased] ... fair point.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I must be slow but I'm still not quite clear on how your CV pans out JJ...

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm sorry, but I can't see, either that your analysis of the Bible is correct, or that the references that you quote could be in any way supportive of such a point of view. The reason for the veil, the description of God dwelling in unapproachable light, and so on, all point to the difficulty we have as sinners in approaching God, not the other way round. Those concessions were for our benefit, not His.

I don't get how a barrier to a relationship can only be one sided? If there is something 'in the way' how can it only keep mankind from God and not the other way round?

I appreciate that Jesus walked around with sinners ... how is that possible? Well all atonement models have a ready answer for that ... sin was dealt with at the cross! [Big Grin]


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Evil can never be defeated by returning violence for violence, because the cycle merely perpetuates itself.

Except that in PSA God ends that cycle by taking the punishment himself. To put it crudely the headmaster's cane is broken for ever! Perhaps I'm obsessed with penal thinking but ISTM that PSA does what you say above but without leaving the 'old way' outstanding. CV does not destroy retributive justice in the way PSA does.


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
So, with those few words, you set aside the whole of Jesus teaching on forgiveness. I'm sorry, I don't for the life of me see how anyone who has read the Gospels (or even the Old Testament) can write that. Again and again, Jesus teaches that we should forgive our enemies, do good to those who persecute us, etc, etc. Show me a single example where He so much as hints that we should not give such forgiveness unconditionally. And unconditional means just that, without conditions. No need for payment or retribution, in fact those things are expressly forbidden by Him. Furthermore, the whole of the Old Testament is full of examples where the people of Israel long for justice, the putting right of wrongs, the remaking of the order, (though most often thought of in political terms). Retributive justice is just the result of the inability of restorative justice to operate in a fallen world, as Richard so eloquently demonstrates.

I appreciate that you distinguish forgiveness with reconciliation. However, I'd like to stress that your point above only works if we can do that. Where do you find this distinction in the ministry of Jesus?

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Furthermore, with reference to OT blood sacrifices, if you are suggesting (correctly) that they prefigure Christ's sacrifice, then in order to use that fact to support the theory that our sins, in Christ, were being punished, you would have to demonstate that the lamb being sacrificed was bearing the sin of the people. But of course, that can't be done from the scriptures, since the "sin-bearer" was the scapegoat, driven out into the wilderness, not killed. The sacrificial animal, had it been bearing sin, would have been unclean, and thus not "perfect and spotless", the requirement for an acceptable sacrifice. So, was Christ sacrificed, yes, but was God, in Him, punishing our sin, no.

I'm not sure that you are being fair here JJ - how could Jesus possibly fulfil every single OT type in an exact correspondence at the same time? Anyway, was not this part of Hebrews 13 - when Jesus 'goes outside the camp'? The OT Professor Gordon Wenham has done some work on this ... I'll have to try and remember where I put it [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Johnny,

Thanks for that! [Overused]

I'm really starting to get some clarity as a result of all your good debating and comments.

I'm sure we have the same 'ideals' and are trying to explain them from within the various systems and mindsets which we are familiar and inspired by.

If only the 'Pierced for our Transgressions' devotees were like you bro'... [Votive]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
If only the 'Pierced for our Transgressions' devotees were like you bro'... [Votive]

This is the bit where I really, really want to say ... (fanfare) 'I was one of the authors!' (duh dah - there should be a smilie for that [Smile] ) ... but I can't ... due to the slight problem that it wouldn't be true [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
I don't get how a barrier to a relationship can only be one sided? If there is something 'in the way' how can it only keep mankind from God and not the other way round?
Because the Fall affects our nature but not God's. Human beings, being creatures, are mutable and therefore can be changed from a better to a worse state. The same is not true of God.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
I don't get how a barrier to a relationship can only be one sided? If there is something 'in the way' how can it only keep mankind from God and not the other way round?

Well, I think that this very concept, that of a one-sided barrier to relationship, is a great leitmotif of the whole of scripture, and especially th Old Testament. Think of Hosea, for example. Of course, the word "barrier" is imperfect at describing the concept, but there are other analogies in scripture, like blindness, that cover the idea as well. We are loved, but we don't love in return, we are blind, and so cannot see Him, but He can see us.

quote:
Except that in PSA God ends that cycle by taking the punishment himself. To put it crudely the headmaster's cane is broken for ever! Perhaps I'm obsessed with penal thinking but ISTM that PSA does what you say above but without leaving the 'old way' outstanding. CV does not destroy retributive justice in the way PSA does.

Yes, but the point I'm making is that punishment is not effective in truely dealing with sin. The best it can do is to ameliorate the worst excesses through deterrence. God's way of dealing with sin truely does destroy it, and that way is the way of forgiveness. PSA is God saying "the full complement of punishment for sin is fulfilled, and I am satisfied." CV is God saying, "The problem is not sin, because that has always been dealt with by the only method that treats it sufficiently seriously, that is, forgiveness, but there is also a need of sin to not only be forgiven but "unmade", its effects to be reversed, and that problem is solved by the paschal event.

quote:
I appreciate that you distinguish forgiveness with reconciliation. However, I'd like to stress that your point above only works if we can do that. Where do you find this distinction in the ministry of Jesus?

I'm pretty confident that even a cursory trawl through the Gospels will confirm that Jesus taught that we should forgive unconditionally. It will further suggest that the reason we should do so is because we ourselves have been so forgiven. Episodes suggesting that there is a subsequent response to prior forgiveness would be, off the top of my head, the woman anointing Jesus feet, Zaccheus, and the blind man in John 9, (if you take healing as a metaphor for forgiveness), but I could come up with others.

quote:
I'm not sure that you are being fair here JJ - how could Jesus possibly fulfil every single OT type in an exact correspondence at the same time? Anyway, was not this part of Hebrews 13 - when Jesus 'goes outside the camp'? The OT Professor Gordon Wenham has done some work on this ... I'll have to try and remember where I put it
OK, perhaps not totally [Hot and Hormonal] fair, but I think my main point stands - that PSA adherents do seem often to conflate (or confuse) the OT sacrificial model with penal thinking. I don't think that the scriptural basis is there to do so.


quote:
If only the 'Pierced for our Transgressions' devotees were like you bro'...
Amen to that!
 
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
Guys, thanks so much for your considered, moderate and thoughtful debate. I wish I could contribute, but I am in no way learned enough to do anything other than try and absorb what is being said.

It does make me realise a little more of the majesty, mystery and sheer depth of God though. [Smile]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Before this turns into Woodstock and we all start holding hands and sing 'he's got the whole world in his hands' ... I'd better return to the theme of PSA and take up my trusty sword known as 'defender of truth' [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, I think that this very concept, that of a one-sided barrier to relationship, is a great leitmotif of the whole of scripture, and especially th Old Testament. Think of Hosea, for example. Of course, the word "barrier" is imperfect at describing the concept, but there are other analogies in scripture, like blindness, that cover the idea as well. We are loved, but we don't love in return, we are blind, and so cannot see Him, but He can see us.

Good point. I'll need to think about this more. But for now - Hosea is still a book about 'punishment'... e.g. Hosea 2 v 13; 9 v 5 etc.

Also, I get confused in this whole debate because we shift so frequently from actual picture to analogy so quickly. Thus I agree with your analogies of love and blindness etc., but I still wonder how Jesus' death on the cross 'healed us' etc. The thing about PSA is that is not only an analogy but it also corresponds directly with what was actually happening - i.e. Jesus was literally being punished for something he didn't do (e.g. Luke 23 v 41). What I need to wrestle with is whether that just a coincidence or whether Luke used that terminology deliberately.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
CV is God saying, "The problem is not sin, because that has always been dealt with by the only method that treats it sufficiently seriously, that is, forgiveness, but there is also a need of sin to not only be forgiven but "unmade", its effects to be reversed, and that problem is solved by the paschal event.

I know you read Romans 3 v 25 differently but I'd like to return to the Pauline concept that something 'changed' in God's attitude towards humanity at the cross. I think Acts 17 v 30 backs up this temporal sense of the cross.


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm pretty confident that even a cursory trawl through the Gospels will confirm that Jesus taught that we should forgive unconditionally. It will further suggest that the reason we should do so is because we ourselves have been so forgiven. Episodes suggesting that there is a subsequent response to prior forgiveness would be, off the top of my head, the woman anointing Jesus feet, Zaccheus, and the blind man in John 9, (if you take healing as a metaphor for forgiveness), but I could come up with others..

The woman in Luke 7 is a interesting example since Jesus uses his interaction with her to teach Simon about God's forgiveness.... and he uses a penal / fiscal analogy to do so! I know that the money lender cancelled the debt rather than paying it back himself but isn't that actually the same thing? The money lender had already paid the 'debt' to the borrower in advance. I would argue that the story in Luke 7 is a wonderful example of forgiveness, it teaches us to forgive others unconditionally BUT the basis for this behaviour is that God has already cancelled our debts!
 
Posted by Pastorgirl (# 12294) on :
 
davelarge writes:

quote:
It does make me realise a little more of the majesty, mystery and sheer depth of God though.
Spot on. Again, I think that's the purpose of embracing ALL the images of the atonement, not just one, recognizing that they all have biblical support, and that they are images and metaphors rather than precise descriptions of exact transactions. Embracing the breadth and depth and width and height of all the metaphors without feeling the need to dot every i and cross every t (because they are metaphors, not exact transactions) allows you to grasp that-- to get a glimpse, as Paul says, of the "unknowable"-- something so huge, so inexplicable, so entirely transcendent, that it changed the relationship of humanity to God forever.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
We bollocks that up all over the place in our current system of criminal "justice", where our focus on punishment results in people coming out of prison more dangerous and broken then they were when they went in.
... The good news of God, to me, is that God (in Christ) stands outside our systems of retributive punishment and beckons us towards another way of doing things.

I partially agree with you. This has been a point made by JJ and others on the ship before. However, I'm having a hard time trying to work this out in practice.

What is this different way of doing things? Please would you describe a criminal justice system where these principles were put into practice. Doesn't human nature need things like deterrent? If Jesus is showing us a better way, what is that better way? (Don't say 'forgiving people unconditionally' ... I mean apply this to a national criminal justice system!)

Good question. I guess there's a few things I'd point you towards:

Victim/Offender Reconciliation Program
British Columbia's programs for indigenous communities
Victims' Families for Reconciliation

There's a lot out there: the idea of "restorative justice" is taking shape in many places.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
I'd always been troubled by the word "sacrifice" used to describe the crucifixion, for the reasons others have mentioned. But I recently read Garry Wills's books What Jesus Meant and What Paul Meant, and in one of them (can't remember which at the moment) he points out that we also use the word "sacrifice" to describe a soldier giving his life in defense of his country. And he suggests that this is what we should be thinking of: Jesus was not killed by God as punishment for humanity's sins; he went into battle with God's (and humanity's) enemies and was killed, but won anyway.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
the difficulty we have as sinners in approaching God, not the other way round. Those concessions were for our benefit, not His. He is always there alongside us, whatever the state of our souls, as it were. Again I would ask, if the difficulties are such as you suggest, then how was it possible for God incarnate to walk around first century Palestine, mixing with and enjoying the company of sinners.
Regarding Christ's humanity, the nature of the incarnation was such that Christ's 'Godness' was clothed in human flesh - hidden in other words. They saw something of the reality at the transfiguration. The glory aspect was mostly hidden during his earthly ministry. In my view the risen Lord represents the current reality of Jesus and no sinfulness can come near his presence.

Regarding your other point, IMO it is a both and not an either, or situation. Of course a sinner can't approach a holy God but vice versa is also true. God's love demands he search, find and redeem us, rescue us from going our own way. He wanted and wants to be alongside us but was prevented by the utter corruption of our nature consequent to the fall. Hence the law, rituals, sacrifices etc of the Mosaic era. I see where you are coming from in the vice versa argument. but I see the scriptures as more in line with my view.



quote:
Christ had to die because that was the only way in which the power of evil in humankind and in the cosmos could be defeated. Evil can never be defeated by returning violence for violence, because the cycle merely perpetuates itself. But in sacrificing Himself, Christ defeats evil with good, assuming it into Himself and thus exhausting it. Evil is so powerful that only the full might and power of God can break its hold, and that might and power is at its most mighty and powerful in humility and apparent weakness.
Fine but the mechanism by which evil is exhausted is the shedding of his blood. There is no other means whereby God's justice could be satisfied. There are two concepts in the atonement as I understand it,forgiveness and transformation. I see the blood of Christ as effecting covering of sin or forgiveness and the cross, or death of Christ with its resurrection corollory as effecting potential transformation. (a la Watchman Nee.) But you can't have the one without the other.

Could I respectfully suggest that your issue of PSA seeing God as violent is really a human judgement, a construct whereby you appear to have said 'God can't be violent by my definition so there has to be another way.' If you refuse to see God as violent (or wrathful, dangerous or at times angry,) what do you make of some of the injunctions in the OT to wipe out every trace of a sinful people group? Surely you are the one who is being unscriptural here by choosing to ignore inconvenient texts.

quote:
So, with those few words, you set aside the whole of Jesus teaching on forgiveness. I'm sorry, I don't for the life of me see how anyone who has read the Gospels (or even the Old Testament) can write that.
you would have to demonstate that the lamb being sacrificed was bearing the sin of the people. But of course, that can't be done from the scriptures, since the "sin-bearer" was the scapegoat, driven out into the wilderness, not killed. The sacrificial animal, had it been bearing sin, would have been unclean, and thus not "perfect and spotless", the requirement for an acceptable sacrifice. So, was Christ sacrificed, yes, but was God, in Him, punishing our sin, no.
The basis of forgiveness is in the heart of God. It needs no other basis. Even on a practical lever, it is the only way that is powerful enough to neutralise the power of sin. Punishment doesn't do it. If it did, our prisons would be empty. We're good at punishment. We don't need the concept of an angry, wrathful god to teach us how to do that. But forgiveness, well that's a whole different story.
[/QB]

Well actually, I tink there is muddled thinking here. The teaching of Jesus on forgiveness is in no way set aside by my view of justice being retributive before it can be restorative. Forgiveness is indeed in God's heart but my point is that his holness precludes it from being offered without the manifest justice of punishment. Is 53 "He was wounded for our transgressions, the chastisement of our peace was upon him" etc. The scapegoat is indeed sent away unkilled but Leviticus 4 suggests a more general model for dealing with sin in the Mosaic era. You haven't addressed the Heb 9:12-15 scripture or the I Pet 1:19 one either.
Forgiveness does indeed require a basis and that basis is justice. Fortunately for us it is, as you say, in the heart of God. The miracle of the cross is the combination of justice and mercy in a single historical event. I can extend forgiveness to the person who has wronged me only because I too am forgiven and I am only forgiven because God has forgiven me and God has only forgiven me because my sin was judged in Christ.

Incidentally, JJ before you accuse someone of not knowing the scriptures I'd suggest you approach them yourself in a more holistic and inclusive way. I believe of course that there is more than one way to 'see' things but to suggest a belief in PSA is unscriptural is ridiculous.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Good point. I'll need to think about this more. But for now - Hosea is still a book about 'punishment'... e.g. Hosea 2 v 13; 9 v 5 etc.

Well, not if you read all Ch. 2 in context. Sure the word punish is used, but the first part of the chapter seems, not about vindicating any moral stance, so much as a disciplining process, whereby short-term unpleasantness is intended to lead to benefit in the longer run, and, if you associate the hinge v13 with the second part of the chapter, which is not an impossible reading, then the use of the word "punish" seems to be ironic.

quote:
Also, I get confused in this whole debate because we shift so frequently from actual picture to analogy so quickly. Thus I agree with your analogies of love and blindness etc., but I still wonder how Jesus' death on the cross 'healed us' etc. The thing about PSA is that is not only an analogy but it also corresponds directly with what was actually happening - i.e. Jesus was literally being punished for something he didn't do (e.g. Luke 23 v 41). What I need to wrestle with is whether that just a coincidence or whether Luke used that terminology deliberately.

Ah, an excellent point, John. I do indeed think that the problem we have here is about analogies and how they relate to reality.

As I see it, we have an asymmety here. Because we are both familiar with PSA, a lot of the analogical elements associated with it are glossed. That's not to say, however, that they aren't there, it's just that they aren't in dispute - we don't "need" the analogies to explain something with which we are all sufficiently familiar. Those analogies have already done their job. However, when trying to debate a topic about which there is dispute (and possibly misunderstanding) then analogies are inf fact very necessary. And we try a number of different analogies until we think the pooint has been understood. But we are aware that this is all theyare -analogies.

A good gedanken experiment would be to think of us both pitching our viewpoint on the atonement to a hypothetical martian. I think that such a creature (he? she? it?) would find that there is at least as much hand-waving involved in PSA as in CV. How does our sin get imputed to Christ, and His righteousness to us? How does His condemnation free us from guilt? These are questions the answers to which are at least as "mysterious" as "How does Jesus death on the cross defeat the power of evil". I sort of take it as a given that the precise mechanism by which these things happen is intractible to human understanding, but that is not to say that we cannot draw, from that bit of understanding that we have, something which tells us more about who we are, who God is, and how the disconnect between those two natures can be reconciled.

With regard to the narrow point on Luke 23:41, I'm not sure that the verse tells us anything apart from that the repentant theif considered Jesus to be innocent - something with which we would both concur, but I'm not sure it says anything about PSA or CV.

quote:
I know you read Romans 3 v 25 differently but I'd like to return to the Pauline concept that something 'changed' in God's attitude towards humanity at the cross. I think Acts 17 v 30 backs up this temporal sense of the cross.

Well, clearly, as creatures limited by time, we would not have been able to respond to Christ before the incarnation (except indirectly, by faith in what was not known), and certainly not in the same way as we can, post the incarnation. I'm not sure that the fact that this is available to us now, whereas before it was not, reflects a change in God's attitude to us. But, that aside, a CV reading of the cross is equally consonant, under this verse, with a PSA reading. Even under CV, we need to repent of our sins.

quote:
I would argue that the story in Luke 7 is a wonderful example of forgiveness, it teaches us to forgive others unconditionally BUT the basis for this behaviour is that God has already cancelled our debts!
So would I, except that I would phrase it "the basis for this behaviour is that God has already forgiven us (cancelled our debts, if you like) unconditionally. That's the point Jesus is making towards Simon. The one to whom the debt is owed "just forgives" it. The woman is showing how such radical forgiveness, no strings attached, is capable of effecting change in the life of the sinner.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Regarding Christ's humanity, the nature of the incarnation was such that Christ's 'Godness' was clothed in human flesh - hidden in other words. They saw something of the reality at the transfiguration. The glory aspect was mostly hidden during his earthly ministry. In my view the risen Lord represents the current reality of Jesus and no sinfulness can come near his presence
Why could this not happen? Is it because God cannot abide sin, which is what I read your position as being, or because sinners can't abide God? The logic you use supports the second position, and says nothing about the first, ISTM.

quote:
Fine but the mechanism by which evil is exhausted is the shedding of his blood.
Agreed, the shedding of blood is involved in Jesus dying.

quote:
There is no other means whereby God's justice could be satisfied.
With respect, that is an assertion which has been hotly debated on this thread and others. Does the cross reveal God's justice. I say it does, but it is not punitive justice. It demonstrates (or at least the whole paschal event demonstrates) that God's justice is not punitive but restorative. He makes all things new.

But that is not, I suspect, (and correct me if I'm wrong) what you mean. What PSA states is that sin can only be dealt with by punishment, because of the constraint of God's justice. I believe that only forgiveness is powerful enough to truely "deal" with sin. Why else should Jesus instruct us that we should deal with it in that way.

quote:
There are two concepts in the atonement as I understand it,forgiveness and transformation. I see the blood of Christ as effecting covering of sin or forgiveness and the cross, or death of Christ with its resurrection corollory as effecting potential transformation. (a la Watchman Nee.) But you can't have the one without the other.
I agree with you that there are two aspects, but, whilst I do think that the cross speaks (subjectively) into forgiveness, and that at the heart of its power is forgiveness, I don't think that it in itself originates forgiveness. Rather it demonstrates its power. But the ontological work of the cross is the defeat of the power of sin, the overcoming of evil by good, the triumph of humility over fallen concepts of strength. But you are certainly right that the resurrection doesn't make sense without the cross, nor the cross without the resurrection. I would probably see the resurrection as the prime event, but that is as much of a function of my personality as anything else. It is what speaks to me most powerfully, but YMMV.

quote:
Could I respectfully suggest that your issue of PSA seeing God as violent is really a human judgement, a construct whereby you appear to have said 'God can't be violent by my definition so there has to be another way.' If you refuse to see God as violent (or wrathful, dangerous or at times angry,) what do you make of some of the injunctions in the OT to wipe out every trace of a sinful people group? Surely you are the one who is being unscriptural here by choosing to ignore inconvenient texts.

Well no, not really. Rather, I see the PSA paradigm as a human construct, and an unworthy view of the nature of God. This is probably not the place to start a debate on inerrancy, but I do, in fact, believe in progressive revelation. If the writers of Numbers or Exodus got it right about God, then I don't see how you can make sense of the New Testament, and especially the Gospels. Either jesus was lying when He said "whoever has seen me has seen the Father", or he was profoundly mistaken about His nature and that of the Father, or the problem texts reveal something true about the nature of the process of a people struggling to explain the unexplainable God within the paradigm of a late bronze age society surrounded on all sides by uber-violent fertility cults and tribal war "gods". I opt for the third explanation. If that lays me open to the charge of "ignoring problem texts", then it's a cross I will have to bear. I don't think it is what is happening, but I accept that it is something against which any defence I have would be seen to be self justifying.

quote:
Well actually, I tink there is muddled thinking here. The teaching of Jesus on forgiveness is in no way set aside by my view of justice being retributive before it can be restorative.
Actually, what you wrote was "Justice to me is by definition retributive. A wrong suffered must be paid for,atoned for." Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. but I took that to mean that justice is always retributive. I just don't accept that. Nor do I accept that a wrong suffered must be paid for. Atonement in itself means reconciliation. I know it has got all mixed up in popular speech with transactional notions and penitence and so forth, but it isn't what the word means.

quote:
Forgiveness is indeed in God's heart but my point is that his holness precludes it from being offered without the manifest justice of punishment.
Again that assertion. The whole point about God's justice needing to be "manifest" or demonstrated is that it is so transcendant compared with human justice. Human justice says, "they killed the son of God, wipe them all out", Divine justice, restorative justice says, "Father forgive them...". Now this would only have been a pious sentiment had it not been that God gave His "yes" to that prayer in the resurrection. It really works. Forgiveness is really more powerful than hatred, good really does triumph over evil. Restoration really is better than punisment.

For a discussion of Isaiah 53 and non-violent atonement, this is quite involved and would make a long post even longer, so could I direct you to this link.

OK, quickly Hebrews 9:12-15:
The writer is comparing OT sacrifice (which is not a penal concept) to the work of Christ. He specifically states that the ransom is to set them free from sins, which is precisely the paradigm of CV.

I Peter 1:19

Jesus compared to a sacrificial lamb, again, not penal - the lamb wasn't punished when I was sacrificed. Peter talks of people being redeemed (ie slaves whose freedom has been "bought") through the cross, again the theme of liberation from bondage to sin. Again, I suggest, this is CV rather than PSA.


quote:
Forgiveness does indeed require a basis and that basis is justice. Fortunately for us it is, as you say, in the heart of God. The miracle of the cross is the combination of justice and mercy in a single historical event.
I disagree that the basis of forgiveness is justice. The basis of forgiveness is love. Justice is the way of restoring that which has been damaged by sin , but that differs from forgiveness per se. I agree that justice and mercy meet at the cross, but I see justice as the putting right of what is wrong, rather than any notionm of punishment.
quote:
I can extend forgiveness to the person who has wronged me only because I too am forgiven and I am only forgiven because God has forgiven me...

I'm sorry, I can't see that this makes any sense. I have to forgive people because it is right to forgive people, and it is right to forgive people because that is the only way of dealing with sin which is up to the job. That would be true whether or not we had been forgiven already, but that we have been so forgiven is a spur to behaving in the same way. Of course, if you are saying that the process of sanctification which begins with our forgiveness is a necessary precondition (because to behave in such a radical way requires the transformation of our lives in a Christ-ward direction) then I wouldn't disagree with you, but that is a problem with the working out, not with the theory.
quote:
God has only forgiven me because my sin was judged in Christ
I'm sorry, I don't think that this assertion has any basis in the Scriptures.

quote:
Incidentally, JJ before you accuse someone of not knowing the scriptures I'd suggest you approach them yourself in a more holistic and inclusive way. I believe of course that there is more than one way to 'see' things but to suggest a belief in PSA is unscriptural is ridiculous.

I have re-read all my posts about this, and I can't find anywhere where I have accused you (or anyone else, for that matter) of "not knowing the scriptures". The nearest I could come to it was the bit where I expressed surprise that anyone who had read the gospels could
write that forgiveness could only take place as a result of some sort of transaction, ie there cannot be unconditional forgiveness. If that seemed to you to be questioning your scriptural knowledge, then I unresevedly apologise. That was not my intention. I was, rather, confused as to how you could deduce your conclusion from the Gospel evidence, which points in precisely the reverse direction.

I stand, however, by my assertion that PSA is "sub-biblical", that is, it can only be "read into", rather than "read out of" the scripture.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:


Victim/Offender Reconciliation Program
British Columbia's programs for indigenous communities
Victims' Families for Reconciliation

There's a lot out there: the idea of "restorative justice" is taking shape in many places.

These all look great and are to be commended - however, all of them seem to be supplementing the penal system instead of replacing it?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, not if you read all Ch. 2 in context. Sure the word punish is used, but the first part of the chapter seems, not about vindicating any moral stance, so much as a disciplining process, whereby short-term unpleasantness is intended to lead to benefit in the longer run, and, if you associate the hinge v13 with the second part of the chapter, which is not an impossible reading, then the use of the word "punish" seems to be ironic.

Leaving aside the 'ironic' reading of punish - which I think stretches the text a little too far - let us not forget that the writer is talking about Israel here personified. undoubtedly the punishment is discipline but the way it seems to work in the OT is that 'Israel' is punished (in a penal sense) so that 'Israel' learns from it. Of course Hosea 11 v 1 then becomes a type picked up by Matthew in his gospel so that the new Israel (Christ) succeeds where the old Israel failed. This reading fits perfectly with a PSA understanding where 'old Israel' is punished and 'new Israel' learns from it ... both in Christ [Smile]


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
With regard to the narrow point on Luke 23:41, I'm not sure that the verse tells us anything apart from that the repentant theif considered Jesus to be innocent - something with which we would both concur, but I'm not sure it says anything about PSA or CV.

I suppose I'm building a case - I'd add the cumbersome emphasis of details with Barabbas too - that Luke wants us to read it that way (with PSA undertones). I think that there is a strong penal backdrop to Luke's gospel... I guess I need a bit more evidence, but I'm getting there [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
A few posters in this thread seem confused about the Old Testament sacrifices. So I will attempt some clarifications (they’re lengthy ones I’m afraid).

Ken managed the remarkable feat in his comment of turning a lamb into a goat. I’m afraid that goats and lambs are different animals and not interchangeable. The descriptions of Yom Kippur involve goats, not lambs. The Passover involved a lamb. The Passover is not the Day of Atonement and lambs are not goats. When the New Testament talks about Jesus as the Lamb of God, it doesn’t mean Jesus as the Goat of God. If Penal Substitution was true, then it would make a lot of sense for Jesus to die on the Day of Atonement, and so a lot of Christians seem determined to believe that he did. But Jesus was killed on the Passover, which isn’t the Day of Atonement.

The Passover was a festival celebrating God’s powerful intervention in human history to free Israel from the political oppression of pagan nations. It commemorated the exodus from slavery in Egypt. As a result it was associated with slavery/freedom and nationalistic political escape from pagan rule. On a regular basis during the time of Jesus and Paul, there would be political riots in Jerusalem during the festival of Passover caused by groups who wanted to see Israel overthrow the Roman yoke of political oppression just as their ancestors had the Egyptians.

The Passover “sacrifice” was not really a sacrifice by our standards (the word sacrifice tends to be used in all ancient cultures for any killing of any animal since all life was consider sacred – it does not by itself indicate any meaning or power is being attributed to the event), but simply that a lamb was eaten as part of the traditional celebration, like eating a Turkey on thanksgiving day. In the original context of the exodus, the lamb was not a sin-sacrifice, it was not for forgiveness of sins. Its blood was simply used as a spiritual marker to label the doorposts of the Israelites in a way visible to God’s angel (blood, being the essence of living beings was thought to exist both in the spiritual and physical worlds). In short, the Passover lamb was not a sin sacrifice, and was not viewed as such by Jews in the New Testament era. It was simply a tradition to eat a lamb during the celebration of the religious-political Passover festival.

The various different sacrifices prescribed in the Law were believed to work in a variety of different ways. The two most common uses of sacrifices were shared meals, and as a gift to God. Shared meals were where the killed animal was divided up and eaten together by the community or a small group. Virtually all animals killed were eaten in this way, since animals were very valuable and meat less common in the ancient world than today and almost always a person would invite a least their close friends to a party if they were going to eat one. A portion of the animal was given to God, and the group ate the meal together with God considered to be present among them. In the ancient world, group meals tended to be strongly linked with honor – the order of the seating of people at a table for example would declare to everyone who the most important people were in order down to the least important. These group meals had the function both of reinforcing communal bonds, and enforcing strict hierarchical ordering within the community. Alternatively a number of different group meals could be held simultaneously, with each being attended by only a certain social class from within the community. (Note the special thing about the communal meal introduced by Jesus is that it treats all equally, which is why Paul gets so upset when Christians start splitting into groups to eat it)

The other most common use of sacrifices was the simple giving of a gift to God. This could be done as thanks, out of the gladness of ones heart, or done as a petition to request a favour in return. It was customary to give a proportion of the first harvests back to God in thanks for his bounty – this was called the first-fruits offering. Gifts also formed an important part of the honor system in the ancient world – gifts were given and received on a regular basis, especially in response to other gifts or faithful service given. If a person’s honor was offended and they were wrathful, the giving of a gift in recognition of their honor was considered the appropriate way to restore the balance. Part of the punishment for various offences was also to give God a gift – if the person was rich it was to be an animal sacrifice (meat animals had a high market value) but if they person was poor they could give fish or grain instead. This served a double-purpose of appeasing God by restoring his honor through a gift, and of functioning similarly to what we would call a “fine” as monetary payment for the transgression (even by the time of Jesus, few Israelites had any or many coins – payment in animals and grain worked far better). The gifts given to God would usually be rerouted to the priesthood and temple who would get them on his behalf, though sometimes gifts were burned whole under the belief the smoke would rise to heaven where God would smell its pleasing odor.

Note that those two were by far the most common uses of sacrifices. However on rare occasions sacrifices could be used as part of ritual magic. Magic was believed to be a real force, like unto what we might think of as the physical scientific laws of nature. It was believed that by rituals, incantations, trances, the binding of supernatural beings, and the use of the spiritual power in blood that the magical power in the world could be tapped into and guided. Gods were generally believed to be able to be affected by magic, and use it themselves. Gods were considered able to summon magical powers to curse men, or men could curse gods. There were various rituals to remove unfriendly magic or the magical equivalent of dirt (“pollution”). The blood of a pure and spotless animal was believed to be the magical equivalent of detergent. Hence, since the wrongdoings of Israel caused magical pollution to build up within the temple, that pollution needed to be cleaned off on a regular basis with blood. Also, on the day of atonement, a ritual was used to transfer the curses on Israel off onto a goat which bore the curses safely away and out into the wilderness. Some Christians seem to want to confuse magic with justice when talking about sacrifices, however that’s about as sensible as trying to interchange lambs and goats. The modern concept of impartial justice (or even the ancient one) is an abstract, logical and theoretical idea that relates to moral virtue and an equal society. It has little relation to the ancient ideas of primeval magical powers which threatened man’s existence and which could be harnessed or controlled through rituals.

These sorts of sacrifices tend to be very common among all cultures that participate in sacrificial practices, as well as being used by the Israelites. It is quite interesting that most cultures go through a similar series of steps as their ideas about and understandings of the importance and meaning of sacrificial practices changes over time, and their views about the usefulness of sacrifices themselves change. It is typical for cultures to start drawing a link between ritual purity and morality; over time more emphasis is place on morality; it becomes emphasised that moral action is more important than sacrifices; sacrificial language becomes used metaphorical to describe moral action; and finally sacrifices are rejected as entirely valueless and moral behaviour becomes considered to be of sole importance. Unsurprisingly this pattern is manifested throughout the bible. Human sacrifice is rejected when Abraham sacrifices an animal instead of his son, then the law comes with its restriction on sacrificial practices to within prescribed limits. The prophets and psalms tend to take a negative view on the value of sacrifices, repeating how mercy and justice are far more important to God than sacrifices and using sacrificial metaphors to describe morality such as “a sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit and a contrite heart”. The New Testament generally goes to the final step and generally rejects any value to sacrifices (eg “the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin”) and instead uses sacrificial language only metaphorically to talk about morality and moral acts. Jesus’ selfless acts are described as sacrificial, his martyrdom likened to the lamb’s blood being used to clean away sin, our living a moral life is likened to having our robes washed in the heavenly detergent of the blood of the lamb.

As one poster correctly pointed out, the New Testament uses an abundance of different sacrificial language in reference to Jesus. (Paul also uses sacrificial language to describe his own forthcoming death in 2 Tim 4:6) Virtually every single type and kind of sacrifice is at some stage in the New Testament used to describe Jesus and his accomplishments. It has also been commented that since not all sacrifices worked by the same mechanisms (of those ones that did something), how are we to interpret the contradictory mechanisms that these analogies provide in terms of the atonement? The answer is reasonably straight-forward. If Jesus’ death or atonement worked the same as any one type of sacrifice, we could expect the New Testament analogies to centre around that model. In fact we find that no one type of sacrifice is greatly favoured by the New Testament – the New Testament makes full use of the entire range of sacrifices and even identifies Jesus with the priest and the altar as well. The thrust therefore is clearly that the entire sacrificial system is outdated and gone and has been entirely replaced. It is not merely that Jesus’ death worked like one of the sacrifices, it is that Jesus’ followers are not interested in sacrifices.

The reasons for this become apparent when we look at the New Testament’s moral teachings. The New Testament Christians have reached the step where morality has superseded the sacrificial system. Morality is constantly emphasised throughout the New Testament epistles - moral commands are given over and over again, exhortations to grow in love and imitate Christ are constantly repeated. In the gospels we see Jesus saying things like “I desire mercy not sacrifice” and “the greatest commandment is to love one another” and he attacks the Temple system and Mosaic customs on moral grounds out of concern for the poor and oppressed. Finally the authorities kill him for this and he dies a martyr. In response God resurrects him, demonstrating clearly that God approved of Jesus. The early Church saw in God’s resurrection of Jesus a statement about the sort of life God approves of. They though that if they were to be like Jesus then they too could gain God’s approval. Eg.
“if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps. "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten…For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.” (1 Pet 2:20-25)

The gospels make clear that throughout his life he helped others and challenges the systems and people that were oppressing the poor and outcasts. He gathered around him a group of followers who were committed to his cause, and warned them to expect persecution. He was prepared to die for his cause of helping others as a martyr, leaving an example to follow. By holding the image of Christ’s faithfulness even unto death in their minds to inspire them onwards, thousands of his followers endured struggles and hardships and even death for the sake of him and his cause. God, in resurrecting Jesus, not only endorsed everything Jesus did and taught and that God himself was behind and supported Jesus’ movement, but also demonstrated that Jesus himself had received God’s favour and attained a positive judgment and thus upheld Jesus as an example we should aspire to imitate if we hope to achieve God’s favour ourselves. Through the example of Jesus, the empowerment of the spirit and the community of dedicated Christians around them, the New Testament Christians sought to imitate Jesus and conquer sin in their own lives and in the world, being transformed themselves into Christ-like people and transforming the world around them, seeking to establish God’s reign on earth by causing his will to be done. Paul comments “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.” (Phil 3:10-11) John comments “Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world.” (1 John 4:17)

If anyone wants to read more about the ancient sacrificial system I recommend Finlan’s Problems with Atonement as being easily the best work on the subject. (or if you really want a challenge try his The Background and Content of Paul’s Cultic Atonement Metaphors)

A reference was also made indirectly earlier by another poster to Jeffrey Gibson’s work 'Paul’s "Dying Formula"' in Celebrating Romans: Template For Pauline Theology, 2004, in which Gibson examines the meaning of the Greek phrase “X died for Y” in the one hundred and eleven surviving occurrences from that phrase in Greek manuscripts. His found that 100% of the time the phrase “X died for Y” is talking about a martyrdom (in the broad sense of the word) – usually it refers to a soldier who has died in battle fighting for his country, city, family or friend, and sometimes refers to martyrs for religious causes. Paul makes fairly prolific use of the phrase “Jesus died for us”, implying therefore Jesus died some sort of martyr’s death for our sake. Paul directly compares Christ dying for us in Rom 5:7-8 to the normal situation of a man dying for the sake of another person, and presents the difference as being not one of kind but one of degree – normally you would give your life to save someone else because they are a good person worth saving, whereas with Christ it was when we were immoral people that he gave his life as part of his teaching and effort to change us personally and change society. Hence, Paul continues, if God loves us enough to send Christ to teach us righteousness and die doing it when were wicked, how much more must he love us now that we have learned righteousness from Christ and live in a way pleasing to God (5:9-10). Note that common in Greek descriptions of martyrs are references to blood and shedding of blood, and also references to the faithfulness of the martyr to their cause even unto death. Remember that crucifixion was not a particularly bloody death, so the New Testament’s constant references to the blood of Christ need to be explained either against a sacrificial or martyrological background. Paul’s use of the three ideas of “Christ died for us” and much talk about Christ’s “blood” and “faithfulness” indicate a strong martyrological theme.

Strictly speaking this reading puts the New Testament position on the atonement closer to being Moral Exemplar than Christus Victor, though plenty of Christus Victor elements are still present.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
Hi, Starlight, and welcome. That was a very interesting first post. You're setting the bar pretty high for your second!

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
A few posters in this thread seem confused about the Old Testament sacrifices. So I will attempt some clarifications (they’re lengthy ones I’m afraid).

This is going to be a very short post, sorry [Razz]

PSAers actually rather like the Passover. And that is because PSA language fits so well with it.

In Exodus 12 the text keeps repeating that 'every house in Egypt will have someone dead' (men and animals). The Egyptians each have a dead body and then Israelites have a dead lamb. The Exodus narrative describes it as both penal and substitutionary - It is probably THE PSA image!
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
Johnny S,
In the Exodus narrative the situation is not that the the Israelites deserved to endure punishment like the Egyptians but the sacrificed lamb took their punishment on itself and suffered in their place. There is no hint that the Israelites deserved punishment or that God wanted to punish them or of them having displeased God. Nor is the lamb ever spoken of as substitutionary. Its blood is simply used as paint, marking the Israelite houses so that the angel can see and avoid harming the Israelites.

You seem to have taken an imaginative approach to interpret this as Penal Substitutionary. But it takes even less imagination to "prove" Christus Victor - the blood of the lamb conquers and defeats the power of the angel of death protecting the households covered with it. Actually, it does seem quite possible that the Israelites would have seen the blood as a magical talisman which was used to place a protective blessing over the home which warded off the angel of death.

As I mentioned previously, if Penal Substitution were true then Jesus ought to have died on the Day of Atonement. While that didn't work by penal substitution it's at least something vaguely close compared to the rest of the sacrificial system. The Day of Atonement was all about the removal of sin from Israel and the transfer of the curses off Israel onto the animal. It seems you'd like to confuse the Day of Atonement with the Passover, but they are completely different festivals held on completely different days of the year and focus on completely different things. If the New Testament writers had wanted to set Jesus against a Day of Atonement context and say that the curses on the nation were transferred to him, then it could easily have spoken of Jesus as the Goat provided by God if they wanted. However, the NT is silent on Jesus as the Goat of God. Passover is not the Day of Atonement and has nothing to do with atonement.
 
Posted by leonato (# 5124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:


In Exodus 12 the text keeps repeating that 'every house in Egypt will have someone dead' (men and animals). The Egyptians each have a dead body and then Israelites have a dead lamb. The Exodus narrative describes it as both penal and substitutionary - It is probably THE PSA image!

Coming rather late to this thread, but the Passover is most definitely not penal or substitutionary. It is clear in Exodus 11 that God at no time intends to kill or harm any of the Israelites, the entire purpose of the plagues is to free them from their slavery. The Passover lamb sacrifice is not a penalty they have to pay, nor is its death in substitution for the death of the first born.

The Passover sacrifice is a sacrifice of thanksgiving and celebration that the Israelites are freed from slavery and are God's people. Christ is our Passover lamb because his sacrifice makes us God's people and frees us from the slavery of sin. This seems to me to be much closer to the imagery of Christus Victor than PSA.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Heck, in the article in the OP the guy claimed himself that appeasement sacrifices were a pagan tradition, not a jewish one. The point of the sacrifice isn't to make God happy, it's to remind yourself of what you have done.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:


Victim/Offender Reconciliation Program
British Columbia's programs for indigenous communities
Victims' Families for Reconciliation

There's a lot out there: the idea of "restorative justice" is taking shape in many places.

These all look great and are to be commended - however, all of them seem to be supplementing the penal system instead of replacing it?
There is a movement, in some systems and communities, to allow people's criminal activities to be dealt with through restorative justice channels instead of the traditional x crime= y days in jail model. Given consent of both offender and victim.

Some details here
International organization herehas lots of information about instances in which this model is adopted INSTEAD OF the penal system.

No, we're not 100% there yet--our current model is way too entrenched and self-perpetuating. But ultimately, "we have this big broken thing instead" isn't a valid reason for rejecting the alternatives.

Hmm--I find myself able to apply that argument to PSA as well.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
JJ, I too am sorry but if your sin is not judged in Christ then you still carry its burden. You are not regenerated, born again or made a new creature. Gal 2:20 does not apply to you.You are still under the judgement of your fallen humanity and all the evil deeds which you have managed to accumulate not that you are different in that sense to any one of the rest of us. I find it utterly incomprehensible that the clear reading of scripture is rejected here in favour of a theological metaphor which sees blood sacrifice as something Christian thought has merely evolved out of and away from. To say PSA is 'sub scriptural' is to patronisingly reject a literal reading which in turn requires mental gymnastics to negotiate. Could I remind you of what 1 Pet 1:18,19 actually says: "we are redeemed with precious blood..the blood of Christ" Redeemed means bought. The blood is the purchase price! Hebrews 9:12 states that Christ entered the holy place by means of his own blood. Put this together with the scriptures on his death and we see not only that he died for our sins and was raised for our justification but also how this was possible. Regarding your dismissal of inconvenient OT texts on God's anger and judgement as bronze age ancient belief systems, my view is that we must deal with scripture as holistic. The God of the Jewish scriptures is the God we worship. He has not changed in essence but he has found a way whereby we can approach him. The covenants of promise have become accessible to the Gentile world through the watershed of the atonement. See Eph 2:12, 13 which states, "You (Gentiles)..were separate..excluded.... but now in Christ Jesus you who were formerly far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ for he himself is our peace.." And incidentally,what do you do with Peter's opinion on 'penal substitution'? He says in 1 Pet 2:24 that "He himself (Christ) bore our sins in his body on the cross." Perhaps the one Jesus entrusted the keys of the kingdom to got it totally wrong. What say you?

Furthermore, Starlight, The Passover had the express purpose of shielding the Israelites from the judgement that came upon the Egyptians. The blood on the posts caused the angel of death to 'pass over' the house. This clearly implies a penal factor, an avoidance of judgement. Christ's death in the midst of the feast of Passover therefore carries the typological significance of his blood shielding believers from judgement. It is interesting that Passover was the first major feast of the Jewish year. Christ actually chose to die then to underline the necessity of regeneration, the complete cutting off of the ties of Egypt which is typologically the world. Our personal deliverance from sin and removal from worldly thinking is the first step in our transformation into his likeness.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Furthermore, Starlight, The Passover had the express purpose of shielding the Israelites from the judgement that came upon the Egyptians. The blood on the posts caused the angel of death to 'pass over' the house. This clearly implies a penal factor, an avoidance of judgement.

I don't think that it implies an avoidance of judgment for which they ought to have been guilty. They were saved because they were God's people. Similarly, they were exempted from all of the plagues.

When the passover and the exodus are mentioned throughout the Bible the word that is used is "redemption" - which He accomplished not by witholding their punishment, or placing it on a lamb, but "with a mighty hand." Redemption is about overcoming the enemy:
quote:
Deuteronomy 7:8 The LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 9:26 Your people and Your inheritance whom You have redeemed through Your greatness, whom You have brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand.

Deuteronomy 24:18 But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you from there;

Micah 6:4 For I brought you up from the land of Egypt, I redeemed you from the house of bondage;

These references fit much better with Christus Victor than with PSA. Other passages about redemption carry the same idea:
quote:
1 Kings 1:29 “As the LORD lives, who has redeemed my life from every distress,

Nehemiah 1:10 Now these are Your servants and Your people, whom You have redeemed by Your great power, and by Your strong hand.

Psalm 25:22 Redeem Israel, O God, Out of all their troubles!

Psalm 55:18 He has redeemed my soul in peace from the battle that was against me.

Psalm 69:18 Draw near to my soul, and redeem it; Deliver me because of my enemies.

Psalm 72:14 He will redeem their life from oppression and violence; And precious shall be their blood in His sight.

Psalm 106:10 He saved them from the hand of him who hated them, And redeemed them from the hand of the enemy.

Isaiah 50:2 Is My hand shortened at all that it cannot redeem? Or have I no power to deliver? Indeed with My rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness;

Jeremiah 15:21 “ I will deliver you from the hand of the wicked, And I will redeem you from the grip of the terrible.”

Micah 4:10 There you shall be delivered; There the LORD will redeem you From the hand of your enemies.

Luke 24:21 But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened.

I think that this last one is especially telling. They thought that His power failed. They didn't understand His power or His redemption.

But the passover lamb was a means of saving Israel, just not as a substitute for something. The lamb stood for the innocence of Israel and its blood stood for the truths related to that innocence. So they marked the way, serving as signals for the angels, as Starlight said.
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
Jamat,
quote:
Could I remind you of what 1 Pet 1:18,19 actually says: "we are redeemed with precious blood..the blood of Christ" Redeemed means bought. The blood is the purchase price!
Many of the church fathers taught what is known as the Ransom Theory of the atonement where God literally pays the devil with the blood of Christ to redeem us. In that view were are very literally “redeemed with precious blood…the blood of Christ”. I presume you would reject that view… so I suggest that you shouldn’t accuse others of rejecting the literal meaning of the text when you do so yourself.

And, if we pay more attention to what the verse is saying and throw in a bit of context for fun:
“Instead, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; for it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy." If you invoke as Father the one who judges all people impartially according to their deeds, live in reverent fear during the time of your exile.You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish.” (1 Pet 1:15-19)
The context is talking about them changing their conduct so that they live holy lives. The thing they have been ransomed from was not “god’s punishment” but “futile ways” of living. It is clear that the thought is that the believers need to change their conduct, be holy, and therefore achieve a positive final judgment in the sight of God “who judges all people impartially according to their deeds”. They were rescued from their previous “futile ways” of living and taught holy to be holy in their conduct by Jesus who sacrificed his life to teach them this.

quote:
And incidentally,what do you do with Peter's opinion on 'penal substitution'? He says in 1 Pet 2:24 that "He himself (Christ) bore our sins in his body on the cross."
Taken literally 1 Peter 2:24 seems to teach Christus Victor and Moral Exemplar – Christ “carries” our sins in his body on the cross and bears them away into grave with him, he does this so that we ourselves might “die” in imitation of him to our sinful ways and live righteously. It was through him doing this and suffering those wounds that we were able to be healed.

That’s what the verse seems to say literally, and that’s not Penal Substitution. There’s no notion in there of penalty, but rather one of rescue, as if we were diseased with sin and Christ transferred that disease to himself and took it with him to the grave. But that’s a far cry from any notions of cosmic justice, or penalties imposed or transferred by God’s law-court. It looks far more like a story a God who has seen his creation suffering from sin and reaches out to help, taking that disease on himself in order to save us.

Now personally, I don’t think we should take this verse totally literally. The comment that we ourselves “die to sin” is clearly metaphorical in some sense, drawing an analogy between a moral change in our lives and Christ’s death on the cross. So I suggest there is every reason to take the sentence about Christ bearing away our sinfulness in his body as equally part of the analogy. Sin is not a substance that can be carried by a waiter on a silver platter, Christ can’t simply carry it away in his body literally as if he’d eaten it. The point of the metaphor of Christ carrying away sin is perhaps not therefore talking about the mechanism of atonement but rather about the effects – the passage is not saying how he did this but commenting on what was done: Namely, sin has been destroyed.

The context however does tell us a lot about the mechanism. Let’s look at the immediate context:
“if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps. 22 "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." 23 When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten….25 For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.” (1 Peter 2:20-25)

What does that tell us? We were going astray like sheep, but Christ our guardian came to set our souls back on the right path. He did this by leaving an example for us of suffering for doing right. If we emulate that example we will gain for ourselves God’s approval. So, in short, you appear to have plucked one sentence out of context from the middle of a passage clearly advocating Moral Exemplar and interpreted your sentence creatively to teach Penal Substitution.

quote:
The blood on the posts caused the angel of death to 'pass over' the house. This clearly implies a penal factor, an avoidance of judgement.
Avoidance of suffering, yes. Of judgement? Not really. Here are two possible scenarios about what the blood does:
1. It’s basically paint, and is a painted marker for the angel of death, who sees it and thinks “okay, Israelite house, won’t go there”.
2. It’s a magical charm desired to created a spiritual forcefield around the house, and the angel of death when it tried to go there would be warded off.
Either of those two could plausibly have been what the ancient Israelites believed, given their beliefs about blood and magic and given what the bible says.

A penal substitutionary account leaves more questions than it gives answers though: Why on earth would God want to kill the firstborn Israelites? Why would he perform this judgment against Israel? Why does the biblical account give no hint that Israel has sinned or angered god or incurred his wrath? Why does the account not say that the Lamb is a substitute? How does the death of the lamb serve as a penal substitute – does it exhaust the angel of death’s killing power or what? If so, why do the Israelites themselves kill the Lamb rather than the angel of death? etc A penal substitutionary theory does not at all flow naturally out of the Passover accounts, you’ve got to already believe in the atonement theory of Penal Substitution and read it backwards into the Passover under the belief that the Passover must have functioned like Christ’s atonement. Over the years I’ve seen more than a few Christians engage in the curiously circular logic that (1) the Passover (and sacrifices in general) must have functioned like Christ’s atonement (ie penal substitution), and that therefore (2) the fact that Christ died on Passover like the sacrificial lamb proves he is a penal substitute since that’s how the Passover sacrifice worked.

quote:
Christ's death in the midst of the feast of Passover therefore carries the typological significance of his blood shielding believers from judgement.
Typologically, anything can be interpreted to mean anything. I’m afraid I don’t have much patience with symbolism, as its only a matter of imagination to make up anything you want to.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
As the debate rages I'm not always sure that we are talking about the same thing. [Big Grin]

1. Some are trying to demonstrate that PSA is not as ubiquitous in the bible as has been made out.

2. Others are trying to 'remove' PSA as sub-biblical.

3. Some seem (although I'm not sure they are) to be defending PSA as THE atonement model.

4. Others, like me, merely want to hold on to PSA alongside all the other models.


Because of the different aims we seem to frequently 'miss each other'. For example, I am slightly surprised at the attemtps to expunge all traces of PSA from the Passover. It can clearly be interpreted as substitutionary atonement since the death of the lamb makes the Lord 'spare' the Israelite homes. And arguments about the silence of the text in saying that the Israelites 'deserved' death are somewhat redundant - the whole point is that the text leaves unanswered why the Israelites would have died as well alongside the Egyptians (without the blood of the lamb.)

And so we return to the points above. If some are saying that the Passover could fit with CV or PSA then fine. I can't see how anyone can claim that the Passover does not fit with PSA.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
That's interesting Johnny. I can't for the life of me read PSA into the Passover. Probably because I don't think you can get any theory of the Atonement out of the Passover, although you can read the Passover as prefiguring (types and shadows) the Atonement once the Atonement has actually happened.

If PSA is true then its not unreasonable to take that interpretation of the Passover. If not, not, as they used to say in Aragon.
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
Yeah Johnny I think your comment that different people are trying to prove different things is helpful to keep in mind. My personal view is that PSA was not believed by the writers of the bible (and that they held the Moral Exemplar view primarily with smatterings of Christus Victor) and that many biblical passages get mistakenly read as teaching PSA.

On the subject of Passover then, let me make it clear that I am not saying that it is impossible to fit Passover with PSA... with enough imagination it is possible to fit anything. I am arguing:
(1) that there are interpretations of Passover that do not involve PSA.
(2) that those interpretation are not merely plausible ones, but in fact more likely to be accurate than the PSA one.
(3) That Jesus' death during the Passover and references to him as the Passover Lamb do not therefore constitute any positive evidence in favor of PSA over Christus Victor, contrary to what some supporters of PSA seem to think (and in fact constitutes a degree of positive evidence toward Christus Victor over PSA).
(4) That the Day of Atonement matches PSA much better than Passover, and that therefore Jesus' association with Passover rather than the Day of Atonement is some level of evidence against PSA.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Thanks Starlight. I think we are on much more reasonable territory now.


quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I am arguing:
(1) that there are interpretations of Passover that do not involve PSA.

Fine.

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:

(2) that those interpretation are not merely plausible ones, but in fact more likely to be accurate than the PSA one.

Ummh ... I'm still not convinced by 'more likely'. You still haven't dealt with the fact that God is clearly 'punishing' the Egyptians. You are mostly psycho-analysing the thoughts of the Israelites as to what they thought was going on. I'm not convinced.

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:

(3) That Jesus' death during the Passover and references to him as the Passover Lamb do not therefore constitute any positive evidence in favour of PSA over Christus Victor, contrary to what some supporters of PSA seem to think (and in fact constitutes a degree of positive evidence toward Christus Victor over PSA).

well, maybe, but you have to prove point 2 more clearly first.

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:

(4) That the Day of Atonement matches PSA much better than Passover, and that therefore Jesus' association with Passover rather than the Day of Atonement is some level of evidence against PSA.

Again maybe. It is interesting that the NT does 'unpack' the cross extensively, and yet when it does, e.g. Hebrews, it tends towards the 'atonement' sacrifice model and not the Passover as the default explanation. Now I realise that you don't think that those sacrifices where necessarily PSA either, but it does make your point 4 rather redundant.
 
Posted by leonato (# 5124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You still haven't dealt with the fact that God is clearly 'punishing' the Egyptians.

But that is exactly the point here. God is punishing the Egyptians, not the Israelites. The slave-keepers are punished; the slaves are set free.
This is in direct opposition to PSA where we who are the slaves to sin deserve the penalty. The "passover model" of atonement would suggest that it is sin itself that is to be punished and defeated so that sinners can be set free, and Jesus is the sacrificial lamb which is the symbol of that setting free.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leonato:
But that is exactly the point here. God is punishing the Egyptians, not the Israelites. The slave-keepers are punished; the slaves are set free.
This is in direct opposition to PSA where we who are the slaves to sin deserve the penalty. The "passover model" of atonement would suggest that it is sin itself that is to be punished and defeated so that sinners can be set free, and Jesus is the sacrificial lamb which is the symbol of that setting free.

Woah there! Hold your horses (or your chariots if you are an Egyptian). Who said anything about the exodus being an analogy for slavery to sin? I'm not disputing it but just pointing out that that is another huge leap in the argument.

Before we jump to analogies I was still stuck in the text. When God came in judgment he did so in punishing the Egyptians. You have conveniently jumped from God judging people (i.e. a penal model) to God judging 'sin' (i.e. a CV model). Last time I looked Egyptians were people, and just as much 'people' as the Israelites. The Israelites still had to sacrifice a lamb to stop God's judgment falling on them to ... as people!
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by leonato:
But that is exactly the point here. God is punishing the Egyptians, not the Israelites. The slave-keepers are punished; the slaves are set free...

Woah there! Hold your horses (or your chariots if you are an Egyptian). Who said anything about the exodus being an analogy for slavery to sin? I'm not disputing it but just pointing out that that is another huge leap in the argument.

Before we jump to analogies I was still stuck in the text. When God came in judgment he did so in punishing the Egyptians...

I think that Johnny has a point -- let's stick to the text. In my Bible, there is no mention that I can find of "punishing" anyone. The only mention of sin that I can find is Pharoah saying that he has sinned against God by changing his mind about freeing the Israelites. But no-one else even uses the term AFAICS.

It appears that the text says that God heard the cries of His people and "remembered" His promises. It also says that God keeps "hardening Pharaoh's heart," which is pretty hard to fathom for me. But the thrust of the story appears to be that God is showing His power, not that He is "punishing" the Egyptians. And, given that slavery was the common practice throughout the Torah, it's far from obvious that slaveholding as such was deemed to be worthy of punishment.

An awful lot of the discussion about atonement theory seems to fly beyond the text into people's own hobby horses. This is especially true when people insist on reading the atonement back into the Hebrew Testament. But the extent to which people read references to Jewish religious practices in the New Testament as proof of their own views -- despite twisting those practices into something that no Jew would recognize -- should give us all pause. Are we listening to scripture or dictating to it?

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by leonato (# 5124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The Israelites still had to sacrifice a lamb to stop God's judgement falling on them too ... as people!

No. This is exactly what they didn't have to do. It seems perfectly clear to me from Exodus 11 that God had no intention of ever harming the Israelites. It is not a case of "slaughter a lamb or else I will slaughter you" but "slaughter a lamb because you are one of my people and that I may pass over you". These are fundamentally different.

The penalty in the Passover is meted out not to God's people but to others. God's chosen people have no penalty to pay nor any substitution to make, so there are no links between PSA and the Passover. In PSA it is us as God's people who should pay the penalty. In CV the "punishment" is on and the victory is over sin itself.

It is not a matter of whether or not God judges or punishes, both are going on in the Passover narrative. The issue is who/what gets judged punished and how.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
It also says that God keeps "hardening Pharaoh's heart," which is pretty hard to fathom for me.

The sun's rays fall upon us all. The wax however melts, while clay becomes hardened. That's the explanation the Orthodox traditionally gave on that verse, that while all get God's grace, the hearts of some behave like wax, while the hearts of others behave like clay. In other words, it is not God the one that does the hardening, but one's own self. The sun gives its heat to all things.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
Yet another interesting observation, Andreas. Thanks!

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Are we listening to scripture or dictating to it?

Fair point Tom - I think you've shown on numerous occasions where I've been guilty of that.

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But the thrust of the story appears to be that God is showing His power, not that He is "punishing" the Egyptians.

I agree but wonder how you can't see that the way he was showing his power was by 'punishing' the Egyptians. If he wasn't then he seems to be acting in a very capricious manner - happening to pick on them to show his strength.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leonato:
It seems perfectly clear to me from Exodus 11 that God had no intention of ever harming the Israelites. It is not a case of "slaughter a lamb or else I will slaughter you" but "slaughter a lamb because you are one of my people and that I may pass over you". These are fundamentally different.

...The issue is who/what gets judged punished and how.

This is probably my fundamental problem with attempts to completely expunge PSA. If that is the case then God is worse than a violent Father who demands punishment, he demands the slaughter of innocent animals for no significant reason at all.

Why couldn't they just have used paint?

Was the Angel of Death short-sighted, or did he use a sense of smell?
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
I agree that the Passover lamb was, de facto, a sacrifice (during the 2nd Temple period, didn't the Priest officiate at all of the Passover Lamb slaughter?), and one which ties in with the 'communal meal' aspect of some sacrifices.

Thus, there seems to be some 'point' about the life of the Lambs in the blood 'warding off' the Angel of death.

I agree that the original story doesn't really 'sell it' in terms of a 'penal transfer' (the Israelites are the 'good guys', not the 'bad guys' needing to be protected from their own God), but there is a sense of 'delivery from death'.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But the thrust of the story appears to be that God is showing His power, not that He is "punishing" the Egyptians.

I agree but wonder how you can't see that the way he was showing his power was by 'punishing' the Egyptians. If he wasn't then he seems to be acting in a very capricious manner - happening to pick on them to show his strength.
Hi, Johnny. BTW, I certainly did not mean to suggest that you personally were placing your interpretation above scripture. My concern was more general, that we were all in danger of doing that. If I appeared to be targeting you, I apologize.

As to the point quoted above, I share your discomfort with the story. But it really seems that God is indifferent to the Egyptians in this story (a sense that I also get with other non-
Isrealites in other parts of the Torah). It is possible that we should just view these things as being the people of Israel's take on how God has looked after them. The question of what this says about God's relationship to the Egyptians is just not addressed in the story because it is specifically about the Isrealites.

Or maybe the view in that time was that the leader of a people could bring down God's wrath on the whole people, whether those people had any say in the actions of the leader or not, so it was seen as righteous. I really don't know.

But I am hard-pressed to discern anything that I would recognize as justice towards the people of Egypt in the actions of God in this story. I'm not sure that back-filling a justification that makes us comfortable with the story is really the best way to approach scripture, however.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Hi, Johnny. BTW, I certainly did not mean to suggest that you personally were placing your interpretation above scripture. My concern was more general, that we were all in danger of doing that. If I appeared to be targeting you, I apologize.

I didn't think you had me particularly in your sights. I just got convicted, that is all [Frown]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by leonato:
It seems perfectly clear to me from Exodus 11 that God had no intention of ever harming the Israelites. It is not a case of "slaughter a lamb or else I will slaughter you" but "slaughter a lamb because you are one of my people and that I may pass over you". These are fundamentally different.

...The issue is who/what gets judged punished and how.

This is probably my fundamental problem with attempts to completely expunge PSA. If that is the case then God is worse than a violent Father who demands punishment, he demands the slaughter of innocent animals for no significant reason at all.

Sorry for the double-post. ISTM that your point would have some power for a vegetarian, but not for meat-eaters. The sacrificial system of the OT seemed to be pretty much the way that people went to the butcher. They ate the meat, except for some fat, in almost all cases. The point of the sacrifice was not that the animal was killed (that would happen anyway.) Rather, the point was that the people of Israel were reminded that they owed their sustenance to God. Remember, these people were "loading up on carbs" before a long journey...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
ISTM that your point would have some power for a vegetarian, but not for meat-eaters. The sacrificial system of the OT seemed to be pretty much the way that people went to the butcher. They ate the meat, except for some fat, in almost all cases. The point of the sacrifice was not that the animal was killed (that would happen anyway.) Rather, the point was that the people of Israel were reminded that they owed their sustenance to God. Remember, these people were "loading up on carbs" before a long journey...

--Tom Clune

Not convinced. I think you're conflating two issues. Yes, this is how they ate. But there was something special about the blood (e.g. Leviticus 17). I don't want to reopen the 'Passover / Day of Atonement' debate but there is certainly a lot more going on than firing up the BBQ!
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
I'm not convinced, either. I agree that something more is at work in all this, and that something is pointing the way to the Almighty. But, when I try to nail it down more specifically, I usually feel that I'm "whistling past the cemetery."

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I'm not sure that back-filling a justification that makes us comfortable with the story is really the best way to approach scripture, however.

--Tom Clune

This is probably a tangent but it does raise an issue that keeps coming up on this thread - how we handle scripture.

I'm going to outline two opposing methods, but please put me straight if I'm being unfair etc.

1. Biblical theology - I look for one coherent message to the whole Bible. This means that when I come to bits that don't seem to fit or appear to contradict each other I try to find someway to fit them into one coherent message. Of course the danger with this view is that I too easily go for reductionistic and simplistic answers, forcing things to fit. However, it does mean that I can't (or at least I shouldn't [Big Grin] )pick and choose which bits I listen to and which bits I don't.

2. Biblical theologies - others appear (IMHO) to have lost confidence in one coherent message to the bible. There are bits that contradict each other and there is no need to fit them together, or 'to square the circle'. The advantage of this is that we are freed up to genuinely listen to each bit, and don't end up cutting everything down to the same old doctrines. However, (IMHO) the significant disadvantage is that there is no objective criteria to help us decide what to go with and what to 'ignore'.


I raise this because I have encountered the frequent suggestion that option 2 is more intellectually honest. However, I disagree. I think it leads quickly to a position where the stance of the reader is absolute and the text is bent to my viewpoint.

I readily concur that Jesus is the prism with which we should view the scriptures. However, in practice that simply moves the above two options to focus on the gospels instead of the whole bible but still leaves us with the same problem.

Sorry about the tangent, but my guess is that we will always talk passed each other (to some degree) while we hold very different ways of handling the bible.

John.
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
quote:
"hardening Pharaoh's heart"
Let's not forget that if I say to a friend "you've made me angry" I don't mean that they've reached inside my skull and overridden my free will and flicked the angry switch, but rather I mean they've done something and I've responded with anger. They've only "made" me angry indirectly through their actions, not through any direct control of me. Hence we would use the phrases "you've made me angry" and "I'm angry at you because of what you did" pretty much interchangeably. It is interesting to note that the Pharaoh narrative does the same thing - throughout the passage it alternates between saying "Pharaoh hardened his heart" and saying "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" as if the two meant the same thing.
 
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Why couldn't they just have used paint?

Was the Angel of Death short-sighted, or did he use a sense of smell?

I think that this was answered by Starlight above:

quote:
Posted by Starlight:
blood, being the essence of living beings was thought to exist both in the spiritual and physical worlds

I have some other points that I'd like to bring up about CV and universalism, but I'll wait until we're done with the Exodus.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by davelarge:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Why couldn't they just have used paint?

Was the Angel of Death short-sighted, or did he use a sense of smell?

I think that this was answered by Starlight above:

quote:
Posted by Starlight:
blood, being the essence of living beings was thought to exist both in the spiritual and physical worlds


Yes, but where is the evidence for any of this?

And I'm the one accused of reading back into the text [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
JJ, I too am sorry but if your sin is not judged in Christ then you still carry its burden. You are not regenerated, born again or made a new creature. Gal 2:20 does not apply to you.You are still under the judgement of your fallen humanity and all the evil deeds which you have managed to accumulate not that you are different in that sense to any one of the rest of us.
Well, personally, I rather thought I was saved by grace through faith. pace Ephesians 2: 8-9. As a result of God's grace, I believe that the benefits of Galatians 2:20 do accrue to me. But I'd like to get what you are saying clear in my mind. Are you saying that I have to have a particular view of the atonement, that is, your view, in order to accrue those benefits? Are you saying that God's grace isn't sufficient ground for salvation, and that a "correct" doctrinal understanding is necessary as well? Because, if you are, where does that leave the, I guess, about 90% of the rest of christendom who do not, and never have, shared that understanding. Strewth, even a sizable minority of evangelicals don't take that view, let alone all the Catholics, non-Evo Protestants and Orthodoxen. Of course, you may not be saying that, and I may have misunderstood you, so feel free to clarify.

quote:
I find it utterly incomprehensible that the clear reading of scripture is rejected here in favour of a theological metaphor which sees blood sacrifice as something Christian thought has merely evolved out of and away from.
Several points, here. Firstly, blood sacrifice is one of the genuine strands of thinking about the atonement. The writer of Hebrews develops the theme exhaustively, because it was something which his target audience understood readily. We, however, are not first century Jews, so its relevance to us (though not its truth) will be limited. I'm not sure how useful a concept it is today, and suspect it causes more confusion than illumination, but that is not to say it isn't a valid way of understanding the Atonement. However blood sacrifice is not penal!! [brick wall]

Furthermore, the writer to Hebrews clearly states that the sacrifice of Jesus does indeed render the old testament concept of blood sacrifice redundant. If you want to put it that way, (I wouldn't) he agrees that we have "evolved out of it"!

But what I find really difficult to understand is the continuing assertion that PSA is "the clear teaching of Scripture". It is not. I can just about see that you could argue that it is, in fact, the teaching of scripture (though I don't think that it is) but how could it be clear when the vast number of Christians of whatever stripe down the ages, men and women genuinely committed to Christ, martyrs, some of them, for their faith, did not see it in scripture at all. I don't see how it is being condescending to point that fact out, along with some of the reasons why I would concur with them that it is a doctrine which, in fact, is not clearly taught in scripture.

quote:
Could I remind you of what 1 Pet 1:18,19 actually says: "we are redeemed with precious blood..the blood of Christ" Redeemed means bought. The blood is the purchase price! Hebrews 9:12 states that Christ entered the holy place by means of his own blood. Put this together with the scriptures on his death and we see not only that he died for our sins and was raised for our justification but also how this was possible.
Excellent case for a sacrificial understanding of the Atonement. Jesus death is, indeed, prefigured in the OT sacrificial system. Also, that Jesus death was instrumental in releasing us from bondage to sin is, without doubt, biblical teaching. Neither of these points, either jointly or severally, implies a penal understanding. As I have said before, such a sacrificial understanding is quite in line with the scriptures, and I have no problem with it. But it is not the same thing as PSA. I think that Starlight's extensive and solid analysis demonstrates why this is so.


quote:
Regarding your dismissal of inconvenient OT texts on God's anger and judgement as bronze age ancient belief systems, my view is that we must deal with scripture as holistic.
I absolutely agree with this, indeed, it was the point that I was trying to make. It is the whole account of scripture that must be assesed. And, since we are living post the incarnation (from a human perspective) I don't think it is unreasonable to read the OT texts in the light of the more complete revelation of God that we have in Jesus, as per Hebrews 1:1.

quote:
And incidentally,what do you do with Peter's opinion on 'penal substitution'? He says in 1 Pet 2:24 that "He himself (Christ) bore our sins in his body on the cross." Perhaps the one Jesus entrusted the keys of the kingdom to got it totally wrong. What say you?

I don't have a problem with the idea that the wieght of human (and, indeed, cosmic) evil was poured into Jesus on the cross. That is a good case for Christus Victor. In order to establish PSA you would have to show that God was dealing with that evil punitively, rather then by sacrifice and love. In short, and I know this is a bit of a simplification, and nuanced PSA-upholders will probably wince, (sorry, John) that God's anger was placated by that process.


quote:
Furthermore, Starlight, The Passover had the express purpose of shielding the Israelites from the judgement that came upon the Egyptians. The blood on the posts caused the angel of death to 'pass over' the house. This clearly implies a penal factor, an avoidance of judgement. Christ's death in the midst of the feast of Passover therefore carries the typological significance of his blood shielding believers from judgement. It is interesting that Passover was the first major feast of the Jewish year. Christ actually chose to die then to underline the necessity of regeneration, the complete cutting off of the ties of Egypt which is typologically the world. Our personal deliverance from sin and removal from worldly thinking is the first step in our transformation into his likeness.

Well, I agree with the second part of this clip. I don't think anyone here is denying the need for regeneration and sanctification. But there has been extensive discussion here as to why the Passover lamb is not, in fact, a penal image, but rather, is better understood from a CV POV, God defeating the enemies of His people. Merely stating that the Passover is "clearly penal", does not make it so.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by davelarge:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Why couldn't they just have used paint?

Was the Angel of Death short-sighted, or did he use a sense of smell?

I think that this was answered by Starlight above:

quote:
Posted by Starlight:
blood, being the essence of living beings was thought to exist both in the spiritual and physical worlds


Yes, but where is the evidence for any of this?

And I'm the one accused of reading back into the text [Big Grin]

Well, I guess we don't know exactly what a Bronze-age Jew understood by blood, but we do have some pretty firm examples of how those beliefs worked out in practice. It does seem to be a sign of committment, of covenant ratification, and it does seem to have been thought to be capable of reminding God of His promises. Not much penal about it though, istm. There was blood associated with repentance, but it was blood shed to "remind God" (we are talking Bronze-age, here) of His covenant to (anachronistically) "remember their sins no more". But it was the covenant, (that is, grace)not the sacrifice, which brought forgiveness. It was the goat that was the sin-bearer, and that was not sacrificed/punished.

[ 25. May 2007, 09:39: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Doulos (# 12388) on :
 
I've been following all this PSA/CV stuff, and I've got two questions which may sound cheeky or frivolous but I do want to ask them seriously.

Firstly, what we are talking about is how Christ redeemed the world - not if, but how. Therefore, is it absolutely necessary for christians to understand how, or is it enough just to accept and be grateful that Christ did redeem us? I think of the simple affirmations of faith made by so many people whom Jesus touched - is that enough, or is the understanding of what the redemption means so fundamental to christian faith that we really must be clear on what our understanding of salvation is?

Secondly, is it possible to be bowled over by both Christus Victor and aspects of PSA? Or are the two positions so contradictory that they cannot possibly be sychronised? The reason I ask is that I have got so much out of reading all these debates, but am still not very clear as to 'where I stand' and find both CV and PSA (in certain expressions) remarkable, wonderful and compelling, and suspect that the ultimate truth is far bigger than any of us could ever know.

If these questions have already been answered elsewhere, just say! [Smile] And if they are very basic and obvious, please excuse my ignorance! [Smile]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I'm not sure that back-filling a justification that makes us comfortable with the story is really the best way to approach scripture, however.

--Tom Clune

This is probably a tangent but it does raise an issue that keeps coming up on this thread - how we handle scripture.

I'm going to outline two opposing methods, but please put me straight if I'm being unfair etc.

1. Biblical theology - I look for one coherent message to the whole Bible. This means that when I come to bits that don't seem to fit or appear to contradict each other I try to find someway to fit them into one coherent message. Of course the danger with this view is that I too easily go for reductionistic and simplistic answers, forcing things to fit. However, it does mean that I can't (or at least I shouldn't [Big Grin] )pick and choose which bits I listen to and which bits I don't.

2. Biblical theologies - others appear (IMHO) to have lost confidence in one coherent message to the bible. There are bits that contradict each other and there is no need to fit them together, or 'to square the circle'. The advantage of this is that we are freed up to genuinely listen to each bit, and don't end up cutting everything down to the same old doctrines. However, (IMHO) the significant disadvantage is that there is no objective criteria to help us decide what to go with and what to 'ignore'.

I raise this because I have encountered the frequent suggestion that option 2 is more intellectually honest. However, I disagree. I think it leads quickly to a position where the stance of the reader is absolute and the text is bent to my viewpoint.

Hi, Johnny. I think this is an interesting point. I am a hard-core Methodist. Literally the only thing that I can think of that I have rejected in John Wesley's thought is wrapped up in this issue. Wesley, like the Church as a whole before him, explicitly embraced the first view. Indeed, he urges people to look at apparent contradictions in scripture and use the "clearer" passage to interpret the murkier one.

Wesley's approach continues to be the main line in approaching scriptures AFAICS, and is a powerful one. On this board, Freddy uses exactly this approach to great effect. So I do not want to sound dismissive of it. But I no longer find it the right approach for me.

The reason is that I find it too distorting when I apply it. In my hands, it has exactly the disadvantage that you attribute to the second approach, but in a somehwat different form. When I create the unity within the scriptures, I enforce my preferences upon the text.

When I acknowledge apparent contradictions or significant differences of viewpoint, I find that it leaves the issue open for me to revisit as I grow spiritually or increase my knowledge of Biblical times. I may or may not end up resolving the tension in the text, but I have clearly marked that it exists within my current understanding. If I force a unity that is beyond my current understanding, I find that the issue tends to become closed in my thinking. Of course, YMMV.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doulos:

...what we are talking about is how Christ redeemed the world - not if, but how. Therefore, is it absolutely necessary for christians to understand how, or is it enough just to accept and be grateful that Christ did redeem us? I think of the simple affirmations of faith made by so many people whom Jesus touched - is that enough, or is the understanding of what the redemption means so fundamental to christian faith that we really must be clear on what our understanding of salvation is?

In one sense, you are right, this discussion is secondary to the fact, accepted by both sides of this debate, that Jesus did, in deed, redeem us. But, nevertheless, I do think that truth matters, partly (mainly) because of the baggage that flawed theology carries with it. For instance, do we believe that God's implacable wrath is directed towards His fallen creatures, wrath that can only be satisfied by the willing sacrifice of His Son? If we do, then we will have a very different picture of God from that which we will have if we believe that what He was doing through Jesus on the cross was launching a rescue bid for those whom He loves unconditionally. Do we believe that forgiveness is more powerful than punishment in dealing with sin, or do we believe that forgiveness is only possible if the penalty for sin is paid to God. The picture of God which we hold will have a powerful effect on our spiritual development, for good or ill. It will also potentially affect how we deal with our brothers and sisters, and the world. It might also affect whether we see our brothes and sisters as such, or not. These are important issues, not at all esoteric. The doctrine point of itself is less important than the effects upon our life of believing that doctrine. We become like that which we worship.
quote:

Secondly, is it possible to be bowled over by both Christus Victor and aspects of PSA? Or are the two positions so contradictory that they cannot possibly be sychronised? The reason I ask is that I have got so much out of reading all these debates, but am still not very clear as to 'where I stand' and find both CV and PSA (in certain expressions) remarkable, wonderful and compelling, and suspect that the ultimate truth is far bigger than any of us could ever know.

This largely depends on whether you think one of the two views is "wrong". Those who hold nuanced views of PSA, and who accept CV, and there are plenty of them, not least Johnny S of this parish, are quite able to hold the two in tension, and it is a very honourable position to take. It's just that I can't do it. For me, PSA is like a lie told against God. Not that I'm accusing anyone who holds that view of lying against God, it's just that's the effect the doctrine has on me. It seems, to me, to portray God as someOne who behaves in a way which we would find reprehensible in a human being, and, furthermore, in a way which, far from being scriptural, is the antithesis of Jesus' teaching.

But the question is certainly one which requires an answer.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
So, in order to fully embrace CV one needs to first reject the idea that the prophecy of Isaiah refers to Jesus?

K.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
So, in order to fully embrace CV one needs to first reject the idea that the prophecy of Isaiah refers to Jesus?

K.

Well, first of all, the reason that I reject PSA is not so much that it conflicts with CV, but rather that it conflicts with the whole teaching of Scripture. Notwithstanding that, one need not, in order to reject PSA, necessarily dispute that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus, rather one could reject the PSA-like reading of it. If you look at the article linked to earlier, there is quite a detailed discussion of Isaiah 53 in the context of CV (towards the end of Part 4).

It's not by chance that Isaiah 53 comes up so often. It is the one text that could genuinely be interpredted, at face value, to seem to support PSA. This isolation, in itself, should make us cautious in our exegesis. If the biblical view of the atonement really is PSA, we should expect to find it writ large throughout the scripture, rather than cofined to a single verse in a single passage.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Nevermind. I typed that before I thought it through.

[Roll Eyes]

K.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
So, in order to fully embrace CV one needs to first reject the idea that the prophecy of Isaiah refers to Jesus?

K.

Yes. Isaiah was referring to the people of Israel.
 
Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
"hardening Pharaoh's heart"
Let's not forget that if I say to a friend "you've made me angry" I don't mean that they've reached inside my skull and overridden my free will and flicked the angry switch, but rather I mean they've done something and I've responded with anger.
That's really helpful, thanks! I've always found that passage a major stumbling-block, but your analysis makes some sense of it.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Today has been an interesting day, amongst other things I was praying in Gloucester cathedral this afternoon and have got back to find that JJ has described me as 'very honourable' ... is that like 'right reverend'? Still, most things I get called aren't very polite.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
So, in order to fully embrace CV one needs to first reject the idea that the prophecy of Isaiah refers to Jesus?

K.

Yes. Isaiah was referring to the people of Israel.
Strictly speaking Isaiah was referring to 'the Servant of the Lord' which is obviously a personification of Israel. The question is whether or not Isaiah 53 looks forward to Jesus as the personification of Israel. The Synoptic gospels (in particular) clearly picture Jesus as being 'true Israel' ... e.g. succeeding in the wilderness where Israel failed.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
For instance, do we believe that God's implacable wrath is directed towards His fallen creatures, wrath that can only be satisfied by the willing sacrifice of His Son? If we do, then we will have a very different picture of God from that which we will have if we believe that what He was doing through Jesus on the cross was launching a rescue bid for those whom He loves unconditionally. Do we believe that forgiveness is more powerful than punishment in dealing with sin, or do we believe that forgiveness is only possible if the penalty for sin is paid to God. The picture of God which we hold will have a powerful effect on our spiritual development, for good or ill.

Just a comment from personal experience, rather than any significant argument. I've been in a 'PSA supporting environment' all my life but I can honestly say that it never occurred to me that God wants me to act towards others in any other way than in unconditional forgiveness. My intuitive 'default' position was that God's justice created a framework for the world (as it were) that enabled me to forgive unconditionally.

I know that doesn't prove anything. (It could be that I'm so freakishly mixed up that I've come full circle [Snigger] .)

I suppose it's like getting smacked as a child ... it ain't done me no 'arm! (That's a joke btw before I get endless replies [Devil] )
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Strictly speaking Isaiah was referring to 'the Servant of the Lord' which is obviously a personification of Israel. The question is whether or not Isaiah 53 looks forward to Jesus as the personification of Israel. The Synoptic gospels (in particular) clearly picture Jesus as being 'true Israel' ... e.g. succeeding in the wilderness where Israel failed.
I think I'd want to say that Jesus is the fulfilment of Israel rather than that he succeeded where Israel failed and that the sojourn in the wilderness typologically anticipates Jesus' fasting for forty days and forty nights. I think - I am not accusing you of this, Johnny - there is a danger of the kind of lazy 'the Jews failed miserably and then Jesus came to set them right' theology which one hears to often from the pulpit. Given the fraught history of Christian - Jewish relationships it is necessary to be precise about this sort of thing.

That said, I think that you are right on the substantive point inasmuch as the Church has always understood the suffering servant bit to refer to our Lord (which is not incompatible with Isaiah meaning something else, again, Christ is the fulfilment of the Hebrew Scriptures).

It is certainly the case that one can understand the language of 'pierced for our transgressions' in the sense of, er, Pierced For Our Transgressions. I disagree with PSA but I wouldn't accuse PSA advocates of just making this stuff up, there are undoubtedly passages in Scripture which PSA advocates can point to with some justice and say "ooh, lookee here! PSA!" just as those of us who hold other views can point to stuff and go "ooh! Anselm!" or "ooh! Christus Victor!" The question is where Scripture as a whole takes us to which, I gather, you would answer "different metaphors of the atonement including PSA" and I'd probably want to say something like "Christus Victor with Anselm's satisfaction theory as the explanation of how the victory is achieved with undoubted penal bits but not in the sense that Jesus is punished in our stead, if you see what I mean, and a bit of moral example thrown in but not as a central explanation of the atonement".

Which, I freely concede, would make a lousy book title. But I don't think isolated texts cut it for whatever version of the atonement one subscribes to.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I think I'd want to say that Jesus is the fulfilment of Israel rather than that he succeeded where Israel failed and that the sojourn in the wilderness typologically anticipates Jesus' fasting for forty days and forty nights. I think - I am not accusing you of this, Johnny - there is a danger of the kind of lazy 'the Jews failed miserably and then Jesus came to set them right' theology which one hears to often from the pulpit. Given the fraught history of Christian - Jewish relationships it is necessary to be precise about this sort of thing.

While clearly not wanting to antagonise Jewish/Christian relations I'm not sure how else the gospel writers want us to take this? In Luke's account each of the 3 responses Jesus gives to the devil is a quote from Deuteronomy (the book of obedience) - is it just a coincidence that the 40 days mirrors the 40 years? And the the way the narrative ends? (the Israelites had repeatedly put God to the test in the wilderness!)


quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
"Christus Victor with Anselm's satisfaction theory as the explanation of how the victory is achieved with undoubted penal bits but not in the sense that Jesus is punished in our stead, if you see what I mean, and a bit of moral example thrown in but not as a central explanation of the atonement".

Have you ever considered a career in publishing?
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I think I'd want to say that Jesus is the fulfilment of Israel rather than that he succeeded where Israel failed and that the sojourn in the wilderness typologically anticipates Jesus' fasting for forty days and forty nights. I think - I am not accusing you of this, Johnny - there is a danger of the kind of lazy 'the Jews failed miserably and then Jesus came to set them right' theology which one hears to often from the pulpit. Given the fraught history of Christian - Jewish relationships it is necessary to be precise about this sort of thing.

While clearly not wanting to antagonise Jewish/Christian relations I'm not sure how else the gospel writers want us to take this? In Luke's account each of the 3 responses Jesus gives to the devil is a quote from Deuteronomy (the book of obedience) - is it just a coincidence that the 40 days mirrors the 40 years? And the the way the narrative ends? (the Israelites had repeatedly put God to the test in the wilderness!)
Hmmm. I'm not sure the Gospels or the subsequent tradition would see the Exodus as a failure. The Israelites did skip Egypt and, eventually, make it to the promised land, after all. Can we agree that Jesus achieved perfectly what the Exodus and the sojourn in the wilderness foreshadowed imperfectly?

[ 25. May 2007, 20:04: Message edited by: Callan ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Can we agree that Jesus achieved perfectly what the Exodus and the sojourn in the wilderness foreshadowed imperfectly?

Agreed [Cool]
 
Posted by Doulos (# 12388) on :
 
Jolly Jape, thank you for such a reasoned, thoughtful answer. I am still working through the various points of view so I won't try and leap in with any ill-informed half-constructed arguments (not just yet, anyway!) [Smile]

Needless to say I'm reading (slowly) and thinking (even more slowly!)...
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I was chatting to a friend today who is doing a PhD in Leviticus - I can only presume that he's going to get a BIG reward in heaven - and (naturally [Biased] ) asked him what he thought about the sacrifices in the OT.

It may not surprise you all to know that he is a PSA guy but I was interested to hear that his recent study of Leviticus has only strengthened his opinion.

Two verses in particular which he came across in his research were very interesting:

"If any meat of the fellowship offering is eaten on the third day, it will not be accepted. It will not be credited to the one who offered it, for it is impure; the person who eats any of it will be held responsible." (Lev. 7: 18)

"When you sacrifice a thank offering to the LORD,
sacrifice it in such a way that it will be accepted on your behalf." (Lev. 22: 29)

What is striking is how developed the penal language is - this is language of 'crediting' the effect of the sacrifice to the 'account' of the Israelite.

I'm yet again puzzled by those who claim that PSA is 'sub-biblical'... but I'm sure there will be a queue of people waiting to put me right [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Apologies for the double post but I'll be busy tomorrow and so thought I'd better leave you all plenty to get your teeth into. [Big Grin]

I've been thinking this week a lot about the charge against PSA that it pictures God as saying 'do as I say and not as I do' in the realm of forgiving unconditionally.

It struck me how apparently self-obsessed God is when it comes to worship. He wants us to worship him and only him. However, he doesn't expect us to go around treating each other in the same way (... although there are a few people that I do wonder about ...) and yet no one seems to be bothered about this. It is just a case of ... 'yes, but he's God, isn't he!'

Why can't we apply the same logic to Romans 12 v 19?
[Two face]

John.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

I've been thinking this week a lot about the charge against PSA that it pictures God as saying 'do as I say and not as I do' in the realm of forgiving unconditionally.

It struck me how apparently self-obsessed God is when it comes to worship. He wants us to worship him and only him. However, he doesn't expect us to go around treating each other in the same way (... although there are a few people that I do wonder about ...) and yet no one seems to be bothered about this. It is just a case of ... 'yes, but he's God, isn't he!'

Why can't we apply the same logic to Romans 12 v 19?
[Two face]

John.

Hoping others will have a more eloquent take on this, but to me that's apples and oranges. Loving God above other available deities is in our best interest--it's a position internally consistent with the desires of God both for Himself and for His people. I don't think we shrug it off with "yes, but he's God, isn't he"--that implies a "I don't get it, and I wouldn't do it, but I accept that he's outside the rules."

If one wishes others to accept that about the concept of PSA, I think more support is in order. It seems to me that you could justify divine kitten-eating just as easily with the logic of "but he's God, isn't he". Wouldn't make it consistent with what Jesus shows of the nature of God.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:


[QUOTE] A penal substitutionary account leaves more questions than it gives answers though: Why on earth would God want to kill the firstborn Israelites? Why would he perform this judgment against Israel? Why does the biblical account give no hint that Israel has sinned or angered god or incurred his wrath? Why does the account not say that the Lamb is a substitute? How does the death of the lamb serve as a penal substitute – does it exhaust the angel of death’s killing power or what? If so, why do the Israelites themselves kill the Lamb rather than the angel of death? etc A penal substitutionary theory does not at all flow naturally out of the Passover accounts, you’ve got to already believe in the atonement theory of Penal Substitution and read it backwards into the Passover under the belief that the Passover must have functioned like Christ’s atonement. Over the years I’ve seen more than a few Christians engage in the curiously circular logic that (1) the Passover (and sacrifices in general) must have functioned like Christ’s atonement (ie penal substitution), and that therefore (2) the fact that Christ died on Passover like the sacrificial lamb proves he is a penal substitute since that’s how the Passover sacrifice worked.

God didn't want to kill them. So he didn't. He protected them with the blood of the passover lamb.
Israel were of course tainted with sinfulness as evidenced by later events. That sinfulness meant they needed that protection though of course the whole rescue mission was about God keeping his covenant with Abraham and latterly Jacob.
The lamb is representative of a life-in-lieu which of course is the principle of sacrifice so common in the OT beginning with God clothing the first couple with skins, to Abel, to Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac etc etc. It may not have stated it was a penal substitute but it is in a long line of substitution tradition!
How does it function? Well the issue of a life for a life was established post flood. Advocates of capital punishment still quote that today.(Gen 9:6) It is clearly stated that the life is seen by God as 'in' the blood. (Lev 17:11) Blood shed always implies a life taken. The lamb functioned as a prototype of the Saviour's function. All things in scripture look forward to the cross and back to it. The blood of an animal was a temporary solution to cover sin pending the time when Christ would enter the throne room of heaven with his own blood (Heb 9:12)which was shed once for all, eliminating for all time the need for a sacrificial system.
Incidentally, a close reading of the Gospels from a Jewish perspective suggests that the hand of the sanhedrin was forced to arrest and try Jesus at the deeply inconvenient time of a Passover feast. It seems that Christ himself triggered this by exposing Judas at the last supper and forcing his hand. It is not what they would have wanted. He ensured his own death in the midst of Passover. I would say therefore that Christ clearly saw himself as the ultimate Passover lamb. This is of course, a view shared by John the Baptist, and John the gospel writer who quoted the former, as referring to Christ as the 'Lamb' of God.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
HI JJ. You are indeed saved by grace through faith but your faith is in the efficacy of his blood as an atoning sacrifice. (Ro 5: 9 and 3:25). Grace is based in faith that Christ has died for you and his death involved shedding of blood, taking of life (plod plod) and you are hereby set free from both your sins and your sinfulness because God accepts the life of Christ in your place. He has punished himself instead of you but not only has he done this, the resurrection of Christ also includes us in his likeness. Wonderful! I can now live free of the shackles of sin that held me before. Why don't I always? Well I'm stupid enough to still seek the comfort of old ways on occasion thus requiring a continual renewal of forgiveness which because of God's great love and mercy, is always available.

Blood sacrifice is not 'penal'? Well a penalty is a cost, a price. And the price for sin is a life and a life 'taken-in-lieu' is a penalty and a penalty is 'penal'. I can't understand why you and others seem to think justice can be defined as forgiveness without a forfeit. If we, made in God's image demand retribution of our criminals, why is it so awful for the creator to put the price of a life on sin? The great news is that he paid the price himself. Is that really so repulsively awful? Is the God that does this less worthy to be worshiped because he is 'violent', 'retributive' and 'penal'?
The point you make about sacrificial not being penal I find weird. Sacrifice always had a penal factor in the sense that it was a blood price a life price and in the OT this was always an accepted way to show repentance to God for one's own faults, and to enable God's blessing consequent to such an act of worship. It was costly to sacrifice an animal. It is interesting in Genesis to note that when God contacted Abraham, the response was inevitably the building of an altar and a blood sacrifice. The near sacrifice of Isaac as a burnt offering was indeed God's ultimate test of Abraham's faith was it not? and When God spared the life of Isaac the NT states that Abraham received him as one resurrected from death. Isaac thus becomes a perfect type of the Saviour. My point is that while 'penal' is not a bible term as such, yet a death in sacrificial terms constantly implies price and cost.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
HI JJ. You are indeed saved by grace through faith but your faith is in the efficacy of his blood as an atoning sacrifice. (Ro 5: 9 and 3:25). Grace is based in faith that Christ has died for you and his death involved shedding of blood, taking of life (plod plod) and you are hereby set free from both your sins and your sinfulness because God accepts the life of Christ in your place. He has punished himself instead of you but not only has he done this, the resurrection of Christ also includes us in his likeness. Wonderful! I can now live free of the shackles of sin that held me before. Why don't I always? Well I'm stupid enough to still seek the comfort of old ways on occasion thus requiring a continual renewal of forgiveness which because of God's great love and mercy, is always available.

Well, actually, my faith is based on God's faithfulness, but my salvation is based on God's grace. The mechanism you describe is one way of understanding as to how it all works. I don't think that our faith should be in those mechanics, but rather in the One whom we both agree acted in history to secure that salvation. Our faith is based on grace, grace cannot be based on faith, by definition, as it would then not be grace. The whole point of grace is that it is always initiated by the giver.

I agree asbsolutely that we are set free from our sinful nature by the atonement, but it has nothing to do with punishment.

quote:
Blood sacrifice is not 'penal'? Well a penalty is a cost, a price. And the price for sin is a life and a life 'taken-in-lieu' is a penalty and a penalty is 'penal'. I can't understand why you and others seem to think justice can be defined as forgiveness without a forfeit. If we, made in God's image demand retribution of our criminals, why is it so awful for the creator to put the price of a life on sin? The great news is that he paid the price himself. Is that really so repulsively awful? Is the God that does this less worthy to be worshiped because he is 'violent', 'retributive' and 'penal'?

The word penal does not, as you suggest, merely imply a price or a cost. The words "ransom" and "redeem", words which I accept are appropriate metaphors for the Atonement, imply a cost or a price. Penal implies a punishment. There are plenty of examples of people sacrificing their lives for others without a penal dimension. Is the man killed in the act of pushing a child from the path of an oncoming train being "punished"? Of course not. Yet his blood is nevertheless shed to save another.

As a matter of fact, I don't see forgiveness in the context of justice at all. Forgiveness is pecisely forgiveness because it is not loaded with judicial baggage. It is free and unconstrained. How, then, can it carry any forfeit. If it were to carry such a forfiet it would not be forgiveness. You can't say to someone, "I will forgive you if you do thus and so," because you would then not really be forgiving them.

The reason that we have a retributive justice system is because it is impossible, from our perspective and within the constraints of a fallen world. for us to have a restorative one. We can't bring the murdered child back to life, nor can we heal the horror endured by the parents. But God can do that: He can "unmake" the wrong.

You ask, "Is that really so repulsively awful? Is the God that does this less worthy to be worshiped because he is 'violent', 'retributive' and 'penal'?" The answer is that, if this really is God's nature, how is He any better than humankind. So, yes, compared with a God who does not behave in this way, but rather behaves like Jesus, who was none of these things, yes, He is less worthy.

quote:
The point you make about sacrificial not being penal I find weird. Sacrifice always had a penal factor in the sense that it was a blood price a life price and in the OT this was always an accepted way to show repentance to God for one's own faults, and to enable God's blessing consequent to such an act of worship. It was costly to sacrifice an animal. It is interesting in Genesis to note that when God contacted Abraham, the response was inevitably the building of an altar and a blood sacrifice. The near sacrifice of Isaac as a burnt offering was indeed God's ultimate test of Abraham's faith was it not? and When God spared the life of Isaac the NT states that Abraham received him as one resurrected from death. Isaac thus becomes a perfect type of the Saviour. My point is that while 'penal' is not a bible term as such, yet a death in sacrificial terms constantly implies price and cost.

But death in sacrificial terms is no more penal than is the death of the hypothetical man pushing the child out of the way of the train. I repeat, I accept that Jesus death can accurately be described as sacrificial. That is not the same as being penal.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

There are plenty of examples of people sacrificing their lives for others without a penal dimension. Is the man killed in the act of pushing a child from the path of an oncoming train being "punished"? Of course not. Yet his blood is nevertheless shed to save another.

As usual JJ - fair points to make.

The above example is a commonly used one and worth exploring (I think [Smile] ).

First of all (ISTM) it shows that Christ's death has to be substitutionary. I know you don't dispute this but I just want to underline the fact. A sacrifice has to be, in some sense, substitutionary.

Secondly, why can't we see the penal aspect as inherent in the world God created? If death is the 'punishment' for rebelling against God, then is it possible to say that any death is God's 'punishment'? God created this world and so why is not okay to see 'cause and effect' also as an outworking of both his grace and his judgment?

John.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
God created this world and so why is not okay to see 'cause and effect' also as an outworking of both his grace and his judgment?

John, if you are willing to take it that far, and still call it PSA, then this finally moves PSA into territory that is acceptable to me. You are basically saying that any kind of cause and effect related to Christ that influences us is PSA. I can buy that. He did things. He fought where we could not, in our place. We benefit.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If death is the 'punishment' for rebelling against God, then is it possible to say that any death is God's 'punishment'?

I wouldn't quite go along with that. Passing from the physical world into the spiritual world when the physical body wears out is normal and always has been. The "death" that is "punishment" is spiritual death, or the lack of life that results from turning away from God - a more fundamental kind of extinction.

While this is what Christ's death was in the minds of those who hated Him, His death was actually very different from this. Not a punishment at all, but a victory.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Passing from the physical world into the spiritual world when the physical body wears out is normal and always has been. The "death" that is "punishment" is spiritual death, or the lack of life that results from turning away from God - a more fundamental kind of extinction.

Isn't this a sort of Gnostic dualism? (Setting up the physical as 'this world' and the spiritual as 'the other world'.)
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Secondly, why can't we see the penal aspect as inherent in the world God created? If death is the 'punishment' for rebelling against God, then is it possible to say that any death is God's 'punishment'? God created this world and so why is not okay to see 'cause and effect' also as an outworking of both his grace and his judgment?

My problem is that I don't think you can have grace and justice. One of them has to 'win' in the end. This is the whole problem with PSA; it reflects the human psyche's inability to endure pure grace and really believe that everything is gift (n.b. I have a problem with this too!)

AFAIC, in PSA, justice 'wins' in the end. And I don't want to go to 'heaven' with an angry God who demands justice, because I really do believe that I'm as sinful as the next guy.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
Addendum: for 'justice' in my previous post, read 'retributive justice'. That more accurately reflects what I meant to say.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:

AFAIC, in PSA, justice 'wins' in the end. And I don't want to go to 'heaven' with an angry God who demands justice, because I really do believe that I'm as sinful as the next guy.

??? [Ultra confused] ???

Then you have a problem accepting God's grace then, not his justice?
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:

AFAIC, in PSA, justice 'wins' in the end. And I don't want to go to 'heaven' with an angry God who demands justice, because I really do believe that I'm as sinful as the next guy.

??? [Ultra confused] ???

Then you have a problem accepting God's grace then, not his justice?

I don't see it that way. I don't have a hard time with "God forgives". I have a hard time with "God doesn't forgive before someone gets punished".

"God forgives" was always there. The bit that PSA thought was missing was the bit about someone having to get hurt first.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
because I really do believe that I'm as sinful as the next guy.

Maybe, but then what has the above comment got to do with the discussion?
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
because I really do believe that I'm as sinful as the next guy.

Maybe, but then what has the above comment got to do with the discussion?
Let me try this step by step:

1) Hold on a minute! Salvation can't just be about grace, it has to be about justice too. There has to be punishment of wrong-doing.

2) OK, so we need retributive justice then (and we all know how that's paid for).

3) Now you have a 'justice problem'. Mr. Patel, the Hindu, who devoted his life to good works and to helping many people reaps the consequences of his sinful act of not believing in Christ by being given no option but to be damned to hell. Mr. Jones, who terrorised his own and several families during his lifetime and who sincerely converted to Christ on his deathbed is reaping the consequences of his moral act of converting to Christ by being rewarded with heaven.

Number 3 is not justice. Retributive justice doesn't work. In a world, or cosmos or Reality where retributive justice is King (which is what I think PSA says), all you have is a bunch of people who are wounded, in the process of hurting each other or dead.

Christianity is about grace. As sandalous as grace is. Christ is King. God is supreme. PSA makes law and retribution King.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Passing from the physical world into the spiritual world when the physical body wears out is normal and always has been. The "death" that is "punishment" is spiritual death, or the lack of life that results from turning away from God - a more fundamental kind of extinction.

Isn't this a sort of Gnostic dualism? (Setting up the physical as 'this world' and the spiritual as 'the other world'.)
Gnostic dualism? I think that the dualism of "heaven" and "earth" is implicit in the Bible.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Gnostic dualism? I think that the dualism of "heaven" and "earth" is implicit in the Bible.

Is it? Where does the 'new heaven AND earth' fit into that then?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Now you have a 'justice problem'. Mr. Patel, the Hindu, who devoted his life to good works and to helping many people reaps the consequences of his sinful act of not believing in Christ by being given no option but to be damned to hell. Mr. Jones, who terrorised his own and several families during his lifetime and who sincerely converted to Christ on his deathbed is reaping the consequences of his moral act of converting to Christ by being rewarded with heaven.

[Confused]

You seem to be confusing PSA with a belief in salvation by faith in Christ alone?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Gnostic dualism? I think that the dualism of "heaven" and "earth" is implicit in the Bible.

Is it? Where does the 'new heaven AND earth' fit into that then?
The new heaven and the new earth are joined. They are not the same thing.

But maybe I am misunderstanding you. Are you thinking that there is no such thing as heaven? Or that this is not different than the physical world that we see with our eyes? [Confused]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Now you have a 'justice problem'. Mr. Patel, the Hindu, who devoted his life to good works and to helping many people reaps the consequences of his sinful act of not believing in Christ by being given no option but to be damned to hell. Mr. Jones, who terrorised his own and several families during his lifetime and who sincerely converted to Christ on his deathbed is reaping the consequences of his moral act of converting to Christ by being rewarded with heaven.

[Confused]

You seem to be confusing PSA with a belief in salvation by faith in Christ alone?

PSA is trying to insert retributive justice into a system that it sees as being otherwise unjust - that God 'just fortives'. Do we agree on that?

I'm saying two things, I think:

1) Your justice is only just in some limited circumstances. Crucifying Christ for the sins of Hitler might feel something like 'justice'. Crucifying Christ because Mr. Patel who helped hundreds but wasn't a Christian isn't justice.

2) PSA insists, as far as I can logically tell, that law is superior to God's grace. PSA insists, as far as I can tell, that God is unable to forgive until law is satisfied. (Perfectly understandable in the cultural context that PSA was developed but equally problematic to me as the problems people find with other theories.)
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

But maybe I am misunderstanding you. Are you thinking that there is no such thing as heaven? Or that this is not different than the physical world that we see with our eyes? [Confused]

Yep, misunderstanding. 'Heaven' exists but there is both continuity and discontinuity with this life (according to Paul in 1 Cor. 15).

My point earlier was that you seemed to be entirely separating physical death with spiritual death. ISTM that in the bible they are linked.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:

I'm saying two things, I think:

1) Your justice is only just in some limited circumstances. Crucifying Christ for the sins of Hitler might feel something like 'justice'. Crucifying Christ because Mr. Patel who helped hundreds but wasn't a Christian isn't justice.

I still think you are confusing several issues here. The whole point of PSA is that it is universal, no one has ever said that you can do a like for like swap between Jesus and Hitler or Jesus and Mr. Patel. All our sins, cumulatively, are placed on Christ. Some of us ( [Big Grin] ) contribute considerably more than others. Also nobody is saying that Mr. Patel is punished for all the good things he has done. I don't think your problem (on this point) is with PSA.


quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:

2) PSA insists, as far as I can logically tell, that law is superior to God's grace. PSA insists, as far as I can tell, that God is unable to forgive until law is satisfied. (Perfectly understandable in the cultural context that PSA was developed but equally problematic to me as the problems people find with other theories.)

I thought you weren't too bothered with systematics!

I've never come across any PSA argument that claims that law is superior to grace. That may be the conclusion that you draw but we could have a similar discussion about predestination vs. freewill.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Yep, misunderstanding. 'Heaven' exists but there is both continuity and discontinuity with this life (according to Paul in 1 Cor. 15).

Yes. Good.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My point earlier was that you seemed to be entirely separating physical death with spiritual death. ISTM that in the bible they are linked.

Yes, linked. But they are not the same thing. the one represents the other.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, linked. But they are not the same thing. the one represents the other.

Okay, so how you can distinguish them so completely then? (i.e. physical death NOT = punishment / spiritual death = punishment)
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I still think you are confusing several issues here. The whole point of PSA is that it is universal, no one has ever said that you can do a like for like swap between Jesus and Hitler or Jesus and Mr. Patel. All our sins, cumulatively, are placed on Christ. Some of us ( ) contribute considerably more than others. Also nobody is saying that Mr. Patel is punished for all the good things he has done. I don't think your problem (on this point) is with PSA.

But isn't part of what's going on the formulation of PSA an objection that goes something like: "Hey! Wait a minute! You mean to tell me that if Hitler had accepted Christ, God would 'just forgive' him without someone being punished first? That's not just!"

I thought that was your objection?

I don't think that you can have retributive justice in a grace-based system of forgiveness. It doesn't work. (Restorative justice does work, though. [Big Grin] )
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
And I think, if you can do it right, restorative justice is a lot more effective than retributive justice, in the long run. It's certainly easier to clean up after...

[ETA spelling fix]

[ 28. May 2007, 19:00: Message edited by: mirrizin ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
You mean to tell me that if Hitler had accepted Christ, God would 'just forgive' him without someone being punished first?

This is getting surreal. Rather than objecting to it, any PSAer would agree with the above statement ... of course Christ had already been 'punished' [Big Grin]
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Blood sacrifice is not 'penal'? Well a penalty is a cost, a price. And the price for sin is a life and a life 'taken-in-lieu' is a penalty and a penalty is 'penal'. I can't understand why you and others seem to think justice can be defined as forgiveness without a forfeit. If we, made in God's image demand retribution of our criminals, why is it so awful for the creator to put the price of a life on sin? The great news is that he paid the price himself. Is that really so repulsively awful? Is the God that does this less worthy to be worshiped because he is 'violent', 'retributive' and 'penal'?

<uberSNIP>

It is interesting in Genesis to note that when God contacted Abraham, the response was inevitably the building of an altar and a blood sacrifice. The near sacrifice of Isaac as a burnt offering was indeed God's ultimate test of Abraham's faith was it not? and When God spared the life of Isaac the NT states that Abraham received him as one resurrected from death. Isaac thus becomes a perfect type of the Saviour.

I don't agree. Not to open a can of rhetorical whup-ass on this debate, but when is God more God? When he allegedly tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, or when he stays Abraham's hand?

Given that humanity is made in the image of God, I still have a hard time thinking that we are at our most God-like when demanding retribution of our criminals. I think God can do better than that. I think we can learn to do better than that. And I have always looked to Jesus to show me how that's done.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
Not to open a can of rhetorical whup-ass on this debate, but when is God more God? When he allegedly tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, or when he stays Abraham's hand?

Good point. Genesis 22 could be read either way.

quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
Given that humanity is made in the image of God, I still have a hard time thinking that we are at our most God-like when demanding retribution of our criminals. I think God can do better than that. I think we can learn to do better than that. And I have always looked to Jesus to show me how that's done.

As I keep saying, a belief in PSA does not mean that we demand retribution towards criminals. Logically, it should demand the opposite. If Christ has received the punishment we all deserve then there is now no need for retribution. Otherwise one is asking for the 'punishment' to be paid twice!

I know a lot of you think I'm mad to do so but I feel strongly that my PSA actively pushes me towards unconditional forgiveness.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by infinite_monkey:
Given that humanity is made in the image of God, I still have a hard time thinking that we are at our most God-like when demanding retribution of our criminals. I think God can do better than that. I think we can learn to do better than that. And I have always looked to Jesus to show me how that's done.

Amen!

The problem is not just a matter of what the specific mechanism God used, it's also a matter of which mechanisms we emulate. If God's model is perfect justice, then we must be called, as small children to their parents, to emulate perfect justice.

And perfect justice does not mean beating the shit out of the resident scapegoat and hanging him from a tree!

ETA:

quote:
I know a lot of you think I'm mad to do so but I feel strongly that my PSA actively pushes me towards unconditional forgiveness.
More power to it, then. I don't think that I'm out to bash PSA, or that the existence of perceived pros of CV necessarily are to devalue PSA. It's just that for some of us PSA isn't really cutting it. To me, CV makes a lot more sense and is much more empowering.

[ 28. May 2007, 19:19: Message edited by: mirrizin ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
The problem is not just a matter of what the specific mechanism God used, it's also a matter of which mechanisms we emulate. If God's model is perfect justice, then we must be called, as small children to their parents, to emulate perfect justice.

And perfect justice does not mean beating the shit out of the resident scapegoat and hanging him from a tree!

I don't think you read my last post properly. If justice HAS ALREADY been done, then PSA actually rules out any attempt by us of retribution. Your argument about children emulating justice doesn't stick. If we follow PSA then 'justice' DEMANDS that we treat everyone else with unconditional forgiveness.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Why does it need to DEMAND? If this is truly the right and correct thing to do, why demand it? Wouldn't it be self-evident on some level?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Why does it need to DEMAND? If this is truly the right and correct thing to do, why demand it? Wouldn't it be self-evident on some level?

Nice one Mirrizin [Roll Eyes]

That bloke Jesus - he didn't need to show up and do or say anything 'cos we all would have worked it out on our own anyway?

You've kind of removed the need for all three of the monotheistic (God revealing) religions in one stroke!
 
Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :
 
Although I can seldom remember a sermon from last week, I still remember the gist of one which I heard thirty years ago. The preacher pointed out that is seldom possible for human beings to be both just and merciful. Justice requires us to punish wrongdoers; mercy prompts us to forgive them. God alone can resolve this dilemma: he is both perfectly just and utterly merciful. No wonder it is much easier to affirm what God has done than to grasp how he has done it!
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
You mean to tell me that if Hitler had accepted Christ, God would 'just forgive' him without someone being punished first?

This is getting surreal. Rather than objecting to it, any PSAer would agree with the above statement ... of course Christ had already been 'punished' [Big Grin]
Yeah, I know.

Sorry, I just find it impossible to see how PSA can be viewed as A Good Thing. I don't see how you can trust a God who operates that way.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Why does justice require punishment? In this instance, what is the purpose of punishment?
quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny S:
That bloke Jesus - he didn't need to show up and do or say anything 'cos we all would have worked it out on our own anyway?

You've kind of removed the need for all three of the monotheistic (God revealing) religions in one stroke!

So...was Jesus' purpose to redeem our souls or to teach us ethics? PSA seems to be all about redemption. It doesn't really touch what he said while he was actually alive, except that he came to die.

And yeah, I like thinking dangerously. If I can't think dangerously, then the people who are happy to think dangerously will intellectually rip me to rhetorical shreds. Sorry if that disturbs you.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
Although I can seldom remember a sermon from last week, I still remember the gist of one which I heard thirty years ago. The preacher pointed out that is seldom possible for human beings to be both just and merciful. Justice requires us to punish wrongdoers; mercy prompts us to forgive them. God alone can resolve this dilemma: he is both perfectly just and utterly merciful. No wonder it is much easier to affirm what God has done than to grasp how he has done it!

Well, as you may have gathered, I don't think that God engages in "perfect retribution"; I think he engages in "perfect restoration". But even so, I could accept the above statement if there weren't so many* believers in PSA saying precisely that our salvation is dependent on not only understanding but on on affirming a very particular "how".

* 'Many' does not equal 'all'.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
So...was Jesus' purpose to redeem our souls or to teach us ethics? PSA seems to be all about redemption. It doesn't really touch what he said while he was actually alive, except that he came to die.

Wow! *** Stop Press *** Mirrizin's problem with PSA as a model of atonement is that it is ... a model of atonement. Christendom holds its breath [Devil]

quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
And yeah, I like thinking dangerously. If I can't think dangerously, then the people who are happy to think dangerously will intellectually rip me to rhetorical shreds. Sorry if that disturbs you.

I wasn't disturbed. I was slightly surprised that if your point could discard at least three major world religions then somebody just might have thought of it before [Big Grin]

Is that what you meant by ripping to shreds? [Snigger]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
So...was Jesus' purpose to redeem our souls or to teach us ethics? PSA seems to be all about redemption. It doesn't really touch what he said while he was actually alive, except that he came to die.

Wow! *** Stop Press *** Mirrizin's problem with PSA as a model of atonement is that it is ... a model of atonement. Christendom holds its breath [Devil]

I'm not sure what that means? I think mirrizin has a point to answer. Is Jesus' teaching important or not?

Because if Jesus' function was solely to be a perfect sacrifice, why bother having a ministry? Why not just let Herod slaughter the divine innocent?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I think mirrizin has a point to answer. Is Jesus' teaching important or not?

Because if Jesus' function was solely to be a perfect sacrifice, why bother having a ministry? Why not just let Herod slaughter the divine innocent?

The answer is in that word 'solely'.

Mirrizin does not have a point to answer because no model of atonement has ever claimed to either fully explain Christ's ministry or ignore it. An explanation of Christ's death is going to be just that - an explanation of Christ's death.

If you want to discuss whether it is a good explanation or not, then fine. Likewise if you want to argue that it is a model which contradicts his ministry or his resurrection, then fire away. However, to complain that it is a model which only explains the effect of his death is to miss the point of atonement models.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, linked. But they are not the same thing. the one represents the other.

Okay, so how you can distinguish them so completely then? (i.e. physical death NOT = punishment / spiritual death = punishment)
Because Christ distinguished them. He said:
quote:
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Killing the body is one thing. Killing the soul is another. Christ is not saying that God kills the soul, only that the soul is more important than the body and that we should fear damnation more than bodily harm.

He also said:
quote:
John 11:25 “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live."
That is, though the body may die, the soul will live. The death of the body is no punishment here.

Also:
quote:
Luke 9:24 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.
There is a clear distinction here between the life of the body and the life of the spirit. The life that is lost is the life of the body. The life that is saved is the life of the spirit. It is clear that the loss of life of the body is relatively unimportant, but that the life of the spirit is all important. Or is there another way to read this?

The point is that I am responding to your statement:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Secondly, why can't we see the penal aspect as inherent in the world God created? If death is the 'punishment' for rebelling against God, then is it possible to say that any death is God's 'punishment'?

The penal aspect is not inherent in the world God created. Physical death is inherent in this world, but not as a punishment. According to Jesus' statements, physical death is natural and normal. The body is unimportant compared with the spirit. The body in fact needs to die so that the spirit may live - or so Jesus seems to say.

I'm not saying that it is impossible to view physical death as a punishment. In the world of nature the slow and the weak are "punished" for their disabilities and die. Seeds that fall on rocky ground are "punished" with death. Flames that run out of fuel are "punished" by being extinguished. In that sense all death is a punishment. But this is neither penal retribution nor God's justice. No price is paid.

The punishment of "death" that Adame and Eve were promised in Eden was that they would deprive themselves of spiritual, not physical, life. Jesus came to restore that life, not by paying a price, but by correcting Adam and Eve's mistake.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you want to discuss whether it is a good explanation or not, then fine. Likewise if you want to argue that it is a model which contradicts his ministry or his resurrection, then fire away. However, to complain that it is a model which only explains the effect of his death is to miss the point of atonement models.

OK, I see what you're saying.

Equally, to those of us who hold great store by moral example as part of the point of Jesus' deat, it's a very blatant ommission.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Mirrizin does not have a point to answer because no model of atonement has ever claimed to either fully explain Christ's ministry or ignore it. An explanation of Christ's death is going to be just that - an explanation of Christ's death.

Christus Victor does claim to fully explain Christ's ministry. His teaching was key to His victory over the power of hell. Every miracle and sign depicted His struggle and victory.

An atonement model that confines itself to explaining Christ's death misses the point of Christ's mission, in my opinion.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
An atonement model that confines itself to explaining Christ's death misses the point of Christ's mission, in my opinion.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion but the other side of the coin is that the more you move towards one big model that explains everything, the more likely you are to miss details out.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
There is a clear distinction here between the life of the body and the life of the spirit. The life that is lost is the life of the body. The life that is saved is the life of the spirit. It is clear that the loss of life of the body is relatively unimportant, but that the life of the spirit is all important. Or is there another way to read this?

The NT seems to view both body AND spirit as important. Your language sounds very platonic - as if the body loses its 'soul' at death and it is only the soul that really matters.

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Equally, to those of us who hold great store by moral example as part of the point of Jesus' deat, it's a very blatant ommission.

Touche - any model that over emphasises moral example becomes so subjective it tends towards meaninglessness ... if Jesus' death wasn't actually achieving anything objective then it becomes less like a parent pushing their child out of the way of a car and more like mindlessly committing suicide.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
There is a clear distinction here between the life of the body and the life of the spirit. The life that is lost is the life of the body. The life that is saved is the life of the spirit. It is clear that the loss of life of the body is relatively unimportant, but that the life of the spirit is all important. Or is there another way to read this?

The NT seems to view both body AND spirit as important. Your language sounds very platonic - as if the body loses its 'soul' at death and it is only the soul that really matters.
I was quoting Christ, not Plato. Do you have an alternate reading of those quotes and the many like them?
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
How do you explain to someone who is not from a Christian tradition that a forgiving, and apparently humane God requires a blood sacrifice? If God is so loving, and if God is so powerful, why did he have to punish his own offspring in order to forgive the rest of us? Couldn't he have just done it by fiat and left a note? Why all the drama? Why all the carnage? Why the emphasis on retribution, when we insist that we're all against retributive justice?

As much use as you may get out of PSA, to many people, it's horrible to worship a God who seems so petty and senselessly cruel in his means.

Again, I'm not out to destroy PSA, just to point out that there are "issues" with relying on it as a sole source of atonement.
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
Johnny S,

It's worth spending a bit more time on JJ's train analogy. If I see a train about to hit a child and I run and push the child out of the way of the train but am hit myself and die... then that is not PSA by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. If you think that is even close to PSA then you must have some sort of PSA-tinted glasses on which make you see PSA everywhere. Let's look at some of the differences...

PSA is takes place in a formal judicial setting. Punishment is deliberately marked out and assigned to one party, and another party then formally and deliberately takes that assigned punishment upon themselves. An accident with a train is hardly deliberate punishment. There is no formal setting where juridical punishment is being given or assigned. No one wanted the child to die, not me, not the child, not the train driver. However, through what was merely and simply an unfortunate combination of circumstances the child was going to die. It wasn't intentional, just coincidence and consequences. There was no formal transference of punishment to me. It just so happened to happen that I died while rescuing the child. It might well have happened that I managed to rescue the child entirely without injury to myself whatsoever. In other words there was no intrinsic connection whatsoever between my suffering and the child's not suffering - it could easily have been that we both got away without harm - ie there could easily have been no "substitute" whatsoever. That demonstrates a clear difference between this situation and PSA - in PSA someone must suffer the penalty, because it is a formal penalty of justice. In a rescue attempt, someone might suffer, but there are no laws of the universe demanded that they do, only coincidental circumstances and consequences causing them to suffer or not as the case may be.

So, let's review. In PSA there is a formal punishment which must be dished out. It can be transferred but not mitigated. Whereas in a rescue situation there is no formal punishment. It is possible that all parties might get away without injury, and circumstances will ultimate determine whether this happens or not. In a rescue situation talk about "justice" and "judgment" make no sense, and talk about "substitution" tends to be inappropriate too.

A PSA and a rescue are totally different in their premises, actions, and consequences. Let's consider two situations where the president is dealing with drug addicts:
1. The president declares they have broken the law and deserve punishment. The president arranges for his son to voluntarily take their judicial punishment on their behalf.
2. The president and his son want to rescue these people from their addictions and create an organisation to help rehabilitate them. The son suffers badly at the hands of one of the crazed addicts whom he is trying to help.

The first scenario parallels PSA. It is formal, judicial, and substitutionary. The second parallels and rescue, it is non-judicial, not concerned with punishment or substitution, but rather with attempting to make changes in peoples lives. In the first scenario, the president seems rather law-obsessed and yet his sense of justice is pretty twisted to both need to inflict punishment and to be happy to inflict it on his own son rather than the evildoers. In the second scenario, the president is loving and caring toward his subjects. At the end of the day, in the first scenario, the people aren't any better off - they've avoided the punishment thanks to the son but their situation hasn't improved any. Whereas the people in the second scenario have had their lives improved due to the loving care that their ruler has for them.

It is through looking at scenarios like this that I am baffled as to why anyone would want to believe PSA. The rescue scenarios are better in every way and present God as better in every way to the PSA scenarios. A God who manages to forgo making our situation worse by punishing us only because he punishes himself instead isn't much help to the world and frankly not one I would want to worship, whereas a God who is deeply concerned about the evil and suffering in his creation and wants to work with us to heal the wounds and change peoples lives is a God I want to know.

quote:
Likewise if you want to argue that it is a model which contradicts his ministry or his resurrection, then fire away.
A PSA reading of the cross seems rather unrelated and incongruous to Jesus' ministry as a social activist.

Jesus during his ministry stood up for the rights of the poor, sick, homeless, outcasts and "sinners". He healed them, spent time with them, spoke out against the authorities, the rich, the powerful, and the institutions and customs that were making life hard for these people. He is popularly viewed as a prophet and claims God's support for his ministry. He founded around himself a movement of followers to help him in his ministry and warned them to expect persecution. In response the authorities plotted against him constantly and eventually put him to death. He dies a martyr, but is vindicated by God who resurrects him from the dead. That's the story the gospels paint of his life and ministry, though few Christians seem interested in actually reading the gospels, since PSA tells them all they need to know about what Jesus "really" did.

PSA seems to tell a very different story. In PSA, Jesus' ministry fades into irrelevance as his death is suddenly elevated to an act of cosmic atonement where the spiritual sins of the universe become focused on Jesus' on the cross, where he endures infinite punishment from God on behalf of humanity. It's little wonder PSA advocates have little interest in the life, teachings and ministry of Jesus... the life of one social activist is nothing by comparison to the Event of Cosmic Atonement of The Cross.

In short, I think PSA is a made-up systematic theology of cosmic atonement which bears no relation whatsoever to Jesus' life and ministry as depicted in the gospels.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Nicely put, Starlight. I like your conclusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
In short, I think PSA is a made-up systematic theology of cosmic atonement which bears no relation whatsoever to Jesus' life and ministry as depicted in the gospels.

PSA pays little attention to what Christ Himself says about His mission, other than His declaration that He would give His life as a ransom.

I love your analysis of the train scenario, and your conclusion that the rescue scenarios are better in every way and present God as better in every way than the PSA scenarios.

Another huge advantage of the Christus Victor model is its implications for the way that salvation works. PSA goes to great lengths to avoid "salvation by works" and the "merit" that accompanies it.

Unfortunately, in doing this it makes obedience to God irrelevant.

Christus Victor attributes the "merit" and "works" to Christ as well, but by its very nature connects obedience to God with salvation. The reason for this is that the whole concept centers around overcoming evil, and how God gives us the power to do this in our lives through His incarnation.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
So JJ this argument resolves into what you regard as the definition of penal or punishment. Would you accept that punishment is simply a method of redressing wrong? Damages awarded in a court or a prison sentence are simply a way of compensating for the negative effect of a damaging or criminal action. In Biblical terms God punishes sin. He must address its effects and redress the wrong it has caused. Why? Because in his own nature is a standard of truth and righteousness which cannot have fellowship with our fallen flesh; also, because evil committed demands redress. Common law recognises this as a principle of natural justice. The issue could then become whether wrong is redressed appropriately or fairly. Throughout the scriptures there are detailed rituals always involving blood sacrifice that seem designed to demonstrate God's inability to interact directly with humanity without such a medium. Yet he wants to have fellowship with US, his creation, made originally in his image. There has to be a way of separating us from our ingrained and problematic tendency to evil. Christ, the unblemished lamb is the perfect once for all time solution. He is the everlasting God himself in human form arrived to take on and bear our sins and sinfuness. The satisfaction of justice, of redress will be fulfilled by his death, by his bloodshed. However, God need not leave it there, He resurrects him and exalts him leaving his death as a door of hope for us. If we accept it we can be seen as covered by his blood, as punished for our evil.. in him! At last we can approach the throne of grace directly without the medium of ritual sacrifice. We can as Hebrews says come boldly to the throne of grace where we can find grace and mercy to help in time of need.

To make God retributive or penal devalues him by making him like us? Read it the other way. We are in his image. We are, as we are, in this way because we are like him in our call and demand for justice. Conscience rebels at the thought of criminals walking free without sufficient penalty what ever form this penalty takes, whether it is restorative, retributive or both. 'I'll get you back' is one of the earliest instincts noted in our children. Liberal sensitivities need to get real. Scratch them and they'll react the same as the rest of us. God, in my view, made us like this because that's how he is and his love has found a solution that doesn't compromise this principle.

[ 29. May 2007, 04:39: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
[QUOTE] In PSA, Jesus' ministry fades into irrelevance as his death is suddenly elevated to an act of cosmic atonement where the spiritual sins of the universe become focused on Jesus' on the cross, where he endures infinite punishment from God on behalf of humanity. It's little wonder PSA advocates have little interest in the life, teachings and ministry of Jesus... the life of one social activist is nothing by comparison to the Event of Cosmic Atonement of The Cross.

In short, I think PSA is a made-up systematic theology of cosmic atonement which bears no relation whatsoever to Jesus' life and ministry as depicted in the gospels. [/QB][/

Jesus ministry was to Israel. He presented himself as the awaited messiah and they decided to not accept him. I am deeply interested in his ministry. His ministry provides a fascinating insight into Jewish first century thinking. It provides a supreme example of one who flawlessly fulfilled the Mosaic covenant though not the Pharisaic interpretation of same. It provides timeless moral lessons and wisdom. It creates an example of submission to the Father for disciples to emulate. It gives insights into the nature and mechanisms of salvation. It encourages a supernatural component to enter ones faith. It provides object lessons of how God views human situations The list goes on. For anyone to generalise that holding a particular view of atonement causes one to view Jesus life negligently is offensive. You can think what you like about PSA. You can even downgrade Jesus to the status of social activist and you can pee in the pocket of everyone else that shares your view. But who made you judge jury and executioner of those that see the scripture though a different lens to you?
Incidentally, Recall the gethsemane experience. What caused jesus to agonise? It wasn't the cross, he predicted that. It wasn't the sleepy disciples. I put it to you that it was the vacuum of relationship with the Father. Something that he'd never known the lack of, which came upon him as the weight of sin descended and threatened to engulf him. Was this not the cup that he prayed to not drink?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I was quoting Christ, not Plato. Do you have an alternate reading of those quotes and the many like them?

I don't see what you're arguing about Freddy. I was in no way contradicting the statements made by Jesus (how could I? [Big Grin] ) Just pointing out that you have seem to have ignored the NT teaching on the resurrection body. E.g. 1 Cor. 15 v 42, "The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable..." (taking up the analogy first used by Jesus in John 12).

We need to put all these concepts together.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
How do you explain to someone who is not from a Christian tradition that a forgiving, and apparently humane God requires a blood sacrifice?

You are not just attacking PSA here. All atonement models need to wrestle with the fact that sacrifice was, in some sense, necessary.

I don't particularly enjoy the idea but there is the minor matter of the entire OT and the book of Hebrews. [Razz]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Sorry if this turns into a triple post but I've got to get on with other stuff!

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Johnny S,

It's worth spending a bit more time on JJ's train analogy. If I see a train about to hit a child and I run and push the child out of the way of the train but am hit myself and die... then that is not PSA by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. If you think that is even close to PSA then you must have some sort of PSA-tinted glasses on which make you see PSA everywhere.

It's funny because it seems to be you who have the PSA-tinted glasses and want to see PSA everywhere. I have never claimed that PSA is THE story, just a model which, alongside others, helps to explain the atonement. You are attacking a strawman here.

Also, while I agree that it is a helpful analogy, do you really think that you can dismiss a model by pointing out the weaknesses in a analogy that someone else has come up with. As I keep saying it is a MODEL, there are points of contact and points of divergence.

Just as with CV as a model there are weaknesses too - e.g. potential dualism with evil.


quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
PSA is takes place in a formal judicial setting. Punishment is deliberately marked out and assigned to one party, and another party then formally and deliberately takes that assigned punishment upon themselves. An accident with a train is hardly deliberate punishment. There is no formal setting where juridical punishment is being given or assigned. No one wanted the child to die, not me, not the child, not the train driver. However, through what was merely and simply an unfortunate combination of circumstances the child was going to die. It wasn't intentional, just coincidence and consequences.

<sigh> I just posted (was it Sunday?) a comment about 'consequence'. Why can't we see 'punishment' as the built in consequences to rejecting God in the world he created?


quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
A PSA and a rescue are totally different in their premises, actions, and consequences. Let's consider two situations where the president is dealing with drug addicts:
1. The president declares they have broken the law and deserve punishment. The president arranges for his son to voluntarily take their judicial punishment on their behalf.
2. The president and his son want to rescue these people from their addictions and create an organisation to help rehabilitate them. The son suffers badly at the hands of one of the crazed addicts whom he is trying to help.

Nice analogy Starlight. Unfortunately though it actually defends PSA rather than rejecting it. The one major problem with your analogy is that it completely ignores the incarnation. The son becomes a drug-addict too so that he can 'break the habit' and then works with his father to help the drug addicts. Of course, as a drug-addict, he has to live with the consequences of a fallen world (i.e. God's punishment) and therefore this fits perfectly with PSA. [Big Grin]


It is through looking at scenarios like this that I am baffled as to why anyone would want to believe PSA. The rescue scenarios are better in every way and present God as better in every way to the PSA scenarios. A God who manages to forgo making our situation worse by punishing us only because he punishes himself instead isn't much help to the world and frankly not one I would want to worship, whereas a God who is deeply concerned about the evil and suffering in his creation and wants to work with us to heal the wounds and change peoples lives is a God I want to know.

quote:
Likewise if you want to argue that it is a model which contradicts his ministry or his resurrection, then fire away.
A PSA reading of the cross seems rather unrelated and incongruous to Jesus' ministry as a social activist.

Jesus during his ministry stood up for the rights of the poor, sick, homeless, outcasts and "sinners". He healed them, spent time with them, spoke out against the authorities, the rich, the powerful, and the institutions and customs that were making life hard for these people. He is popularly viewed as a prophet and claims God's support for his ministry. He founded around himself a movement of followers to help him in his ministry and warned them to expect persecution. In response the authorities plotted against him constantly and eventually put him to death. He dies a martyr, but is vindicated by God who resurrects him from the dead. That's the story the gospels paint of his life and ministry, though few Christians seem interested in actually reading the gospels, since PSA tells them all they need to know about what Jesus "really" did.

PSA seems to tell a very different story. In PSA, Jesus' ministry fades into irrelevance as his death is suddenly elevated to an act of cosmic atonement where the spiritual sins of the universe become focused on Jesus' on the cross, where he endures infinite punishment from God on behalf of humanity. It's little wonder PSA advocates have little interest in the life, teachings and ministry of Jesus... the life of one social activist is nothing by comparison to the Event of Cosmic Atonement of The Cross.

In short, I think PSA is a made-up systematic theology of cosmic atonement which bears no relation whatsoever to Jesus' life and ministry as depicted in the gospels. [/QB][/QUOTE]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Oh no, it's going to have to be a fourth post! Starlight's post was so long that, as you can see [Hot and Hormonal] , I forgot a whole bit at the bottom!

quote:
Likewise if you want to argue that it is a model which contradicts his ministry or his resurrection, then fire away.
quote:
By Starlight: A PSA reading of the cross seems rather unrelated and incongruous to Jesus' ministry as a social activist.

Jesus during his ministry stood up for the rights of the poor, sick, homeless, outcasts and "sinners". He healed them, spent time with them, spoke out against the authorities, the rich, the powerful, and the institutions and customs that were making life hard for these people. He is popularly viewed as a prophet and claims God's support for his ministry. He founded around himself a movement of followers to help him in his ministry and warned them to expect persecution. In response the authorities plotted against him constantly and eventually put him to death. He dies a martyr, but is vindicated by God who resurrects him from the dead. That's the story the gospels paint of his life and ministry, though few Christians seem interested in actually reading the gospels, since PSA tells them all they need to know about what Jesus "really" did.

PSA seems to tell a very different story. In PSA, Jesus' ministry fades into irrelevance as his death is suddenly elevated to an act of cosmic atonement where the spiritual sins of the universe become focused on Jesus' on the cross, where he endures infinite punishment from God on behalf of humanity. It's little wonder PSA advocates have little interest in the life, teachings and ministry of Jesus... the life of one social activist is nothing by comparison to the Event of Cosmic Atonement of The Cross.

In short, I think PSA is a made-up systematic theology of cosmic atonement which bears no relation whatsoever to Jesus' life and ministry as depicted in the gospels.

Of course the ministry of Jesus is important, no one would seek to deny that. Just because IYE others seem to is hardly a fair criticism.

These gospels, would they be the ones that give a disproportionate amount of space to the events of Easter week? I think it is entirely legitimate to say that the gospels themselves focus our attention (but not exclusively) on the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Why does Jesus keep going on about the necessity of his death? (e.g. 'The Son of Man must be killed'? (Mark 8 v 31)
These gospels,
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
So JJ this argument resolves into what you regard as the definition of penal or punishment. Would you accept that punishment is simply a method of redressing wrong?
No, I wouldn't. I would say that this is precisely what punishment does not do, and furthermore is incapable of doing. Punishing a murderer, by, say the death penalty does nothing to help the original victim, and results in yet another death. How, then, is this redressing wrong. Rather, it seems like an attempt to make a right from two wrongs.

quote:
In Biblical terms God punishes sin. He must address its effects and redress the wrong it has caused. Why? Because in his own nature is a standard of truth and righteousness which cannot have fellowship with our fallen flesh; also, because evil committed demands redress.
Well, that is your assertion. I think that there are certainly occasions when God disciplines his people, and others where he acts such as to limit the amount of wrong that sinful actions can cause. We can interpret either of these, I suppose, as punishment, but what is absent from them is any hint that the motivation is as you describe it. I dispute, as you are well aware, your assertion that our sinfulness places any constraint on God as to whether or not He can commune with us. You have yet to demonstrate from scripture anything to back up your point of view, whilst I have, I think, demonstrated that the life of Jesus, His fellowship with sinners, indicates that, to God, this isn't a problem; rather, the constraints are on our side.

quote:
Common law recognises this as a principle of natural justice. The issue could then become whether wrong is redressed appropriately or fairly. Throughout the scriptures there are detailed rituals always involving blood sacrifice that seem designed to demonstrate God's inability to interact directly with humanity without such a medium. Yet he wants to have fellowship with US, his creation, made originally in his image.
I don't think that blood sacrifice demonstrates anything of the sort. Do you really think that God's desire is for him to recieve such sacrifices. This rather flies in the face of such verses as Psalm 51:16 and Hosea 6:6. The line of argument you are following seems to me to be the very one that got the people of Israel into such trouble. They erroneously thought that the sacrifice was to appease God, whereas it was actually to "appease" the people, that is, to remind them of the covenant that they had with the Almighty. The purpose of sacrifice was to cleanse their conscience, as per Hebrews 9:9, and to point them towards God's grace, which alone was able to restore them. Of course, as the writer to the Hebrews points out, this was an imperfect process.

quote:
There has to be a way of separating us from our ingrained and problematic tendency to evil. Christ, the unblemished lamb is the perfect once for all time solution. He is the everlasting God himself in human form arrived to take on and bear our sins and sinfuness.
Agreed!

quote:
The satisfaction of justice, of redress will be fulfilled by his death, by his bloodshed.
This in no way follows from your previous sentence. There is no "problem of justice" as opposed to grace, because God's justice is about putting things right, not punishing wrongdoing. And putting things right is about the healing, not only of the victim, but of the perpetrator. There is no need to satisfy the conflict between love and justice, because the two are the same thing (or, at least, justice is the word we use to refer to the expression of love in certain circumstances)!

Furthermore, none of this argument (concerning the ontological state of the believer, being freed from slavery to our sinful nature) is directly germaine to Old Testament sacrifice, which adressed a different problem, the pointing of our attention Godward, that we might trust in His grace and receive the forgiveness which has always been there for us. If we were capable of receiving that forgiveness, the sacrifices (OT ritual sense of the word) would have been redundant.

quote:
However, God need not leave it there, He resurrects him and exalts him leaving his death as a door of hope for us. If we accept it we can be seen as covered by his blood, as punished for our evil.. in him! At last we can approach the throne of grace directly without the medium of ritual sacrifice. We can as Hebrews says come boldly to the throne of grace where we can find grace and mercy to help in time of need.

I don't think punishment is in the atonement, and I don't think that you have demonstrated that it is. The reason that we can approach the throne of grace with boldness is because our ontological nature is transformed (supremely) by the resurrection, and our spirits are set free from our sinful nature, born again by the spirit of God, such that we no longer require the OT ritual/shadow of the new creation to point us Godward. It has nothing to do with punishment.

quote:
To make God retributive or penal devalues him by making him like us? Read it the other way. We are in his image. We are, as we are, in this way because we are like him in our call and demand for justice.
Well, of course we are in His image, but we are also fallen. I would be surprised if you really think that retributive justice accomplishes anything. Which is better, that a man is punished for stealing from you, or that he doesn't steal from you in the first place? The point about restorative justice is that God is able to "undo" the wrong, so that retributive justice is not needed. Our justice is a debased and limited justice, just because we aren't capable of "Undoing the wrong".

quote:
Conscience rebels at the thought of criminals walking free without sufficient penalty what ever form this penalty takes, whether it is restorative, retributive or both. 'I'll get you back' is one of the earliest instincts noted in our children.
Well, mine doesn't, but I guess I'm just strange that way. Regretfully, there are times when it is necessary that people are imprisoned for wrongdoing, in order to protect the innocent. Discipline is important in personal growth and character formation. There might even be a case for deterrence. But there is no way in which I think punishment is in any way a "good" thing.

As for the "I'll get you back" attitude, are you really suggesting that this is from the heart of God, or aren't you a little more confident that this is a result of our selfish, sinful nature.

quote:
Liberal sensitivities need to get real. Scratch them and they'll react the same as the rest of us. God, in my view, made us like this because that's how he is and his love has found a solution that doesn't compromise this principle.

Why do I feel that you are using the word "liberal" as an insult? I, personally, think it's quite a respectable term, just not one that I would apply to myself, at least, I suppose I am socially liberal, but theologically, I'm a supernaturalist, I accept all the main tenets of the Christian faith, and by any normal yardstick, I am probably pretty conservative. But, anyway, all that you have demonstrated is that liberals, like the rest of us, are fallen creatures. The fact that, in a given set of circumstances, we will all act in a similar way is not in itself evidence that such a reaction is acceptable to God. I think we have to be very careful in drawing conclusions about the character of God from the behaviour of His fallen children.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Equally, to those of us who hold great store by moral example as part of the point of Jesus' deat, it's a very blatant ommission.

Touche - any model that over emphasises moral example becomes so subjective it tends towards meaninglessness ... if Jesus' death wasn't actually achieving anything objective then it becomes less like a parent pushing their child out of the way of a car and more like mindlessly committing suicide.
Yep, well, that's what PSA pretty much looks like to me. (Interesting you should say that as a PSA-supporter, because if I said it as a non-PSA supporter, I'd be told that I was raising a straw-man. [Big Grin] )

As far as I'm concerned, Moral Example + Christus Victor is both objective and subjective. God teaches us that he forgives generously and openhandedly and he teaches us to forgive in the same way. In his resurrection he both effected and demonstrated eternal life and new creation. In his ascension he sits at God's right hand.

Human being forgiving human being rather than warring over culture and theology might result in the reign of peace. We can't have that, though, can we? We need "JUSTICE!" [Biased]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I was quoting Christ, not Plato. Do you have an alternate reading of those quotes and the many like them?

I don't see what you're arguing about Freddy. I was in no way contradicting the statements made by Jesus (how could I? [Big Grin] ) Just pointing out that you have seem to have ignored the NT teaching on the resurrection body. E.g. 1 Cor. 15 v 42, "The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable..." (taking up the analogy first used by Jesus in John 12).
It is sown a natural body. It is raised a spiritual body. I don't see how I am ignoring the important doctrine of Christ's physical resurrection.

The point is that physical death is not a punishment. Physical death is normal and inherent in creation from the beginning. The spiritual body is what is raised incorruptable.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
There has to be a way of separating us from our ingrained and problematic tendency to evil. Christ, the unblemished lamb is the perfect once for all time solution. He is the everlasting God himself in human form arrived to take on and bear our sins and sinfuness.
Agreed!
quote:
The satisfaction of justice, of redress will be fulfilled by his death, by his bloodshed.
This in no way follows from your previous sentence. There is no "problem of justice" as opposed to grace, because God's justice is about putting things right, not punishing wrongdoing. And putting things right is about the healing, not only of the victim, but of the perpetrator. There is no need to satisfy the conflict between love and justice, because the two are the same thing (or, at least, justice is the word we use to refer to the expression of love in certain circumstances)!

This is an important point, JJ. I agree. The purpose of the Incarnation is to put things right, not to punish wrongdoing. There is no conflict between love and justice. Justice is the expression of love in accommodation to specific situations.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Back again. I'd better make this one long post and addresses various issues otherwise I'll get into the same mess as this morning!

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Human being forgiving human being rather than warring over culture and theology might result in the reign of peace. We can't have that, though, can we? We need "JUSTICE!" [Biased]

As I have said before I yearn for the same reign of peace as you do where we just forgive one another. However, I have highlighted one sentence of yours above (obviously you didn;t mean it that way [Big Grin] ).

All of human history combined teaches us the truth of your statement - we can't have that! If we take your model of atonement there is only one conclusion we can draw while looking around - the 'Christ event' was a total failure!

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is that physical death is not a punishment. Physical death is normal and inherent in creation from the beginning. The spiritual body is what is raised incorruptable.

We're not getting anywhere here Freddy. You and I are using the word 'spiritual' in different senses (ISTM). Also that physical death is normal and inherent in creation is not a 'given'.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I don't think that blood sacrifice demonstrates anything of the sort. Do you really think that God's desire is for him to recieve such sacrifices. This rather flies in the face of such verses as Psalm 51:16 and Hosea 6:6. The line of argument you are following seems to me to be the very one that got the people of Israel into such trouble. They erroneously thought that the sacrifice was to appease God, whereas it was actually to "appease" the people, that is, to remind them of the covenant that they had with the Almighty. The purpose of sacrifice was to cleanse their conscience, as per Hebrews 9:9, and to point them towards God's grace, which alone was able to restore them. Of course, as the writer to the Hebrews points out, this was an imperfect process.

We've touched on this before JJ but I don't think I got to the bottom of your link between OT sacrifices and Hebrews.

I'm still not convinced by your reading of Psalm 51 and Hosea 6. In Psalm 51, as I have pointed out before, you are missing out verse 19. The Psalmist is correcting 'wrong worship' and concludes with 'righteous' sacrifices, which obviously include burnt offerings. You are right to critique the Israelite understanding of sacrifice but I see no warrant to reject the need for sacrifice altogether.

Likewise the book of Hosea is complaining (like James) about the connectin between belief and behaviour. Hosea is horrified what the people have done with sacrifice. It bears no resemblance to OT cultic worship (e.g. Hosea 4 v 12-13). Again there is no need to read this is a removal of sacrifice altogether.

Then when we come to Hebrews and your argument hits bigger problems. Hebrews makes it clear that sacrifice is 'necessary' (e.g. 9 v 23). Jesus has done away with the need for sacrifice but by giving himself as a 'once for all' sacrifice.

Even if you make sacrifice something for mankind rather than God it is still 'necessary' and therefore necessary for God even if in some derivative sense.

John.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
We've touched on this before JJ but I don't think I got to the bottom of your link between OT sacrifices and Hebrews.

I'm still not convinced by your reading of Psalm 51 and Hosea 6. In Psalm 51, as I have pointed out before, you are missing out verse 19. The Psalmist is correcting 'wrong worship' and concludes with 'righteous' sacrifices, which obviously include burnt offerings. You are right to critique the Israelite understanding of sacrifice but I see no warrant to reject the need for sacrifice altogether.

Likewise the book of Hosea is complaining (like James) about the connectin between belief and behaviour. Hosea is horrified what the people have done with sacrifice. It bears no resemblance to OT cultic worship (e.g. Hosea 4 v 12-13). Again there is no need to read this is a removal of sacrifice altogether.

Then when we come to Hebrews and your argument hits bigger problems. Hebrews makes it clear that sacrifice is 'necessary' (e.g. 9 v 23). Jesus has done away with the need for sacrifice but by giving himself as a 'once for all' sacrifice.

Even if you make sacrifice something for mankind rather than God it is still 'necessary' and therefore necessary for God even if in some derivative sense.

Well, I'm not sure my grasp of memetic theory is good enought to be anything near clear [Biased] . I'm sure a true Girardian like Seeker could do a much better job [Help] . However, you are right in implying (in your last sentence) that I think that sacrifice (in the cultic sense) is for the benefit of the worshipper rather than God. I'm not saying that this sacrifice was not necessary, given the fallen nature of the worshippers. I am merely saying that the point of the sacrifice was to direct the attention of the worshipper to the grace of God. There is nothing in the sacrifice itself that repairs the relationship with God. Rather, it is a reminder of the covenant relationship which is the true source of that restoration. A bit like communion, in a way. The point about redundancy was probably overstated, and should, perhaps, have been prefaced with "in an ideal world..." Of course, the world of Aaron, David and Hosea was no more an ideal world than is ours. The sacrificial system was a way of accomodating our weakness and reluctance to trust in the grace of God, and our desire to solve problems by violence. By it, people were able to remind themselves, in the guise of reminding God, that God could be relied upon.

But, as I say, I'm not the authority to consult on Girard. I actually believe his thinking is a useful tool to understand the subjective aspects of the Atonement, but I don't think it is totally convincing about the objective change in us and the universe wrought by the paschal event. But then, he's much cleverer than I am, and I might have got him completely wrong!
 
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Conscience rebels at the thought of criminals walking free without sufficient penalty what ever form this penalty takes, whether it is restorative, retributive or both. 'I'll get you back' is one of the earliest instincts noted in our children. Liberal sensitivities need to get real. Scratch them and they'll react the same as the rest of us. God, in my view, made us like this because that's how he is and his love has found a solution that doesn't compromise this principle.

Sure, the conscience might rebel at the thought, but that doesn't make it wrong. I think you need to justify your position further in the light of parts of the bible like "love your enemy", "love is patient, kind, ... keeps no record of wrongs", "when a thief demands your coat give him your shirt also" and so on. How does God's 'need' for retributive justice fit with this pattern that Jesus and Paul give us?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by davelarge:
Sure, the conscience might rebel at the thought, but that doesn't make it wrong. I think you need to justify your position further in the light of parts of the bible like "love your enemy", "love is patient, kind, ... keeps no record of wrongs", "when a thief demands your coat give him your shirt also" and so on. How does God's 'need' for retributive justice fit with this pattern that Jesus and Paul give us?

Fair point Dave.

However, the question is this - does Jesus end the cycle of revenge by dealing with it once and for all (as PSA argues) or end it by saying that it is not necessary?

I know JJ disagrees with my handling of Romans 12 but I would argue that in Romans 12 v 19 Paul tells us to let go of revenge because we leave justice up to God, not because we reject retributive justice altogether.
 
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
OK, I accept that this is a valid reading of Romans 12. Good point.

However, what about the parts about what love is? If God is love (or Love?) then how does this fit with a demand for retributive justice?

(Note, I absolutely accept that God could require retribution - it is for Him to make the rules, after all. My contention at this point is whether or not he must have retribution.)
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I know JJ disagrees with my handling of Romans 12 but I would argue that in Romans 12 v 19 Paul tells us to let go of revenge because we leave justice up to God, not because we reject retributive justice altogether.

What I find troubling in this idea is the implication that God is going to do our dirty work for us. The reading you propose does not seem to say, "Let it go -- what counts as justice is up to God." Rather, it sounds like you're saying that God will be the enforcer of your sense of what you are owed. There's a LOT of gospel support for suggesting that our sense of justice is flawed, and needs to be transformed by love.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by davelarge:
However, what about the parts about what love is? If God is love (or Love?) then how does this fit with a demand for retributive justice?

There is an increasing move to try and define God by just one characteristic - i.e. God = love. I just don't get it.

Let's take 1 John as an example: 4 v 8 gives us God = love; 1 v 5 gives us God = light. Which is right and which is wrong? Which trumps the other?

Likewise we could go through the whole NT. Here are just a few I've picked out at random:

God is faithful (2 Cor. 1 v 18)
God is one (Gal. 3 v 20)
God is just [Big Grin] (2 Thess. 1 v 6)
God is a consuming fire [Confused] (Heb. 12 v 29)

While I will try to put all these pictures together my tiny little brain is never going to do it fully.


quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
What I find troubling in this idea is the implication that God is going to do our dirty work for us. The reading you propose does not seem to say, "Let it go -- what counts as justice is up to God." Rather, it sounds like you're saying that God will be the enforcer of your sense of what you are owed. There's a LOT of gospel support for suggesting that our sense of justice is flawed, and needs to be transformed by love.

--Tom Clune

I don't follow you Tom... or maybe I wasn't clear enough. [Hot and Hormonal] If I have to leave justice up to God then surely, by definition, I have to leave it to his justice and not mine. I have always seen PSA in this light. In situations where I feel agrieved I can take it to the Lord in the assurance that he will do what is right - and if, as likely, it is my petulance, then there is nothing to do and I will need my sense of justice transformed by love.

I suppose the key for me is 'leaving it up to God' and that means I will not presume how he is going to act in any given situation... because I'm not God. Whatever else we say about PSA at least it is God administering justice and not us.

John.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is that physical death is not a punishment. Physical death is normal and inherent in creation from the beginning. The spiritual body is what is raised incorruptable.

We're not getting anywhere here Freddy. You and I are using the word 'spiritual' in different senses (ISTM). Also that physical death is normal and inherent in creation is not a 'given'.
I agree that we're not getting anywhere. But you are the one asserting that physical death is God's punishment on sin, and you have not demonstrated that this is true. Christ's physical death can't reasonably be seen as God's punishment laid on Him.

Do you really mean to say that it is not a given that physical death is normal and inherent in creation from the beginning? How could the world function without life-cycles? Or are you only talking about humans? And this is an underlying principle of PSA? [Confused]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree that we're not getting anywhere. But you are the one asserting that physical death is God's punishment on sin, and you have not demonstrated that this is true. Christ's physical death can't reasonably be seen as God's punishment laid on Him.

Freddy it feels (to me [Biased] ) as if you have come into a conversation half way through. Some advocating the CV model have suggested that Christ only experienced physical death as the punishment of sin. I have been responding to them.

From verses such as Romans 6 v 23 Paul obviously saw death as the 'penalty' for sin. The question is whether Paul meant physical death or physical AND spiritual death. I can't see how he could mean only spiritual death since he keeps linking it with Christ's death which was, at least, physical.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Some advocating the CV model have suggested that Christ only experienced physical death as the punishment of sin. I have been responding to them.

Sorry about that. I missed it. I would say that His physical death was not a punishment at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
From verses such as Romans 6 v 23 Paul obviously saw death as the 'penalty' for sin. The question is whether Paul meant physical death or physical AND spiritual death. I can't see how he could mean only spiritual death since he keeps linking it with Christ's death which was, at least, physical.

As I read it the primary meaning is about spiritual death:
quote:
Romans 6.20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The wages of sin that are death must refer to spiritual death, which is damnation. I'm not sure that the primary meaning here is about capital punishment.

He does not say that Christ died as a punishment for sin. He says:
quote:
Romans 6.10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
It was sin that killed Him, not God.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The wages of sin that are death must refer to spiritual death, which is damnation. I'm not sure that the primary meaning here is about capital punishment.

Who said anything about capital punishment (at this stage)? I just said that if Paul is referring to spiritual death he must also be referring to physical death. Do you really think that the 'death which reigned from Adam to Moses' (Romans 5 v 14) was only spiritual death and not physical?
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If I have to leave justice up to God then surely, by definition, I have to leave it to his justice and not mine. I have always seen PSA in this light. In situations where I feel agrieved I can take it to the Lord in the assurance that he will do what is right - and if, as likely, it is my petulance, then there is nothing to do and I will need my sense of justice transformed by love.

I suppose the key for me is 'leaving it up to God' and that means I will not presume how he is going to act in any given situation... because I'm not God. Whatever else we say about PSA at least it is God administering justice and not us.

But this seems too cute by half. If we don't know what God will do in any given situation, then the notion of retributive justice becomes meaningless. It's just another way of saying that God will do what God will do. Retributive justice has no more claim to being on the list of things that God may do than, say, floating across the universe in a pink nightie.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Back again. I'd better make this one long post and addresses various issues otherwise I'll get into the same mess as this morning!

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Human being forgiving human being rather than warring over culture and theology might result in the reign of peace. We can't have that, though, can we? We need "JUSTICE!" [Biased]

As I have said before I yearn for the same reign of peace as you do where we just forgive one another. However, I have highlighted one sentence of yours above (obviously you didn;t mean it that way [Big Grin] ).

All of human history combined teaches us the truth of your statement - we can't have that! If we take your model of atonement there is only one conclusion we can draw while looking around - the 'Christ event' was a total failure!

My model of atonement (and I stress it's only a model) is something like Christus Victor (ontological) plus Moral Example (subjective). I don't see how that's any more of a failure than PSA which has got an onotological element (just like Christus Victor) but has no subjective meaning for human beings since we can't bring salvation into being.

The only way I can see that you can argue that humankind is in desperate need of retributive justice is something like "Human sin will not rest without retribution, so God effected a faux retribution that satiates the wrath generated by human sin." The problem is that PSA insists it's God's wrath. My solution is still heretical to PSAers and PSAers still insist on divinising wrath and retribution.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
I don't follow you Tom... or maybe I wasn't clear enough. If I have to leave justice up to God then surely, by definition, I have to leave it to his justice and not mine. I have always seen PSA in this light. In situations where I feel agrieved I can take it to the Lord in the assurance that he will do what is right - and if, as likely, it is my petulance, then there is nothing to do and I will need my sense of justice transformed by love.

I suppose the key for me is 'leaving it up to God' and that means I will not presume how he is going to act in any given situation... because I'm not God. Whatever else we say about PSA at least it is God administering justice and not us.

Well, I'm not sure that either Tom or myself are rejecting the idea of "leaving it up to God". What we are saying is that, if you do read the text that way, then you can't draw the inference that, therefore, God will execute retributive justice in the fulness of time. Basically, the text is neutral about the nature of that justice and the way in which it will be executed. I read it as consonant with restorative justice, but the reason why this is possible rests not with this text per se, but with a wealth of other texts which suggest a restorative reading. What I don't think you can say is that it is incongruent with a restorative reading (nor can I, of course, say that it is incongruent with PSA [Razz]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Do you really think that the 'death which reigned from Adam to Moses' (Romans 5 v 14) was only spiritual death and not physical?

Yes. That is what he is talking about. It is also true that people died physically during that time, but that has always been the case and will always be the case.

Paul said:
quote:
Romans 5.12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
The "grace of God and the gift by the grace" is about salvation, not physical immortality. The same is true of the "death" that he refers to. He doesn't mean that literal death came into being with sin.

Paul continues:
quote:
Romans 5.16 For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.
Here he clearly contrasts the death and life he has been talking about. The one is "condemnation", the other is "justification." These are spiritual states, not physical ones.

Sorry to be pressing this point, but it seems fairly central to the problems with PSA and the superiority of Christus Victor.

While physical death certainly can be a punishment, and while some biblical language does refer to Jesus' death in words that can be taken that way, it is, I think, wrong to think of this as anything more than imagery or representation.

[ 29. May 2007, 18:47: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, I'm not sure that either Tom or myself are rejecting the idea of "leaving it up to God". What we are saying is that, if you do read the text that way, then you can't draw the inference that, therefore, God will execute retributive justice in the fulness of time.

This certainly expresses something that I was interested in conveying. But I also wanted to insinuate something more -- I think that Johnny may have given more than necessary on the idea of retributive justice being hidden from us.

The impression that I have gotten is that many people who find value in PSA do so in part because they believe that God will balance the scales in the end. Further, the nature of Divine justice is presented in a way that is reasonably knowable -- within human bounds, of course -- through coming to know the scriptures.

Of course, that doesn't mean that we know everything that God will do to our tormentors in the here-after. But we have a pretty good idea of what they are in for, and can draw some genuine solace in that knowledge.

Perhaps Johnny really doesn't believe anything along these lines. It is certainly not foreign to many people who espouse PSA, however. And, while I don't share the view, I can understand how people might draw genuine comfort in the presence of their afflictions in this world.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny S:
You are not just attacking PSA here. All atonement models need to wrestle with the fact that sacrifice was, in some sense, necessary.

Why is it necessary?
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny S:
You are not just attacking PSA here. All atonement models need to wrestle with the fact that sacrifice was, in some sense, necessary.

Why is it necessary?
Given that the scriptures have Christ praying in a way that appears to ask that He not be crucified unless it is really necessary, one might reasonably come to the conclusion that it was necessary in some sense. The next question, of course, is "in what sense," which is what this thread has been arguing about.

--Tom Clune

[ 29. May 2007, 20:30: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Sorry to be pressing this point, but it seems fairly central to the problems with PSA and the superiority of Christus Victor.

While physical death certainly can be a punishment, and while some biblical language does refer to Jesus' death in words that can be taken that way, it is, I think, wrong to think of this as anything more than imagery or representation.

Well that's where we'll have to part company then - I think 'death' refers to both physical and spiritual death, since God is both author and sustainer of all life.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
But if you look at it, death seems to be worked into the system of life. If nothing died, then nothing could grow.

Why insist that death is such a bad thing?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
This certainly expresses something that I was interested in conveying. But I also wanted to insinuate something more -- I think that Johnny may have given more than necessary on the idea of retributive justice being hidden from us.

The impression that I have gotten is that many people who find value in PSA do so in part because they believe that God will balance the scales in the end. Further, the nature of Divine justice is presented in a way that is reasonably knowable -- within human bounds, of course -- through coming to know the scriptures.

Of course, that doesn't mean that we know everything that God will do to our tormentors in the here-after. But we have a pretty good idea of what they are in for, and can draw some genuine solace in that knowledge.

--Tom Clune

I've never been called cute before. [Big Grin]

I don't think that the kind of comfort in 'justice' cited above is incompatible with 'leaving it up to God'.

This is how I read Genesis 18 - esp. "Will not the judge of all the earth do right?" Abraham is pleading for God to show mercy but as he does so he acknowledges that it is God who decides what will happen, and whatever he decides will be 'right'. It is precisely this objective, external framework of divine justice that PSA rests on ... IMHO [Razz]

This is not about revenge - perhaps the person oppressing me is acting that way because of what others have done to him/her - it is about justice. I take comfort in knowing that God will right all wrongs, and has done in Christ.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
But if you look at it, death seems to be worked into the system of life. If nothing died, then nothing could grow.

Why insist that death is such a bad thing?

"The last enemy to be destroyed is death." 1 Cor. 15 v 26

"There will be no more death ..." Rev. 21 v 4

At this stage I will step aside and let you fight with 2000 years of orthodox Christian belief [Big Grin]
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
But if you look at it, death seems to be worked into the system of life. If nothing died, then nothing could grow. ...

... At this stage I will step aside and let you fight with 2000 years of orthodox Christian belief [Big Grin]
Before you step aside, could you remind me what the orthodox Christian belief says Adam, Eve, and all the animals ate in the Garden of Eden, before there was physical death? OliviaG
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Before you step aside, could you remind me what the orthodox Christian belief says Adam, Eve, and all the animals ate in the Garden of Eden, before there was physical death? OliviaG

I'm not getting drawn into a 'creationist' debate about when death came into the world.

Mirrizin asked 'why insist that death is such a bad thing?' - to which I replied that the NT is very explicit that death (of human beings) is a bad thing. End of.

Goodnight. [Snore]
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny S:
At this stage I will step aside and let you fight with 2000 years of orthodox Christian belief [Big Grin]

Glady. Why did the authors of the bible say that death is a bad thing? [Big Grin]

And to give credit as due, I really like this:
quote:
This is not about revenge - perhaps the person oppressing me is acting that way because of what others have done to him/her - it is about justice. I take comfort in knowing that God will right all wrongs, and has done in Christ.
[ETA a positive note]

[ 29. May 2007, 22:49: Message edited by: mirrizin ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Why insist that death is such a bad thing?

"The last enemy to be destroyed is death." 1 Cor. 15 v 26

"There will be no more death ..." Rev. 21 v 4

The death that is meant here is spiritual, not physical death. He doesn't mean death, but hell, as with the fourth horseman of the Apocalypse:
quote:
Revelation 6.8 "So I looked, and behold, a pale horse. And the name of him who sat on it was Death, and Hades followed with him."
This horseman is the "death" that will be defeated.

Throughout the Bible "death" means damnation and "life" means salvation:
quote:
John 6:50 "This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die."

John 11:25 “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die."

It is clear from these passages that "eating the bread of life" and "believing in Me" will not keep people from dying physically. Jesus is talking about salvation.

I don't agree that Christianity has been unaware of this simple and obvious distinction for the past 2,000 years.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To make God retributive or penal devalues him by making him like us? Read it the other way. We are in his image. We are, as we are, in this way because we are like him in our call and demand for justice. Conscience rebels at the thought of criminals walking free without sufficient penalty what ever form this penalty takes, whether it is restorative, retributive or both. 'I'll get you back' is one of the earliest instincts noted in our children. Liberal sensitivities need to get real. Scratch them and they'll react the same as the rest of us. God, in my view, made us like this because that's how he is and his love has found a solution that doesn't compromise this principle.

And as a teacher of five and six year olds, let me be the first to tell you that there's no bigger mess in the world than 20 kindergarteners letting their "I'll get you back" side go at it unchecked.

I'll take that "liberal" and wear it like a badge of honor, but I don't think that means I'm dropping the call for justice. Again, justice and penalty ARE NOT synonymous. We all want the same thing--we want the wrongs done against us and done against others to come to an end. As I said many pages ago, I believe that true justice has to go beyond retribution. I don't want the murderer to suffer violence done against him--I want him to fully understand the violence HE's done against others. To truly repent--to turn away from that violence. And to turn towards some kind of making right for the people whose lives he's blown holes in. Not as penalty, but as penance.

There's a subset of other atonement models in which Jesus's death does that, for all of us--shows us the absolute brutality of our unchecked impulses to destroy what we feel threatened by, and forces us to choose our relationship to that brutality. The violence is man's--the reaction is God's. I honestly can't see the cross in any other way.

PS to Jamat--Oye, I've been quibbling with most of your posts. Let's go do Top Tens in the Circus, or something, so I can lavish you with Not Worthy smilies as proof that it's not personal. [Smile]

[ 30. May 2007, 01:13: Message edited by: infinite_monkey ]
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
Johnny S,
quote:
I have never claimed that PSA is THE story, just a model which, alongside others, helps to explain the atonement.
Perhaps you could clarify what you think it helps explain. If in fact a Penal Substitutionary analogy is not a very accurate one for the atonement and if a rescue analogy was in every way better, then we would be better off dropping the PSA model entirely and using only Christus Victor. If you think we should consider PSA to be a worthwhile model then there must be some part of the truth you think it captures well or better than any other model. I’m curious to know what part of the truth you think it captures.

I commented you seemed to have PSA-tinted glasses because whatever the hypothetical situation given you seem to see a PSA model as present where others wouldn’t. Several times in this thread people have presented situations (eg JJ’s train analogy) and you have managed to see PSA as present and my mind has boggled reading your posts as I think “how on earth does he manage to find a PSA model in that?!?” I’m left wondering whether you see PSA even in your coffee. Now in some senses there’s no harm in you having a wider definition of PSA than the rest of us, so that more things count as being PSA related… but surely if you expand it too far, then “PSA” is no longer useful. If everything in the world is PSA, then to say that PSA is true becomes meaningless and ends up telling us nothing whatsoever about how the atonement works. In other words, the wider you make your definition of PSA the less usefulness it has in identifying anything in particular.

quote:
Of course, as a drug-addict, he has to live with the consequences of a fallen world (i.e. God's punishment) and therefore this fits perfectly with PSA.
No in PSA the punishment is “substitutionary” – Christ endures it “instead” of us. If Christ is incarnated and suffers the same punishments we suffer then that is not substitutionary and is therefore not PSA. To be PSA (in my view anyway) something has to be penal AND substitutionary, not merely one or the other. Christ suffering punishments with us is thus contrary to PSA not supportive of it as you seem to think. (this again is an example of my complaint above that you see PSA everywhere because you expand its definitions further than anyone else would)

quote:
These gospels, would they be the ones that give a disproportionate amount of space to the events of Easter week?
No more disproportionate than any other Graeco-Roman biographies devote to important events in the lives of the people they document. Jesus’ martyrdom was a pretty important event in his life no doubt about it.

quote:
any model that over emphasises moral example becomes so subjective it tends towards meaninglessness ... if Jesus' death wasn't actually achieving anything objective then it becomes less like a parent pushing their child out of the way of a car and more like mindlessly committing suicide.
As someone who holds 100% to a “subjective” moral example view of the atonement I find this rather objectionable. Jesus’ martyrdom and the movement he inspired has subsequently changed the lives of billions of people, the moral teachings have transformed millions of lives, and the social teachings have inspired thousands of charities which work with the poor, the sick, the imprisioned, the outcasts and the marginalised. His death has had marvellous and real world accomplishments even though nothing magical or supernatural was achieved on the cross.

Martin Luther King Jr when faced with death threats decided to continue his protest against racism nonetheless and died a martyr. His death wasn’t magical, but it set an example which has since inspired others. Was it akin to “mindlessly committing suicide”? Of course not – that would be a pretty offensive thing to say to King’s relatives. Jesus in the same way died a death that was inspiring and powerfully influencing but not magical. It didn’t objectively achieve anything in and of itself (ie if he had died in a cave privately and the world had never known then it wouldn’t have achieved anything because the death itself didn’t achieve anything in and of itself as it wasn’t a death any different to anyone elses), but it was subjectively effective – through the effects it has on us and in our lives when we hear about it, are inspired by it, and act on hearing it that it possesses real power to transform our lives and societies. In the gospels I see Jesus realising he needs to die as a martyr to influence people and that he is not going to be able to succeed any other way, and I see a movement of followers numbering in the billions that his life and death has inspired, a movement which has endured 2000 years and affected the lives of billions. His death was hence a moral example and was entirely “subjective” (in the sense used for atonement theories) and as a result was one of the most influential and effective deaths in history. I simply can’t imagine any possible comparison with a mindless suicide.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
And as a teacher of five and six year olds, let me be the first to tell you that there's no bigger mess in the world than 20 kindergarteners letting their "I'll get you back" side go at it unchecked.

I'll take that "liberal" and wear it like a badge of honor, but I don't think that means I'm dropping the call for justice. Again, justice and penalty ARE NOT synonymous. We all want the same thing--we want the wrongs done against us and done against others to come to an end. As I said many pages ago, I believe that true justice has to go beyond retribution. I don't want the murderer to suffer violence done against him--I want him to fully understand the violence HE's done against others. To truly repent--to turn away from that violence. And to turn towards some kind of making right for the people whose lives he's blown holes in. Not as penalty, but as penance.

There's a subset of other atonement models in which Jesus's death does that, for all of us--shows us the absolute brutality of our unchecked impulses to destroy what we feel threatened by, and forces us to choose our relationship to that brutality. The violence is man's--the reaction is God's. I honestly can't see the cross in any other way.

[Overused] [Overused]

Thank you.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
In the gospels I see Jesus realising he needs to die as a martyr to influence people and that he is not going to be able to succeed any other way, and I see a movement of followers numbering in the billions that his life and death has inspired, a movement which has endured 2000 years and affected the lives of billions. His death was hence a moral example and was entirely “subjective” (in the sense used for atonement theories) and as a result was one of the most influential and effective deaths in history.

Starlight, I love your argument. I also agree with this statement. I do, though, think that there was more to it than merely as a moral example.

I'm thinking that Jesus actually did defeat hell - in part through this same process of moral example, but also through the words He uttered and internal battles that He fought.

In saying that you hold "100% to a “subjective” moral example view of the atonement" do you mean that you do not see the Christus Victor understanding as valid?
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm thinking that Jesus actually did defeat hell - in part through this same process of moral example, but also through the words He uttered and internal battles that He fought.

In saying that you hold "100% to a “subjective” moral example view of the atonement" do you mean that you do not see the Christus Victor understanding as valid?

Two points: First, the problem that I have with CV is that I am unable to make any sense out of "defeating Hell" or "defeating death," except as poetic language. The personification of both only communicates to me as a literary device. Given that, talking about it as "objective" just doesn't make any sense to me.

Second, I find the insistence of moral example as "subjective" to be questionable. ISTM that one can appropriately say that God made us in His image (I think I heard that somewhere before...), and so the appeal to the better angels of our nature is no more "subjective" than any other aspect of God's creation. I just don't buy the underlyig assumption that I seem to hear in this that "it''s just a feeling." Instead, it is a way of getting us in touch with the Godhead within our being. And that seems pretty objective to me.

Having said that, I don't find moral example an adequate explanation of the atonement. I tend to appreciate the modern variants of recapitulation, which the CV crowd seem to collapse into their own view. But I don't think that it is (although I can readliy imagine that someone with that perspective could find recapitulation congenial).

The thing that I find especially attractive in the idea of Christ as the thing that humans were always meant to be is that it encompasses His entire life, from incarnation through resurrection, without dropping into incoherence, at least for me.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
First, the problem that I have with CV is that I am unable to make any sense out of "defeating Hell" or "defeating death," except as poetic language. The personification of both only communicates to me as a literary device. Given that, talking about it as "objective" just doesn't make any sense to me.

It is poetic language. I see it as 'objective' in the sense that I believe that there is 'something' ontological about 'the way things (creation, humanity) are' that means that the possibility exists for Good/God to conquer evil. Cynicism need not rule because, in addition to sin, we are possessed of the Imagio Dei. I believe that 'the Christ event' effected this 'defeat of sin'.

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Second, I find the insistence of moral example as "subjective" to be questionable. ISTM that one can appropriately say that God made us in His image (I think I heard that somewhere before...), and so the appeal to the better angels of our nature is no more "subjective" than any other aspect of God's creation. I just don't buy the underlyig assumption that I seem to hear in this that "it''s just a feeling."

Just to clarify. I mean 'subjective' as in 'pertaining to the subject'. Not 'objective as true' and 'subjective as false/fuzzy'. Others may be using the word differently, but that's what I mean by 'subjective'.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
Hi, Seeker. Thanks for your comments. As usual, I found them helpful.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
Freddy and tclune,

"Subjective" and "objective" are traditional and technical terms with regard to atonement theories.

An "objective" atonement model is one that has something real and ontological occurring at the atonement apart from any response on our part. For example PSA says that on the cross Christ actually bore the punishment from God on our behalf. That event is simply an objective historical fact, and it doesn't require us to know about it to make it true. The Ransom model similarly is objective because it says that Christ really made a real deal with Satan to free us from Satan's power, and the existence of that deal is a historical fact.

A "subjective" atonement model is one where the value of Jesus' work lies in our response to it and its influence on our lives. One way to easily distinguish the subjective from objective is to ask what would have happened if Jesus had become incarnate, died and resurrected on another planet in a distant galaxy and we had never heard about it. In the objective views, Christ would still have accomplished the atonement - Ransom from Satan, or Penal Substitution could still have taken place. Whereas in any subjective view his life on a distant planet would have been totally pointless. For example, there's not much point in dying a martyr if no one knows about it, not much point in living an exemplary life if no one ever sees your example, not much point in giving moral teachings if no one ever hears them, not much point in God raising Jesus from the dead to prove to the world that he affirms and approves of what Jesus taught and said if no one ever sees the resurrected Jesus. A model of the atonement is subjective if and only if Jesus living on a distant planet would totally negate everything he achieved. Thus the Moral Exemplar is "subjective" in this sense.

Now it's really important to not confuse "subjective" with "not real" or "intangible". In fact subjective atonement models are always more real and tangible than objective models. This is because objective models add some invisible and spiritual component to Jesus' work and say "you can't see it, but this is what was and is really happening in the invisible spiritual realms", whereas subjective models reject such speculation and concentrate on what the real observable and tangible effects were in this world. As I said, Jesus' death has tangibly and measurably changed the lives of billions because they heard about him and were inspired by him... that is a "subjective" view and for that reason is a very tangible, empirical, and this-world related observation.

CV can occur in both subjective and objective forms. An example of an objective form would be that Christ after dying really descended into hell, really fought the devil and defeated him and triumphed over him and in that kind of sense "defeated death and the devil". That's objective because Christ really achieved something in and of himself independently on any influence it might have had on us. An example of a subjective form would be to say that Christ's faithfulness to God in his temptations by the devil and his faithfulness even unto death empower and inspire us, if we hold them in our minds, to imitate that same example and it allows us to go out and defeat the devils temptations as we face them in our own lives and to not fear death ourselves. Similarly Christ's resurrection by God proves to us the idea of a final resurrection, so we don't have to fear dying because it is not the end, and thus we are freed from the fear and in that sense the "power" of death. Thus we can talk of how Christ "conquered death and the devil" and mean it in a subjective way - that due to the influence the events in his life have on our minds we are empowered to do likewise.

I personally endorse all subjective models of the atonement and reject all the objective ones. It's probably therefore most accurate to characterize my view as "Moral Exemplar", but of course my view includes all the subjective aspects of Christus Victor as well as every other subjective thing I or anyone else can think of. I think careful biblical exegesis demonstrates that this view is sufficient to explain all biblical passages and that no objective theories are needed. Similarly, my studies of the second and third century church Fathers has confirmed that my Moral Exemplar view played a major role in all their views of the atonement and was the sum total of what many of them believed, and that those few of them who did try to add some objective theory to it disagreed with each other totally about what that objective theory ought to be. I have studied the Recapitulation view, the Ransom views, the objective Christus Victor views, PSA, Satisfaction, etc and at the end of the day I don't think there's any good evidence for any one of them over any of the others and have simply come to the point of rejecting them all as totally unevidenced metaphysical speculations, and I see no particularly reason to add any one of them to my conglomeration of "subjective" views. Finally, to answer your question: I am entirely happy to call what I believe "Christus Victor", just so long as it's clear that in doing so I only mean to endorse the subjective aspects of CV and not any objective ones.

As far as recapitulation goes tclune, I'll agree it's a nice and poetic sounding theory... but from Christ's point of view why bother? As in what precisely do you see the recapitulation achieving, and why should recapitulation be required to achieve that? (and in answering those questions are you just making up random metaphysical assumptions in order to make recapitulation work? [Razz] ) And what are your motivating factors for believing it? (cos it's going to take more than good poetry to get me to believe a set of spiritual and metaphysical propositions)
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Well everyone, you have been having fun. Now I get chance to check my PC you've all written far too much with to respond to properly. Starlight has been very busy so I'll just try and pick up on a few points ... as grist to the mill:

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
If you think we should consider PSA to be a worthwhile model then there must be some part of the truth you think it captures well or better than any other model. I’m curious to know what part of the truth you think it captures.

As I have said before, one unique aspect that PSA brings is that it recognises personal human responsibility for sin. Other models tend to view sin as purely 'alien' to our nature. It is 'alien' but we also have to 'accept responsibility'. There are other aspects which are unique but that will do for starters.

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
As someone who holds 100% to a “subjective” moral example view of the atonement I find this rather objectionable. Jesus’ martyrdom and the movement he inspired has subsequently changed the lives of billions of people, the moral teachings have transformed millions of lives, and the social teachings have inspired thousands of charities which work with the poor, the sick, the imprisioned, the outcasts and the marginalised. His death has had marvellous and real world accomplishments even though nothing magical or supernatural was achieved on the cross.

There is a very major problem with your argument here. You are stating that Jesus' death did not achieve anything objective and then arguing from that assumption! Many millions of Christians would argue that Jesus has done something objective.

Also, to pick up on your Martin Luther-King example we would have to say that he achieved rather more than Jesus did - his example actually made some difference to civil rights in America and abroad. If we are looking at the death of Jesus on this level we have to say that it has done plenty of good as an example but it has not actually changed humanity. 2000 years of history and we are no better - the 'sacrifice' of Jesus was a bitter failure. [Frown] Luther King and Gandhi may have been inspired but so were (supposedly) the Crusaders. [Eek!]


quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:

Now it's really important to not confuse "subjective" with "not real" or "intangible".

Fair point. I would want to include example in my atonement model because, as you say, it is very real and tangible.

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I think careful biblical exegesis demonstrates that this view is sufficient to explain all biblical passages and that no objective theories are needed.

A brave statement! I'm not sure how you could defend that ... but then again I'm not sure how I could disprove that either unless we went through all the bible bit by bit.

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Similarly, my studies of the second and third century church Fathers has confirmed that my Moral Exemplar view played a major role in all their views of the atonement and was the sum total of what many of them believed, and that those few of them who did try to add some objective theory to it disagreed with each other totally about what that objective theory ought to be.

[Confused] Equally brave. I don't know of any recognised early church historian who would agree with you. That doesn't mean that you must be wrong ... but all I'd say is I wouldn't be so confident in making the above claim.

[ 30. May 2007, 22:41: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
Johnny S,
quote:
one unique aspect that PSA brings is that it recognises personal human responsibility for sin.
No objections there. I agree that acknowledging our own real personal responsibility for sin is important and views that say we are merely victims of the system go too far. However I don't have to endorse PSA in order to affirm the truth of human responsibility for sin.

quote:
to pick up on your Martin Luther-King example we would have to say that he achieved rather more than Jesus did
If in 2000 years time people still remember King and he is changing the lives of billions on a daily basis then you will have a point.

As for my "brave" statements, I feel confident making them because I have put years of study into the subject, done a lot of research, and talked to and debated with hundreds of people online about them.
 
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by starlight:
I have studied the Recapitulation view, the Ransom views, the objective Christus Victor views, PSA, Satisfaction, etc and at the end of the day I don't think there's any good evidence for any one of them over any of the others and have simply come to the point of rejecting them all as totally unevidenced metaphysical speculations, and I see no particularly reason to add any one of them to my conglomeration of "subjective" views.

So I have a question. How do you account for the large number of places where ransom/penal/price-paying or other objective language is used?

Here are a few examples of the kind of language that I'm talking about:

1 Cor. 7, 22-3: For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

Mark 10, 45: For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Hebrews 9, 15: For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

The language here sounds pretty objective to me!

Dave

(Please note, I'm not trying to be confrontational: I'm just interested in your - obviously learned - opinion.)
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Thanks davelarge ... although I notice that all your references are to ransom imagery [Biased] ... but still fair enough. I could add loads of others. I don't think that anyone wants to deny the subjective element to the cross, but I still can't see how you can deny an objective element either. (Of course what that objective element is precisely is what we are all arguing about [Big Grin] )

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
However I don't have to endorse PSA in order to affirm the truth of human responsibility for sin.

So please would you explain how any purely subjective atonement model can do that?

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
to pick up on your Martin Luther-King example we would have to say that he achieved rather more than Jesus did
If in 2000 years time people still remember King and he is changing the lives of billions on a daily basis then you will have a point.
You've done it again [Disappointed] You are assuming that the Christ event has a purely subjective effect and then projecting that onto all Christians alive today. The whole point is that the vast majority of Christians believe that the cross achieved something that is, at least partially, objective. Since the majority of Christian denominations etc. all believe in some kind of objective nature to the 'Christ event' then actually it is easier to argue the exact opposite to you - i.e. that Christ is changing the lives of billions of people today because they believe something objective happened.

You seem to fail to realise that your argument cut both ways. You think that I read PSA into everything. I am quite willing to admit that as a possiblity (and have done so several times already). When an objective view has been so dominant in the past and in one's own faith it is hard to see past it and look at the issue objectively. I freely concede that. However, the reverse is also true. It is very easy to reject the objective view without realising that what one replaces it with is still heavily influenced by it. IMHO opinion you want a purely subjective view of the atonement while still living off the legacy of objective ones.

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
As for my "brave" statements, I feel confident making them because I have put years of study into the subject, done a lot of research, and talked to and debated with hundreds of people online about them.

I'm sure that is true and I don't think anyone here would doubt that. If all you are doing is passing that information on, then fine. However, I'm sure that many others could equally claim the same. Over the last 2000 years many of people have done all this (except perhaps on line [Roll Eyes] ) and more but many of them must have come to the 'wrong' conclusions. If you are right then I'm sure your arguments will eventually win through... just don't expect everyone else simply to roll over [Big Grin]
 
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Thanks davelarge ... although I notice that all your references are to ransom imagery [Biased] ... but still fair enough.

That was coincidence: These were just the first few examples that I thought of. My point is about objective language as a whole. Hopefully starlight will answer this broad question rather than focusing on PSA or ransom specifically.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
OK, I'm going to astonish everyone here, I know, but hey, that's life. On this point (the objective nature of the Atonement) I agree with John! There, I've said it! (pauses for a few moments for everyone to recover/rummage for smelling salts/fan themselves).

Starlight, if what you are saying is that the New Testament is replete with exemplar-type language, I would agree with you, but this is hardly surprising. The majority of the NT texts are not concerned with the how and why of the Atonement itself, but rather with its' practical outworking in the life of the church. In such a situation, appeals to be imitators of Christ clearly make sense. But, it seems to me, wherever the atonement is dealt with as such, it is objective language which is used, as Dave has pointed out. The subjective is present, but it is always reactive to the objective event. The examples of Romans 8:1-3 and Colossians 1:19-20 spring readily to mind.

But, that aside, even if the Biblical record did not provide firm evidence of the objective nature of the "Christ-event", as I believe it does, I think that experience would force us to that conclusion. The problem with an "exemplar-only" view of the atonement is that it flies in the face of human nature. Unless something objective changes in us, in me, then what we are left with is an empty moralism. The sins that we master by our own willpower, as we seek to emulate Christ, (say, greed, or pride) we find returning by the back door as judgementalism and self-righteousness. I know this is true for me, and Wesley and Luther (to name but perhaps the best known) testify to its truth for previous generations.

But then, as I say, I am a confirmed supenaturalist.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK, I'm going to astonish everyone here, I know, but hey, that's life. On this point (the objective nature of the Atonement) I agree with John! There, I've said it! (pauses for a few moments for everyone to recover/rummage for smelling salts/fan themselves).

I also agree in the objective nature of the atonement, and I think that there are several different discussions going on at once here.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK, I'm going to astonish everyone here, I know, but hey, that's life. On this point (the objective nature of the Atonement) I agree with John! There, I've said it! (pauses for a few moments for everyone to recover/rummage for smelling salts/fan themselves).

I also agree in the objective nature of the atonement, and I think that there are several different discussions going on at once here.
I also agree about the objective nature of Christ's mission. I am keeping in mind, though, what Starlight said about "subjective" and "objective":
quote:
Now it's really important to not confuse "subjective" with "not real" or "intangible". In fact subjective atonement models are always more real and tangible than objective models. This is because objective models add some invisible and spiritual component to Jesus' work and say "you can't see it, but this is what was and is really happening in the invisible spiritual realms", whereas subjective models reject such speculation and concentrate on what the real observable and tangible effects were in this world. As I said, Jesus' death has tangibly and measurably changed the lives of billions because they heard about him and were inspired by him... that is a "subjective" view and for that reason is a very tangible, empirical, and this-world related observation.
I do think that there were things that we real but which we could not be aware of because they were happening in invisible, spiritual realms. The New Testament certainly states, or alludes to, this.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I also agree about the objective nature of Christ's mission. I am keeping in mind, though, what Starlight said about "subjective" and "objective":

I'm not sure of your point, Freddy. I've been using 'subjective' and 'objective' in that way. But as I understand it, Starlight is arguing for a solely subjective approach to the atonement. I think atonement is both 'subjective' and 'objective' in the classical theological use of the words.
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
(Warning, long post ahead)

Davelarge and co,

A worthwhile exercise is to go through the New Testament a make a list of all the verses that touch on the atonement (of course that is somewhat difficult because in some ways you have to know what the atonement is before you can know what touches on it). What you find is that atonement language in the New Testament is like decorations of a Christmas tree - it has lights of every color and decorations of every shape and size. In an ideal world you would pool all the evidence and get a neat little formula out of it that accounted for all the data, like plotting experimental results on a graph and drawing a neat little line straight through them. But what you get when you plot the NT data on your metaphorical graph looks like one of those pieces of 'art' done by an Elephant.

What has happened is that different Christians have taken that graph, drawn (various different) arbitrary lines through the mess and declared their line the true model of the atonement. They can, of course, support their view by quoting any of the verses (points of the graph) their line happens to cross. Thus the Ransom advocates in the first millennia were convinced their view was the biblical one as they could point to clear verses in the bible which seemed to teach exactly their view. Similarly the Christus Victor and Penal Substitution and yes even Moral Exemplar supporters of today can quite easily pull out as a proof text any verse their line through the graph happens to cross over. Thus we have the amusing situation of PSA advocates over and over again quoting the same verses saying “look it clearly agrees with PSA, why won’t you listen to the bible?” and the CV people giving their same verses over and over saying “our view is the biblical one”. And they are both right, in the sense that the verses they choose to focus on do indeed match up with their line through the graph better than they match up with the other groups’ line. The debate is so enduring because the evidence is definitely there and everyone can see that their own evidence is there because it really is. (Although of course people are good at seeing evidence for their own views in places it really isn’t as well as where it is)

The really important thing about the situation is that there is more evidence than the average Christian pays attention to. Let me make this abundantly clear: If the only things in the bible concerning atonement were the passages cited by the PSA crowd as teaching PSA, then I would believe the bible teaches PSA. Similarly if the only things in the bible concerning atonement were the passages cited by the CV people as teaching CV, then I would believe the bible teaches CV. The problem is not whether the passages commonly cited by supporters favour their views over others (and generally: of course they do, otherwise they wouldn’t cite them), but rather what we are to make of the mass of evidence that is being ignored by these theories. Just because all those verses that aren’t anywhere near the lines aren’t being cited doesn’t make them stop existing, we need to account for all the evidence and not a small proportion of it, and if we are going to start ignoring arbitrary parts of it we’ll need some clear methodology about which parts we’re going to ignore and why.

The terminology that has become popular in recent years for referring to the vast array of conflicting data that the New Testament gives regarding the atonement is to talk about atonement “motifs”, “imagery” or “metaphors”. All of which are intended to mean roughly the same thing: that the NT contains a number of different and not trivially reconcilable ideas / descriptions / imagery about how the atonement worked and what it accomplished. A solution that has appealed to many Christians recently (and especially those of an ecumenical bent) is that multiple atonement theories are therefore true (“hurray, we were all right after all”) as each model of the atonement highlights and picks out “different aspects of the truth”. And views that combine existing atonement models always look promising because they allow the holders to proof-text from the combined verses of both the merged theories and demonstrate the superiority of their view because it incorporates all the old proof-texts and a whole lot of new ones. They will rightly feel pleased about the large amount of biblical support their view has. However, there is a natural limit to the number of atonement models that can rationally be combined. PSA, CV and Moral Exemplar make good candidates for combination in evangelical Christianity, and are the most common three to be used. Trying to add any extras on beyond three is typically like trying to add a fifth wheel to your car – the losses in coherency of the overall system vastly outweigh the gains. But once again the problem of the more unexplained evidence rears its head. The NT has dozens of different atonement motifs. Using three models at once is a powerful way of explaining evidence, but it really can’t cope with the dozens of motifs the NT presents.

It is simply not possible for all the imagery to be true at once, as there are too many mutually exclusive, conflicting and contrasting pieces for all of them to be right. Somehow a magical wand is needed that we can wave at the atonement motifs and reduce them to manageable numbers. No matter what atonement theory we’re going to end up with we need a way to explain away some of these motifs - ideally a clear, justifiable and non-arbitrary methodology – so that we have a much smaller set of atonement motifs left that we can connect to form a coherent theory. The solution to this is, in a single word, metaphors.

Metaphors, as I'm sure we all learned at school, are used in poetry where two different items are identified with each other due to a similarity between the two for a poetic effect. But their use is not limited to poetry and everyday speech regularly utilises metaphors naturally to enhance communication. Using metaphorical language is not usually deliberate and flows naturally wherever two topics are being thought about at the same time, as any links between the two topics whether they’re real conceptual links, or simply linguistic puns. Typically more formal and scientific styles of writing contain sparse and deliberate use of metaphors while styles closer to everyday speech contain more metaphorical language. Normally interpreting and understanding metaphorical language is a task done without thought, we simply "know" that something someone has said is a metaphor. This is because we usually already know a lot about the two concepts being metaphorically connected and the language being used triggers a double-match in our brain and we see straight away that the person is drawing a comparison between the two.

It is only natural that the early Christian church, in reflecting at length on Jesus and his achievements would have drawn on the full spectrum of rhetorical language to praise and talk about him. It is natural they would have used every possible metaphor in talking about this subject. Furthermore in the ancient world there was a genre called Encomium where the point was to creatively praise a person as much as possible using as much overenthusiastic non-literal language as possible (perhaps crossing the line into outright lying regularly). It defies belief that the early Christians never used this genre with reference to Jesus. Undoubtedly some of the metaphors and imagery developed found its way into their hymns, praises and everyday ways of talking about Jesus, and thus into the Bible. So we ought to expect to find the bible packed with a vast amount of different ad hoc metaphorical imagery about the amazing achievements of Jesus, none of which was intended literally, all of which came naturally to the speaker and would have surely been understood equally naturally by the hearers who already knew all about Jesus’ atonement and thus would unconsciously interpret the metaphorical language in the spirit in which it was intended.

Whereas as Christians today we typically read the NT as if it were written as a formal systematic theology that just had the sentences out of order: We tend to look for things in it that we can believe, we search out truth propositions. Which means we tend to deal very badly with metaphors – ie we read them literally. Because formal theology and formal statements of belief tend to use very crisp literal language, we are not expecting metaphors when we go look in the bible to try to find for some formal statements of theological truth. Thus Christians have a tendency to seize on the first biblical metaphors they come across (or are shown) as the literal truth of the bible and then ignore any contradictory evidence they come across on the grounds that they already know what the bible says. Because we don’t already know the true model of the atonement like the early Christian readers and writers of the NT did, we can’t intuitively spot their metaphorical language when they use it.

So, the million dollar question is: How do we tell what’s metaphor and what’s not? How do we know which of the atonement motifs are metaphors and which represent the literal truth? Quite a number of things need to be considered at this point. Firstly, simply reading the text very very carefully with the thought “is it possible this a metaphor?” proves exceptionally helpful. What two concepts could the writer have been drawing a metaphor between? How is would this possible metaphor be functioning? Taking the text ultra-literally, and paying careful meaning to what it literally says (and does not say) is also very helpful. Simply being on the look out for metaphors is more than half the battle won. I’ve found that the skill of analysing text for possible metaphors and for its ultra-literal meaning is something that improves with practice. There are other useful criteria for trying to find the needle of truth in the haystack of metaphors. Two relatively obvious ones are: (a) that the truth should be vastly more common than any individual metaphor if the metaphors are simply deviating from the truth at random on an ad-hoc basis. So even if the truth only accounts for 20% of the whole, it should still be vastly greater than any single other piece of the pie chart. And (b) that each metaphor should share one aspect of similarity with the truth.

Obviously, my other posts here have made clear what type of results I think fall out when these sorts of criteria are applied. At the end of the day I can’t of course prove that all the “objective” atonement motifs are actually metaphors, I can only say: (1) that they meet all my criteria for being ones; (2) that I see no non-arbitrary way to decide which of the objective atonement motifs are metaphors and which aren’t; (3) that the “subjective” atonement motifs have a tendency due to their nature to not be able to be read metaphorically; (4) that taking a subjective view of the atonement and reading all the objective motifs as metaphors works very well and coherently and consistently throughout the NT and explains all the data parsimoniously in a way that no objective models come remotely close to doing.

The fact that after 2000 years Christians still can’t at all agree on what the objective aspect of the cross was and have come up with five major reasonably exclusive alternatives (PSA, Satisfaction, CV, Ransom, Recapitulation) only serves to strengthen my belief that dismissing objective aspects entirely has merit. As Johnny said, your entire list was ransom motifs… but he could just as easily respond with a list of judicial motifs. It simply demonstrates that the early Christians drew on metaphors from both the economic (payment to free captives and slaves) spheres and metaphors from the judicial spheres of life.

So to answer your original question in one sentence: I think all the verses you list are using metaphorical language. (and I know if I had just said that instead of writing another long post everyone would have simply said “ah, so any verses that don’t support his position are arbitrarily dismissed as ‘metaphorical’”, hence my lengthy explanation)

Having given all that general background discussion I might as well type a little extra and do some actual exegesis and help you to see how the metaphors are being utilised in the verses you cite.
quote:
1 Cor. 7:22-3: For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men
In context Paul is talking to Christians some of whom are slaves and some are free. He takes the view that the master we really serve is God. Thus a analogy is drawn between humans buying slaves with money, and the fact that these Christians came into God’s service as an indirect result of the ministry of Christ and death of Christ and his followers’ subsequent preaching throughout the world. Christ’s sufferings indirectly lead to them becoming servants of God, and thus the pain and sufferings that he endured can be said to be the “price” of their conversion. Think about how in English phrases like “you’ll pay for that” get used after one person hits another, or what “he’ll pay a price for his arrogance” means. It doesn’t imply economic repayment, but is simply used to denote suffering or loss of any kind. In a similar way, Christ was martyred and the Corinthians became slaves of God… he “bought” them with his blood.

quote:
Mark 10:45: For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
A ransom is a payment paid to liberate slaves or captives. I explained above the notion of giving a life as “payment” and how that is naturally understood metaphorically. The idea of it being a ransom implies that through his death he is going to achieve some form of beneficial freedom or liberation for these people. I think it is clear from the gospels that the group Jesus was concerned with helping was the oppressed and marginalised, the sick and the poor who were being treated unjustly, becoming indebted due to taxes they couldn’t pay and being imprisoned as a result. Release and liberation to them would have consisted of a real change in their situation and circumstances. Jesus here then seems to be saying he anticipates losing his own life in order to help benefit other people.

quote:
Hebrews 9:15: For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
Hebrews as a book consistently attempts to show how the New Covenant in Christ is superior to the Old Covenant in every way. It draws all sorts of parallels to rhetorically demonstrate match-ups, so that Christ variously ends up as a parallel to the high-priest, Moses, various kinds of sacrifices, and even the temple itself. In the passage mentioned, is half way between comparing the purification sacrifices in the Old Covenant to Christ and comparing the Covenant-founding sacrifice of the Mosaic covenant to Christ. There’s lots of creative rhetorical comparisons happening. An important part of being a Christian was supposed to be the living of an upright life, free from sin. Christ’s death is thus view analogously as the inaugurating sacrifice of this second covenant where Christians now live moral and upright lives without sin as a result of them following Christ’s teachings and emulating him. Whereas the Old Covenant didn’t have such a strong focus on an ethically upright life. Hence Christ “ransoms” them from their old ways of living and sets them free from their former sins.

Since I can copy+paste in an explanation of Rom 8:1-4 that I wrote recently, I will since JJ mentioned the passage. Here’s how I read it:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
ie God does not condemn nor disapprove of those who follow and imitate Christ (because they have changed their lives to live righteously as God desires)

For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
Through the power of the holy spirit and the example of Christ, your lives have been changed, and you have stopped sinning (being "set free" from sin).

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do.
The Jewish customs (the Mosaic Law) was unable to achieve this. But God's empowering Spirit and Christ's example were.

By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin,
Christ came, in our likeness to help us with the problem of sin.

he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us,
God's verdict was to abolish sin, and bring us to righteousness. Through Christ's teachings God was able to lead us to stop sinning and live righteously; thus abolishing sin in our lives and causing us to live in a way that fulfills the moral requirements of the law.

who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
We no longer are slaves to the desires of our fleshly bodies, but live in accordance with the leadings of God's Holy Spirit. In my view this final sentence makes it quite clear that Paul is thinking of an actual change in our lifestyle affected by Christ, so that we actually do live righteously in practice in a way that meets the standards of the law.

For the best discussion of atonement metaphors I am aware of, see Finlan’s Problems With Atonement (reviewed here)

Do I win the ridiculously long post award? [Razz]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Do I win the ridiculously long post award? [Razz]

Yes [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
Jolly Jape,
quote:
But, that aside, even if the Biblical record did not provide firm evidence of the objective nature of the "Christ-event", as I believe it does, I think that experience would force us to that conclusion. The problem with an "exemplar-only" view of the atonement is that it flies in the face of human nature. Unless something objective changes in us, in me, then what we are left with is an empty moralism. The sins that we master by our own willpower, as we seek to emulate Christ, (say, greed, or pride) we find returning by the back door as judgementalism and self-righteousness. I know this is true for me, and Wesley and Luther (to name but perhaps the best known) testify to its truth for previous generations.
I believe the Holy Spirit is capable of empowering us to really conquer sin in our lives and in the world. I do not believe it is only a matter of willpower, though a lot more willpower wouldn't go astray from the "I'm going to sit back, do nothing, and let God work in me" crowd, and I do believe that the NT makes clear we receive real help from God through the Spirit.

I therefore fail to see why making the atonement objective rather than subjective should have any benefits in this regard. If an objective atonement was going to mass-transform human nature, you'd have expected it to have happened 2000 years ago, and clearly no such instantaneous mass magical transformation took place. Instead what we do see is people being inspired and changing their lives when they learn about Christ and his teachings, and have the holy spirit working in their lives.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
Going back to page 3, for accuracy's sake:

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Ken managed the remarkable feat in his comment of turning a lamb into a goat. I’m afraid that goats and lambs are different animals and not interchangeable. The descriptions of Yom Kippur involve goats, not lambs. The Passover involved a lamb. The Passover is not the Day of Atonement and lambs are not goats. When the New Testament talks about Jesus as the Lamb of God, it doesn’t mean Jesus as the Goat of God. If Penal Substitution was true, then it would make a lot of sense for Jesus to die on the Day of Atonement, and so a lot of Christians seem determined to believe that he did. But Jesus was killed on the Passover, which isn’t the Day of Atonement.

Exodus 12:5 on the passover lamb says `you may take it from the sheep or the goats'.

Also, much has been made on this thread about our desire to see offenders punished and our `need' for justice. Reading Rebecca last night made me think that it's not as clear cut as that. I wanted Max to `get away with it'. The human justice system (with death penalty) was too simplistic to deal with the case. Hanging Max won't solve anything but will just increase the pain and bitterness felt by all involved, though Mrs Danvers might disagree. A similar thing occurs in some of the Cadfael books where Cadfael doesn't hand the offender over to the civil authorities.

Carys
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
Starlight, I'm trying to process your very long post.

I agree that all language about the atonement is metaphorical. Nonetheless I believe that the metaphor is trying to point to something ontological. I also that the 'meaning' of atonement is important.

Not everyone here is arguing for only one model of the atonement. And although Johnny S and I disagree about PSA, I think we are agreed that 'atonement-in-itself' is greater than all the models. My disagreement with him (which is only one of the disagreements here) is whether or not PSA as classically expressed is a necessary part of the narration/model of atonement. He says it is necessary and I actually think that it's a theory steeped in original sin rather than in anything divine or Godly (based on my reading of Jesus' teaching in the Gospels).

I suspect that part of Johnny's and my disagreement is about our biblical hermeneutic and I suspect that my disagreement with you would also lie in that direction. I think you've just given us an account of a bibilical hermeneutic which is largely 'demythologising' (correct me if I'm wrong); that's fine, but I don't demythologise scripture to that extent. As to how far one does or does not demythologise scripture, I actually think that's a matter of the presuppositions we bring to scripture, and I'm not sure how well anyone ever succeeds in debating presuppositions.

Hope some of this made sense!
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Because we don’t already know the true model of the atonement like the early Christian readers and writers of the NT did, we can’t intuitively spot their metaphorical language when they use it.

So, the million dollar question is: How do we tell what’s metaphor and what’s not? How do we know which of the atonement motifs are metaphors and which represent the literal truth? Quite a number of things need to be considered at this point. Firstly, simply reading the text very very carefully with the thought “is it possible this a metaphor?” proves exceptionally helpful. What two concepts could the writer have been drawing a metaphor between? How is would this possible metaphor be functioning? Taking the text ultra-literally, and paying careful meaning to what it literally says (and does not say) is also very helpful. Simply being on the look out for metaphors is more than half the battle won. I’ve found that the skill of analysing text for possible metaphors and for its ultra-literal meaning is something that improves with practice. There are other useful criteria for trying to find the needle of truth in the haystack of metaphors.

I'm not at all convinced that this is how language works - 'ultra-literal'? Also you move from a position of 'we can't know THE NT atonement model' to 'but I have worked it out'! Do I have to point the error in that?

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I believe the Holy Spirit is capable of empowering us to really conquer sin in our lives and in the world.

So now you are shifting the objective nature of the cross towards the work of the Holy Spirit. Only now it is 'cut loose' from the cross it raises many more problems. What criteria allow the Spirit's work to be objective but not Christ's?


quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I therefore fail to see why making the atonement objective rather than subjective should have any benefits in this regard. If an objective atonement was going to mass-transform human nature, you'd have expected it to have happened 2000 years ago, and clearly no such instantaneous mass magical transformation took place. Instead what we do see is people being inspired and changing their lives when they learn about Christ and his teachings, and have the holy spirit working in their lives.

Yes, but what can we learn from Christ's example if his work was all subjective? At least Martin Luther-King achieved something. According to your theory Jesus taught some nice things but when the powers of his day stepped in they silenced him. Same old story - nice guys lose... the weak go to the wall ... I could go on.

Christ's example only means something if his death actually achieved something. If he had the supernatural power to 'blow the Romans away' but choose not to use it then he sets a powerful example. The whole point is the Jesus did not start a political revolution, and turned his back on the zealots. If we follow your schema then Jesus' ministry and death was a complete failure and actually reinforces all the 'revenge' type stuff that we have been previously discussing - might makes right etc.

It's no use responding by saying that 'billions of people have been effected by his example and teaching' - they have either accepted or been influenced by a tradition that claims Jesus, in some way, surrendered his life as an objective sacrifice. The Romans crucified other 'Messiahs' who taught stuff. Is it just 'luck' that means that we follow Jesus?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
As to how far one does or does not demythologise scripture, I actually think that's a matter of the presuppositions we bring to scripture, and I'm not sure how well anyone ever succeeds in debating presuppositions.

I think your reading of the debate is pretty fair Seeker. [Overused]

I don't want to give up entirely on debating presuppositions though - otherwise we reach a point when no one has anything to say. [Waterworks]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think your reading of the debate is pretty fair Seeker. [Overused]

Wow. I'm honoured. [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't want to give up entirely on debating presuppositions though - otherwise we reach a point when no one has anything to say. [Waterworks]

Yes, I can understand that. In my experience, though, it's often an incredibly painful discussion that leads to a lot of hurt and often not much understanding. If it can lead to understanding between two people of the other's position, then it's a worthwhile and interesting discussion.

I've rarely had the latter experience (although I might have some hope with you) and I've had the former experience enough to be as wary as a child around a hot cooker!
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
As far as recapitulation goes tclune, I'll agree it's a nice and poetic sounding theory... but from Christ's point of view why bother? As in what precisely do you see the recapitulation achieving, and why should recapitulation be required to achieve that? (and in answering those questions are you just making up random metaphysical assumptions in order to make recapitulation work? [Razz] ) And what are your motivating factors for believing it? (cos it's going to take more than good poetry to get me to believe a set of spiritual and metaphysical propositions)

Thank you for your illuminating post. In case it is not otherwise obvious, let me say that my understanding of theology is not the product of a formal education, but self-directed reading. So I may be interpreting traditional texts in a way that fails to accommodate conventional terminology. I appreciate that this can lead to miscommunication, but that is the fact of my faith journey on these matters.

As I read the fifth volume of Against Heresies, I find the basic thrust of Irenaeus' thought congenial. Both the notions of recapitulation and maturation simply strike me as a pleasing casting of the Christ event into the Biblical context. The fact that Paul uses Adam in a similar way to counterpoint Jesus only strengthens the appropriateness of the language, to my mind.

I find the main thrust of Irenaeus' point to be very much the point made by Walter Wink in The Human Being, although I would rather read Iraneaus any day. I find it almost physically painful to slog through Wink's prose.

To my mind, Christ came "in the fullness of time" to bring us more fully into God's Kingdom. If you ask why He would bother, the only answer I can give is that it appears to be in God's nature to love us and seek to be in relationship with us. That seems to be pretty thoroughly supported by scripture.

I guess I am unmoved by "objective" theories of the atonement, as I now understand them, in that I am not particularly aware of God's creation having been broken before Christ's coming, or fixed after it. Rather, it was we who needed to "get with the program," a program that existed all along.

I simply don't believe that God's grace was not present to all from the very start. For me, that would seems to require me to believe that God changed by the Christ event, and I just don't find that notion one that I can fit with my (of course very partial) understanding of God's nature.

Rather, I see it as a situation where God has always sought our company (amazing as that thought is), and we just couldn't manage it. The Christ event allowed us to overcome our inabilities and enter into relationship with the Divine.

Metaphors like "maturation" and "recapitulation" don't really "explain" our inability from the start. They are simply markers that acknowledge that we have been lost and now we can be found. Actually explaining the human condition is more than I can hope to achieve. But I can give voice to the condition in which I find myself, and the ways that Christ has been able to transform my life.

Of course, there is something highly suspect about claiming to know the state of faith of people who lived thousands of years ago. But I don't see Iranaeus as really talking about people who lived before Christ. Rather, the concepts of maturation and recapitulation are more metaphors for the here-and-now than historical theories of the history of our species. Who knows the spiritual state of people before Christ? The point of these concepts is to affirm how Christ has served to save us from our fallen nature, not to make claims about those of whom we have no knowledge.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
The use of the word ‘ransom’ does not prove PSA. Some think that it was paid to Satan to purchase humanity’s freedom from being enslaved to Satan because we were in bondage to Satan.

Origen: ‘To whom did he give his life as a ransom for many? Assuredly not to God, could it then be to the Evil One? For he was holding fast until the ransom should be given him, even the life of Jesus; being deceived with the idea that he could have dominion over it, and not seeing that he could not bear the torture in retaining it.’

So the was an agreed upon price, paid to secure human freedom from the bondage and consequence of sin.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I guess I am unmoved by "objective" theories of the atonement, as I now understand them, in that I am not particularly aware of God's creation having been broken before Christ's coming, or fixed after it. Rather, it was we who needed to "get with the program," a program that existed all along.

I simply don't believe that God's grace was not present to all from the very start. For me, that would seems to require me to believe that God changed by the Christ event, and I just don't find that notion one that I can fit with my (of course very partial) understanding of God's nature.

If I can give you my own personal take on the ontological aspect of atonement, I think you're being too literal-factual about what happened in AD30+ and probably too time-bound.

I don't see the ontological aspect of 'the Christ Event' as being a case of 'before the crucifixion, creation was broken and after the resurrection, creation was fixed.' Clearly, even the person who is PSA-only has to admit that what was or what not 'fixed' by atonement is a matter of faith since we don't live in perfection. The Eschaton is now and not yet, as they say.

I feel it's possible to say that God's grace was present from the very start and still assert the ontological aspect of atonement. The first chapter of John would, I think, help me to argue that God's grace was present even before the very start.

For me, the whole glory of the ontological aspect of atonement (and where I could quite literally leap and dance in joy and praise) is that God's very being is all about grace. That inherent in who God is, is this 'Christness' that reaches out to us to offer us the choice of choosing right over wrong, life over death, hope over despair, etc. etc.

Dyed in the wool secular cynics would say my view is totally Polyanna. To which I can only respond 'Thank God!'
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
If I can give you my own personal take on the ontological aspect of atonement, I think you're being too literal-factual about what happened in AD30+ and probably too time-bound.
...
For me, the whole glory of the ontological aspect of atonement (and where I could quite literally leap and dance in joy and praise) is that God's very being is all about grace. That inherent in who God is, is this 'Christness' that reaches out to us...

You're probably dead-on in saying that I'm too literal-minded in my approach to these things. But that is the mind that I bring to the party. And, when I hear you talk of God's 'Christness,' I can't help but feel that you are turning Christ Himself into an abstraction (perhaps not coincidentally, I find John the least satisfying of the Gospels).

For my literal mind, the flesh-and-blood of the living Christ is really central to my faith journey. So I can't quite get my mind around what you're saying here in a way that I find uplifting.

I don't mean to suggest that it isn't uplifting, just that it doesn't manage to scratch where I itch.

--Tom Clune

[ 31. May 2007, 17:05: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
You're probably dead-on in saying that I'm too literal-minded in my approach to these things. But that is the mind that I bring to the party. And, when I hear you talk of God's 'Christness,' I can't help but feel that you are turning Christ Himself into an abstraction (perhaps not coincidentally, I find John the least satisfying of the Gospels).

For my literal mind, the flesh-and-blood of the living Christ is really central to my faith journey. So I can't quite get my mind around what you're saying here in a way that I find uplifting.

I don't mean to suggest that it isn't uplifting, just that it doesn't manage to scratch where I itch.

--Tom Clune

Fair enough. I tend to get excited by ideas and I rather like the Gospel of John (although I confess to sometimes getting a bit fed up with some of the language in the farewell discourses).

I would not like to make Christ permanently abstract either. I also want the flesh-and-blood Jesus. It's just hard to hold all these concepts simlutaneously or to speak of them simultaneously.
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
Replying to a few people at once...
quote:
I think you've just given us an account of a bibilical hermeneutic which is largely 'demythologising' (correct me if I'm wrong)
I certainly don't intentionally demythologize. I'm just trying to get at what the writers really intended by their words. I'm trying to make sure I don't read language literally that they meant metaphorical. It's not demythologizing to attempt to identify intentional metaphors accurately.

quote:
Also you move from a position of 'we can't know THE NT atonement model' to 'but I have worked it out'! Do I have to point the error in that?
No, I move from "there are serious exegetical problems" to "here are what I consider the best solutions".

quote:
What criteria allow the Spirit's work to be objective but not Christ's?
None. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "allow"ing or disallowing it. I have no issues with the concept of an objective atonement in generally. I in no way disallow an objective atonement. All I'm saying is that when I read the bible very carefully, taking into account all the evidence, I find that the bible does not teach an objective atonement. It might have been the case that the bible did teach an objective atonement, but it just so happens not to. It is not a matter of me allowing it or disallowing it, it's just about what the bible happens to say and what the early Christians happened to believe. And the view it gives in my view is a 'subjective' atonement model of Jesus' work, and a real belief in the Spirit's work in our lives. The fact that I believe in the 'objective' work of the Spirit should demonstrate clearly that I have nothing against 'objective' atonement in general, I don't have presuppositions about why it is impossible, I don't demythologize it out of existence, I just believe what the evidence points to.

quote:
Yes, but what can we learn from Christ's example if his work was all subjective? At least Martin Luther-King achieved something. According to your theory Jesus taught some nice things but when the powers of his day stepped in they silenced him. Same old story - nice guys lose... the weak go to the wall ... I could go on.
...
The Romans crucified other 'Messiahs' who taught stuff. Is it just 'luck' that means that we follow Jesus?

Jesus was resurrected by God, the others weren't. That's a clear endorsement by God of specifically Jesus and his ministry.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
It's not demythologizing to attempt to identify intentional metaphors accurately.

It seems to me that you are assuming that:

a) An intentional metaphor has nothing ontological underlying it and that 'meaning' is it's sole existence and;

b) That (a) is blindingly obvious to anyone with eyes to see correctly.

Whereas many of us assume that metaphors are signs, symbols and pointers to something ontological that human beings cannot fully grasp.

I'm wanting to ask you if you believe that God has an ontological nature or is simply (pace Tillich), the ground of all meaning?
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
What a metaphor is meaning and whether it has something ontological underlying it or not depends entirely on the metaphor. I wouldn't say that things are blindingly obvious to anyone with eyes to see correctly, but rather that it's very difficult indeed to read correctly documents written 2000 years ago in another language in another culture, and that it's hard even for people who have done a lot of research.

quote:
I'm wanting to ask you if you believe that God has an ontological nature or is simply (pace Tillich), the ground of all meaning?
Of course God has an ontological nature.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Jesus was resurrected by God, the others weren't. That's a clear endorsement by God of specifically Jesus and his ministry.

Woah there! At this point I find myself agreeing with Seeker ... again [Big Grin]

You may not be intentionally demythologising the atonement but that is how it comes across to me, and others it seems. I cannot follow how you can remove all the objective referents from metaphors one minute and then swallow the resurrection without even blinking the next.

Richard has made the very valid point that supporters of PSA have downplayed the significance of the resurrection (in relation to Christ's death) however you seem to be doing exactly the reverse. As I read the NT, especially Paul, the death and resurrection of Jesus is consistently portrayed as a coordinated event. I don't see how you can have the resurrection as an objective supernatural event without the death being in there too. I don't mean that I can't conceive of the the idea, I mean I find it impossible to reconcile with the NT.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
What a metaphor is meaning and whether it has something ontological underlying it or not depends entirely on the metaphor. I wouldn't say that things are blindingly obvious to anyone with eyes to see correctly, but rather that it's very difficult indeed to read correctly documents written 2000 years ago in another language in another culture, and that it's hard even for people who have done a lot of research.

Ummh. So presumably you'd be very reluctant to criticise any atonement models such as CV, PSA, Abelardian etc. ?
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
quote:
You may not be intentionally demythologising the atonement but that is how it comes across to me, and others it seems.
[Roll Eyes] You all seem to have demythologising on the brain.

I have an Indian friend for whom English is a second language, and when he encounters rhetorical devices in English I always have to try to explain them carefully - you'd be surprised how often in everyday conversation the words that get used are not meant literally. So say he is reading a piece of writing that uses an exaggeration, he might wrongly read it literally and believe the exaggerated size of the thing to be the real size of the thing. I have to try to explain to him that what the writer said is not what the writer literally meant. Get that crystal clear in your heads: It is often the case that the words the writer writes are not literally what the writer meant, because they have used exaggerations, metaphors or other such non-literal rhetorical devices. The writer assumes that their reader will indentify exaggerations etc and interpret their words as they were intended. But a lot of Christians seem to not be able to comprehend the thought that the writers of the bible might, like everyone else, have used exaggeration, metaphors and other non-literal language as a natural part of the communication process and that as a result some of their words will not be what they literally meant and that it is the responsibility of the reader to understand their words as they were meant and not misunderstand them by taking their literal meaning.

In other words it is part of reading comprehension to identify and spot non-literal language where present and understand its function in the way the author intended it. That's exactly what I'm trying to do with the bible. I'm not saying "all the bible is a metaphor". I'm not inventing crazy spiritual analogies where Esau represents the sin in our lives, or that the resurrection is simply a metaphor for spiritual renewal or anything like that. All I'm trying to do is do proper normal reading comprehension and get out of the bible passages precisely the meanings that their human authors intended to put into them.

I think Christians as a whole have a tendency to be very bad at this because there's a tendency to implicitly mis-classify the genre of the bible as formal systematic theology and therefore take every word and sentence literally as gospel truth, and totally ignore the fact that the writers of the bible are as capable of using rhetorical devices of exaggeration, metaphors, personifications etc as anyone else.

Demythologizing by contrast is a whole different thing entirely. It's basically the belief that there is no such thing as the supernatural, and thus attempts to deliberately remove all supernatural content from biblical accounts and stories in order to get something believable out of them. I believe in the supernatural so I have no interest whatsoever in demythologizing anything. I'm not trying to remove the supernatural from the bible or anything like that, I don't have any extreme-liberal presuppositions that supernatural events can't happen or that God can't interfere in the world. And frankly I don't have much tolerance with those who want to demythologize things... as I see it we're much better off identifying what the bible writers actually meant and believed and then simply deciding whether or not we want to believe the same things they believed.

I just can't understand how you guys can confuse demythologizing with reading comprehension. (Perhaps the word "metaphor" is to blame, since demythologizing tends to be about ignoring all supernatural events by calling them 'metaphors'. Whereas I'm only interested in calling metaphors things that were actually intended as metaphorical) All I'm trying to do is correctly identify when the biblical writers are using non-literal forms of language in their references to the atonement so that I can determine what they actually thought Jesus achieved. The fact that you are confusing this with demythologizing is making me think I must have explained it extremely badly.

quote:
I cannot follow how you can remove all the objective referents from metaphors one minute and then swallow the resurrection without even blinking the next.
~sigh~ The early Christians believed that Jesus died a martyrs death and was then resurrected by God. In reflecting wondrously on these events they used a lot of rhetorical and figurative language. Different groups of Christians have since that time often made mistakes in interpreting their words and sometimes took some of the exaggerations and metaphors too literally and thus misunderstood the intent of the authors.

quote:
So presumably you'd be very reluctant to criticise any atonement models such as CV, PSA, Abelardian etc. ?
The CV, Ransom and Recapitulation models have my full respect. I don't recall ever criticising the beliefs of people I have talked to who held those views even though I am of the firm opinion that they are not what the bible authors believed. Everyone has a few wrong theological ideas, there's no need to complain about things that aren't important. People who hold these views tend to have fairly sensible theologies so I generally leave well enough alone. I can see why well-intentioned Christians make the mistakes they do in biblical exegesis, so I am sympathetic.

PSA however is another matter. It's not quite the root of all theological mistakes, but it's pretty close. It is associated with a lot of very bad theology, very mistaken biblical exegesis, and generally very messed up Christianity. It's a view of the atonement so different from any of the others that it warps the entire theological system that its part of into something vastly different that ends up looking nothing at all like the Christianity of the bible. So I tend to be quite outspoken about it.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Starlight, I think that you are right in saying that there is confusion and misunderstanding - but it is happening on both sides.

I can only speak for others but I will try and sum up where I just don't get the way you handle scripture.

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
sigh~ The early Christians believed that Jesus died a martyrs death and was then resurrected by God. In reflecting wondrously on these events they used a lot of rhetorical and figurative language. Different groups of Christians have since that time often made mistakes in interpreting their words and sometimes took some of the exaggerations and metaphors too literally and thus misunderstood the intent of the authors.

On this thread (and others [Big Grin] ) we frequently come back to that ubiquitous phrase in the NT 'Christ died for our sins'. A good example would be at the beginning of 1 Corinthians 15:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, "

We have been arguing over what 'Christ died for our sins' means - e.g. is it substitutionary? However, the one thing it is not is a metaphor. Paul does not mean his death was a metaphor or he must mean that his resurrection was one too. I'd love to hear an explanation of how Jesus can 'die for our sins' in a purely subjective way. Others have made this comment before and we haven't had a proper reply. I'm not claiming to be an expert in language structure but I can't see how, for example, you can read metaphorical language into Christ's death but not into his resurrection.

quote:
So presumably you'd be very reluctant to criticise any atonement models such as CV, PSA, Abelardian etc. ?
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
The CV, Ransom and Recapitulation models have my full respect. I don't recall ever criticising the beliefs of people I have talked to who held those views even though I am of the firm opinion that they are not what the bible authors believed. Everyone has a few wrong theological ideas, there's no need to complain about things that aren't important. People who hold these views tend to have fairly sensible theologies so I generally leave well enough alone. I can see why well-intentioned Christians make the mistakes they do in biblical exegesis, so I am sympathetic.

PSA however is another matter. It's not quite the root of all theological mistakes, but it's pretty close. It is associated with a lot of very bad theology, very mistaken biblical exegesis, and generally very messed up Christianity. It's a view of the atonement so different from any of the others that it warps the entire theological system that its part of into something vastly different that ends up looking nothing at all like the Christianity of the bible. So I tend to be quite outspoken about it.

You miss my point. The fact that you don't like PSA does not exactly surprise me ... you are not alone on the ship [Help] But what surprises me is that you can go on, at such great lengths [Big Grin] , at how easy it is to misread the biblical metaphors and then go on to tell us (definitively) 'how it is'. I'm left wondering when it was that the Angel Moroni gave you these wonderful spectacles to read what is not obvious to everyone else? [Big Grin]

I have much to learn. The more I study, the more I realise I don't know [Confused]
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
The reading of that verse depends heavily on the definition of the word "for." If you take it to mean "because of" rather than "in place of," or possibly as "in spite of"...the whole verse changes a bit. I don't know if it's a hard and fast pointer toward PSA, though I understand the reading.

Try some of these out for size...

And from what Latin I know, I know that words like this don't always make it easily across languages, which makes me wish I knew the Greek word that got translated into "for"...

And as usual, I'm not out to debunk PSA, just to say that it's only a model, an interpretation, not an absolute be all and end all truth.

I agree with Starlight about metaphors. In fact, I think a some of the more bizarre ideas in Christianity come about when people read allegorical or rhetorical passages as literal.

I think Paul wrote many times about Scripture not because he was necessarily obsessed with them, but because he was talking to people who used scripture as their common language and understanding. If he wanted to communicate the Christ experience to them, he'd have to do it from scripture. Heck, I wonder what it would look like if Paul thought he was the messenger to the Buddhists...
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
The reading of that verse depends heavily on the definition of the word "for." If you take it to mean "because of" rather than "in place of," or possibly as "in spite of"...the whole verse changes a bit. I don't know if it's a hard and fast pointer toward PSA, though I understand the reading.

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not trying to prove PSA via this reference or phrase. What the 'for' (huper) means is disputed. I'm simply saying that I don't see how Paul can be using Christ's death as a metaphor in 1 Cor. 15 if he isn't also using the resurrection in the same way.

For the moment this is just about objective versus subjective understandings of the atonement.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But what surprises me is that you can go on, at such great lengths [Big Grin] , at how easy it is to misread the biblical metaphors and then go on to tell us (definitively) 'how it is'.

Yikes, now I'm agreeing with Johnny S! [Help] [Biased] [Big Grin]

I certainly agree on the provisional nature of truth communicated by translated language and across time and unfamiliar cultures. I have no problem with the concept that I cannot know capital-T truth with the mind of God. Equally, I also apply that assumption to anything that anyone else says.

At the end of the day we are talking about the interpretation of texts, which we all come to with our own presuppositions, readings of the text, interpretative approaches and ideas about how much we will or will not be informed by church tradition and, if so, which ones.

Yep, I agree that I cannot know 'literal truth'. But I also think that you cannot either. Forgive me if I have the wrong impression that you are making some rather definite statements about your ability to know with a fairly high degree of probability that 'atonement' is only a metaphor.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to continue this conversation on the basis that I think that there is something ontological about atonement and you do not. But if you insist on thinking that I hold my position not as a matter of faith but because I'm a naive, unreconstructed fundamentalist, then we're going to have a hard time holding a conversation.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm simply saying that I don't see how Paul can be using Christ's death as a metaphor in 1 Cor. 15 if he isn't also using the resurrection in the same way.

For the moment this is just about objective versus subjective understandings of the atonement.

Pardon my obtusenes, but I'm still getting the hang of this odd use of "subjective" and "objective" as applied to the atonement. The sense that I was getting was that "subjective" meant something like "focusing on ways that the atonement allows us to respond to God's grace," while "objective" meant something like "changing the fabric of creation apart from our response."

Now, if that is not mistaken, I am not entirely sure what you mean in the quoted passage. Are you saying that "metaphor" and "subjective" are equivalent notions, or that understanding Christ's death in a metaphorical sense would fall into the broader class of approaches that view the atonement in subjective terms, including some that would not approach Christ's death in metaphorical terms?

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
If the meaning of "for" is disputed by different people with their subjective views and interpretations, then doesn't that seem to imply that the meaning of the verse might be subjective?
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
If the meaning of "for" is disputed by different people with their subjective views and interpretations, then doesn't that seem to imply that the meaning of the verse might be subjective?

Sure, but that's not the way that "subjective" is being used on this thread. I've already contended with that confusion...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Now, if that is not mistaken, I am not entirely sure what you mean in the quoted passage. Are you saying that "metaphor" and "subjective" are equivalent notions, or that understanding Christ's death in a metaphorical sense would fall into the broader class of approaches that view the atonement in subjective terms, including some that would not approach Christ's death in metaphorical terms?

--Tom Clune

Good point. I'm not saying that 'metaphor' and 'subjective' are equivalent. I'm trying to inch forward towards what we can be sure about in that phrase 'Christ died for our sins'.

My argument runs something like this (precised for brevity so don't respond too directly [Biased] ):

1. For a subjective understanding we have to read the phrase as a metaphor (presumably something similar to when Paul talks about 'putting to death the sinful nature'.)

2. However, I can't see how it is a metaphor here unless we also see the resurrection as a metaphor - the sentence structure and grammar just seems to fall apart.

However I read 1 Cor. 15 it keeps coming back as haivng some objective element to. I can't see how you can read it any other way.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However I read 1 Cor. 15 it keeps coming back as haivng some objective element to. I can't see how you can read it any other way.

I read "Christ died for your sins" in a subjective sense. First, I think that there is a sense of "Christ died because of your sins that scans properly in the reading. And second, I appreciate Abelard's notion of empathy -- we respond to Christ's suffering on the cross in a way that leads us to "turn and live." We come to recognize the cost of our Godless life as borne by Christ's agony, and repent. Of course, the second sense grows naturally out of the first. As I understand it, this is a thoroughly subjective view of the atonement, but I find it an honest reading of the text -- and not at all metaphorical.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
Johnny S,
You're right that the phrase "X died for Y" is not metaphorical. And I dealt with it on page 3 of this thread:
quote:
Originally posted by me:
A reference was also made indirectly earlier by another poster to Jeffrey Gibson’s work 'Paul’s "Dying Formula"' in Celebrating Romans: Template For Pauline Theology, 2004, in which Gibson examines the meaning of the Greek phrase “X died for Y” in the one hundred and eleven surviving occurrences from that phrase in Greek manuscripts. His found that 100% of the time the phrase “X died for Y” is talking about a martyrdom (in the broad sense of the word) – usually it refers to a soldier who has died in battle fighting for his country, city, family or friend, and sometimes refers to martyrs for religious causes. Paul makes fairly prolific use of the phrase “Jesus died for us”, implying therefore Jesus died some sort of martyr’s death for our sake. Paul directly compares Christ dying for us in Rom 5:7-8 to the normal situation of a man dying for the sake of another person, and presents the difference as being not one of kind but one of degree – normally you would give your life to save someone else because they are a good person worth saving, whereas with Christ it was when we were immoral people that he gave his life as part of his teaching and effort to change us personally and change society. Hence, Paul continues, if God loves us enough to send Christ to teach us righteousness and die doing it when were wicked, how much more must he love us now that we have learned righteousness from Christ and live in a way pleasing to God (5:9-10). Note that common in Greek descriptions of martyrs are references to blood and shedding of blood, and also references to the faithfulness of the martyr to their cause even unto death. Remember that crucifixion was not a particularly bloody death, so the New Testament’s constant references to the blood of Christ need to be explained either against a sacrificial or martyrological background. Paul’s use of the three ideas of “Christ died for us” and much talk about Christ’s “blood” and “faithfulness” indicate a strong martyrological theme.

Gibson's evidence seems pretty compelling. Outside of the bible 100% of Greek usage of this fairly common phrase uses it in a 'subjective' sense: where the person dies a heroic death fighting in battle or as a martyr, defending their city, country, family or religion. Gibson's paper is online here if you'd like to read it.

The one unusual thing about specifically the one instance of the phrase in 1 Cor 15 is that Paul departs from his usual "Christ died for us" language which he uses constantly elsewhere and instead says "Christ died for our sins". Taken literally, with Gibson's evidence in mind, then end up with a rather strange reading where Christ dies fighting for the sake of defending sin. Most scholars therefore take the view that we should read an implicit 'forgiveness of', ie what Paul means is not:
'Christ died for the sake of helping sin itself because he was on sin's side'
but rather:
'Christ died for the sake of freeing us from sin because he was on our side'

So my reading of it is as follows: Christ taught righteousness, he showed people how to be free from sin and live righteously, and even when the authoritites told him to stop he preservered and they put him to death. Now if we follow his teachings and example, he can transform our lives, bringing us to live righteously and free from sin. Thus we say that he died to free us from our sins. Because his determination to help us cost him his life, just like a soldier's determination to defend his home might cost him his life in battle. In that sense 'Christ died for us', and 'he died for our [release from] sins'.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I read "Christ died for your sins" in a subjective sense. First, I think that there is a sense of "Christ died because of your sins that scans properly in the reading.

Can you explain this a bit more to me then? I don't see how 'because of' is a subjective sense - bearing in mind that Paul was writing to the Corinthians ... how did Jesus die because of their sin?
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Can you explain this a bit more to me then? I don't see how 'because of' is a subjective sense - bearing in mind that Paul was writing to the Corinthians ... how did Jesus die because of their sin?

First, let me say that I appreciated Starlight's post just above yours. He did a much better job that I had of explaining a subjective sense of dying for our sins.

But, to the particular point you raise, I think of the situation like this: Christ committed Himself to being in relationship with us. Throughout His ministry, this placed Him in jeopardy. It was not because He was saying or doing things that were worthy of persecution. Rather, it was because our sinful response to God's love is violence and rejection. In the full knowledge that we respond thusly, Christ remained committed, even unto death on a cross, to loving us and continuing to minister to us.

It is that sense in which I think that it is perfectly reasonable to say that Christ died "because of" our sin, and it is a common enough locution, at least in english -- "for want of a nail, the shoe was lost," etc.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I obviously missed this first time round - thanks for coming back to this.

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Gibson's evidence seems pretty compelling. Outside of the bible 100% of Greek usage of this fairly common phrase uses it in a 'subjective' sense: where the person dies a heroic death fighting in battle or as a martyr, defending their city, country, family or religion.

I can't say that I've read Gibson's paper and so maybe you haven't done him justice but if you have then I have to that his argument is definitely NOT compelling.

The Greek martyr concept is well established. But the whole point is that they gave their lives fighting for a cause. The inspiration the Greeks drew from them was to take up their struggle. They would fight on for the ideal that the martyrs tried to realise, but failed. If we apply this idea to the cross it falls down on several levels. Jesus was not a martyr in this sense, in fact he even stopped his disciples from trying to turn him into one (in Gethsemane). Jesus was not killed by the sin of the Corinthians, he was killed by the Romans [Biased] The other thing about martyrs is that they do not see their objective achieved, by definition they must die before their goal is achieved... and yet the NT writers stress that Christ's work was complete. Death is not something martyrs actively want to happen, just the inevitable consequence of opposing whatever it is they are opposing. Jesus, on the other hand, kept describing his death as 'essential' to his task (e.g. Gethsemane). There is some mileage in the martyr metaphor but none that makes Christ's death purely subjective.


quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Thus we say that he died to free us from our sins. Because his determination to help us cost him his life, just like a soldier's determination to defend his home might cost him his life in battle. In that sense 'Christ died for us', and 'he died for our [release from] sins'.

Thanks for this, I think I now understand how you would interpret 'Christ died for us'. However, I think it stretches the 'elastic' of language beyond breaking point. And then when you try to work 'Christ died for our sins' (which also appears in 1 Peter 3 v 18) so that it becomes 'Christ died for us'.... I just smiled and thought of your comment to me about 'seeing PSA in my coffee'. [Big Grin] You are desparate to read a subjective atonement and therefore you will see it wherever you look.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Sorry - cross-posted!

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
It is that sense in which I think that it is perfectly reasonable to say that Christ died "because of" our sin, and it is a common enough locution, at least in english -- "for want of a nail, the shoe was lost," etc.

--Tom Clune

I get that sense. However, the 'our' doesn't just apply to those present when Jesus was crucified (or in anyway responsible) it also applies to the Corinthians ... to us! Therefore Jesus is dying for the sins of the whole world in a representative sense. Now I appreciate that that could be subjective or objective but that is as far as it goes.

If I allow you to stretch Paul's terminology this far then I agree it could mean that. What I can't say, even after this lengthy exchange [Big Grin] , is that you've given any evidence that it should be read subjectively.

Of course your reading 'because of' also makes perfect sense in a penal framework [Razz]
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
quote:
and yet the NT writers stress that Christ's work was complete.
"in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church." (Col 1:24)

quote:
'Christ died for our sins' (which also appears in 1 Peter 3 v 18)
But what does the verse right before 1 Pet 3:18 say?
"For it is better to suffer for doing good, if suffering should be God's will, than to suffer for doing evil. For Christ also suffered concerning sins..."
It looks pretty parallel to what Peter said 20 verses earlier:
"if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps." (1 Pet 2:20-21)

It's also s slightly different wording in 1 Peter 3:18 from 1 Cor 15. In 1 Cor 15:3 Christ dies "hyper" (=for the sake of) our sins, whereas in 1 Pet 3:18 Christ suffers "peri" (=concerning, with regard to, about) sins.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
and yet the NT writers stress that Christ's work was complete.
"in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church." (Col 1:24)
Ummh, maybe (although hardly a representative verse of the rest of the NT) ... and all the other reasons why the martyr metaphor doesn't support a subjective atonement?
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If I allow you to stretch Paul's terminology this far then I agree it could mean that. What I can't say, even after this lengthy exchange [Big Grin] , is that you've given any evidence that it should be read subjectively.

Of course your reading 'because of' also makes perfect sense in a penal framework [Razz]

I have a somewhat different agenda than some here. I am quite content to say that I remain unmoved by PSA, and am glad that those who do find it meaningful are uplifted. I am not a minister or theologian, and am more interested in working out my own understanding with fear and trembling than in providing the framework for the rest of Christendom.

I participate in these discussions to learn and to hone my ability to present the ways that I have been moved in the Spirit. It is a sad fact that the local church, for the most part, is uninterested in these matters at all. So I am greatful to the Ship for providing a community in which I can develop the expression of my faith and be subjected to thoughtful correction. But I have no more global aspirations than that.

--Tom Clune

[ 02. June 2007, 00:26: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I participate in these discussions to learn and to hone my ability to present the ways that I have been moved in the Spirit. It is a sad fact that the local church, for the most part, is uninterested in these matters at all. So I am greatful to the Ship for providing a community in which I can develop the expression of my faith and be subjected to thoughtful correction. But I have no more global aspirations than that.

--Tom Clune

Amen to that. [Cool]
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I participate in these discussions to learn and to hone my ability to present the ways that I have been moved in the Spirit. It is a sad fact that the local church, for the most part, is uninterested in these matters at all. So I am greatful to the Ship for providing a community in which I can develop the expression of my faith and be subjected to thoughtful correction. But I have no more global aspirations than that.

--Tom Clune

Well, as a potential aspiring pastor and theologian, I think that I have a very similar motivation, but mostly because I know Christians and non-Christians who have encountered PSA taught as if it were the absolute only way to read salvation, and due to the perceived (as they see it) brutality and callousness of the theology have felt driven away from the church. They can't relate to a God that operates in such a "barbaric" and apparently inhumane fashion. It's not that I think that PSA necessarily is barbaric or inhumane, but I can see why people think it to be so, and so I seek a new way to communicate Christ. As such, I found the OP'ed article meaningful.

I am similarly grateful to the ship and similarly grateful for any and all correction offered. Thanks for the whetstones. [Smile]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
[PSA however is another matter. It's not quite the root of all theological mistakes, but it's pretty close. It is associated with a lot of very bad theology, very mistaken biblical exegesis, and generally very messed up Christianity. It's a view of the atonement so different from any of the others that it warps the entire theological system that its part of into something vastly different that ends up looking nothing at all like the Christianity of the bible. So I tend to be quite outspoken about it. [/QB]

Fine, that is duly noted and filed. I reject utterly that a PSA model either denigrates the character of God or that it necessarily leads to a warped outworking of the Christian life.

Any other view seems to me to be a way of seeing sin as less serious than God sees it. When I suggested this much earlier no one seemed to agree so sorry but here it is again. The issue in this argument is that the profound effects of the fall and our consequent sinfulness require the most radical and literal surgery on our hearts. The atonement achieves this but to suggest that sin did not need judging is to belittle it.
Note 2Cor5:21. "He made him who knew no sin TO BE sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in him"
That he won the victory over evil as all are asserting is not in question. Of course he did. How he did it is the point. It was a literal victory over a literal power of evil that legally held the human race in thrall of judgement. (and yes, I know there is metaphor in the Bible but to see atonement in terms of metaphor is to me to remove personal responsibility as I think someone noted previously) Satan, before the cross event, could justifiably say to God."They are mine! Go away!" Now of course he cannot legally do this since a price has been paid by the Saviour. Judgement was pronounced and executed on the holy one ON BEHALF of those who have faith in his name. Now, whoever calls on the name of the Lord like the Philipian jailer of Acts 16:30 and 31, will be saved. I do not think you can realise how good the 'Good News' is, without the judgement element. The problem is that very few are of us are genuinely holy enough to discern the true nature of the sinfulness that held us in its power and I include myself in this.

Incidentally seeker, top ten works for me.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Judging yes. But love triumphs over judgement, doesn't it (according to the Bible, anyway), and (also according to the Bible), love keeps no record of wrongs, and does not demand punishment.

Interestingly, your explanation of PSA in your last comes quite close to the Ransom model, in as much as the Devil's legal claim over sinful humanity fails. The difference is of course that in the Ransom model the Devil is paid for us, in yours God is paid. Christus Victor says, rather, that the Devil was defeated. He claims us on the grounds of our sinfulness, is taken on by Jesus, apparently defeats Jesus by using sinful humanity to crucify Him, but ends up finding that love was the stronger weapon when his hatred. If I may freewheel for a bit here, the Devil says "mine" on grounds of our sinfulness, but God says "mine" on the grounds of His love, and on the basis of that goes out to tear us from the Devil's hands, because, in fact, the Devil never had a valid claim over us, because we were made by God, never ceased to be loved by Him, and the Devil's claim over us was little more than cosmic confidence trick.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Any other view seems to me to be a way of seeing sin as less serious than God sees it. When I suggested this much earlier no one seemed to agree so sorry but here it is again.
I'm sorry, I can't understand the reasoning here at all. Surely "just forgiving" (this seems to have been the phrase most used) is much more costly, much more demanding of the forgiver than is punishment. Ergo, it is, in fact, treating sin more seriously, for the very reason that the resolution is more costly.

quote:
The issue in this argument is that the profound effects of the fall and our consequent sinfulness require the most radical and literal surgery on our hearts. The atonement achieves this but to suggest that sin did not need judging is to belittle it.

Well, I'm with you absolutely here - except that is suspect (and forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth) you are using "judgement" as a synonym for "punishment". In fact, judgement as a biblical term can be defined as something like "declaring what God thinks upon a matter". Thus, a judgement may result in punishment, or it may result in vindication - acquittal, if you like to use the legal language, pardon, or forgiveness. The point that I am making is that God can issue judgement on sin without anyone necessarily getting punished.

And, of course, I would be the first in the queue to affirm with you that we are in need of radical "remaking" in the power of the Holy Spirit, but that can happen whatever method of Atonement one holds.

Indeed, even under a non-penal schema, such as the one I hold to, Jesus' death and resurrection were the necessary precondition for this remaking, and that remaking was necessary because of our fallen nature, so I think we both hold quite a high view of the seriousness of sin.
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The Greek martyr concept is well established. But the whole point is that they gave their lives fighting for a cause. The inspiration the Greeks drew from them was to take up their struggle. They would fight on for the ideal that the martyrs tried to realise, but failed.

As did Jesus, who spoke out against the authorities, taught and started a movement to change the lives of many. He told his followers to take up their own crosses and follow him, promising them God would reward them if they died for his cause... hardly the words of someone intending to achieve a once-and-for-all accomplishment by his own death.

quote:
Jesus was not a martyr in this sense,
Really? In the gospels we see that: He anticipated his death; He resolved to continue to do what he saw as God’s will even though it cost him his life; He anticipated that God would reward him after death with a resurrection; He believed his death would cause his movement to flourish; He died for the sake of others, his motives were unselfish; He was killed by the authorities because of his actions and teaching; He died bravely and nobly; His death is accompanied by signs of divine action; He told his followers - To To be ready to be killed likewise, To expect rewards after death, To persevere in the face of hardship.
Jesus seems to me to fulfill all the criteria for a martyr and then some.

quote:
in fact he even stopped his disciples from trying to turn him into one (in Gethsemane).
[Confused] Do you mean when Jesus tells his followers not to fight? How exactly is advocating non-violent means of protest identical to not turning himself into a martyr?

quote:
Jesus was not killed by the sin of the Corinthians, he was killed by the Romans
His message that he died for can be applied equally to the lives of the Corinthians. His death was for the sake of the propagation of his message, and so in adopting his message his death becomes for them.

quote:
The other thing about martyrs is that they do not see their objective achieved, by definition they must die before their goal is achieved... and yet the NT writers stress that Christ's work was complete.
No they don't. I take it you're going to ignore the verse I gave.

quote:
Death is not something martyrs actively want to happen, just the inevitable consequence of opposing whatever it is they are opposing.
Not true. They can decide on a deliberate course of action to get themselves martyred if they think that doing so will greatly further their cause. The gospels depict Jesus as doing this... as his ministry progresses he comes to see the need for his own martyrdom.

quote:
You are desparate to read a subjective atonement and therefore you will see it wherever you look.
I would say that after a great deal of experience I have come to realise that it is very easy to mistakenly misinterpret something meant subjectively as objective without even noticing the subjective meaning is there, and that therefore we should always check very carefully for any possible presence of a subjective meaning. It is my belief that the bible provides so many different and mutually exclusive objective meanings in different passages, and uses no single given one with any level of consistency to warrent saying it is the biblical objective view, that the best conclusion about the biblical authors views is that they were subjective and made use of differnt objective metaphors on an ad hoc basis.

It is not the lack of verses with possible objective readings that makes me think an objective view is wrong. But rather ironically the fact that there are too many verses which imply objective views, but which imply different ones to each other... coupled with the fact that it is possible to read every one of those verses subjectively. If you only take into account a little bit of evidence you can prove any view you want to prove... CV, PSA, Ransom, Recapitulation, and more... but once you take into account all the evidence you begin to realise that they can't all be true at once... and if they can't all be true but there's no way to decide which one of them is true then an obvious alternative to consider is that they are all as true as each other in that none of them are literally true and they are all rhetorical figures of speech and analogies.

A lot of people are happy to agree with this conclusion in the sense that they say "I think no one model captures the full truth of the atonement and I think each one is analogous to a piece of the full picture". But I think they wrongly apply this idea at the model level rather than the verse level. They arbitrarily combine isolated verses together to construct these models which are each apparently analogous to a different portion of the picture... but far better methodology would be to say that each verse used in their models is itself analogous - and hence constructing the verses into models in the first place is flawed because it is the verses themselves that are analogies not the full-blown models that are being read in whole back into the verses from which parts of them were constructed.

So yeah, I see a subjective atonement everywhere I look in the NT. Or, rather I see totally inconsistent objective patterns at face value and then when I bother to look harder I see a clear subjective picture underneath. Ever see those 3D magic eyes? What looks to be a random pattern on the surface turns out to be a clear and intentional picture if you take the time to look for the shapes that were intended to be seen there. I've found that subjective atonement tends to be very very easy to find if you bother to look for it. For some reason most Christians are well-trained to ignore it in their bibles because it is the wrong kind of atonement theory. They associate "atonement" with "objective" and therefore when they look at any passage trying to find out "what Jesus achieved" they discard any subjective statements without even considering them because they are so busy trying to find objective ones, and after discarding ten subjective statements and finding 3 different objective ones they choose the one they like best (or, more accurately, the one that best matches what their tradition tells them to look for) and claim success. What a wonderful way to do careful biblical exegesis. [Razz]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I don't think this is getting us anywhere Starlight ... your post is heading down a dead-end.

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:
Jesus was not a martyr in this sense,
Really?
I've highlighted the bit you seemed to miss - Jesus was not a martyr in the Greek mythical way since he was not using force to defend a principle. However, I think we both agree on this and so there is little point in arguing over it.

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
So yeah, I see a subjective atonement everywhere I look in the NT. Or, rather I see totally inconsistent objective patterns at face value and then when I bother to look harder I see a clear subjective picture underneath. Ever see those 3D magic eyes? What looks to be a random pattern on the surface turns out to be a clear and intentional picture if you take the time to look for the shapes that were intended to be seen there. I've found that subjective atonement tends to be very very easy to find if you bother to look for it. For some reason most Christians are well-trained to ignore it in their bibles because it is the wrong kind of atonement theory. They associate "atonement" with "objective" and therefore when they look at any passage trying to find out "what Jesus achieved" they discard any subjective statements without even considering them because they are so busy trying to find objective ones, and after discarding ten subjective statements and finding 3 different objective ones they choose the one they like best (or, more accurately, the one that best matches what their tradition tells them to look for) and claim success. What a wonderful way to do careful biblical exegesis. [Razz]

I don't think anyone on this thread would disagree with you. However, if I say that I look into the '3D magic-eye' of Scripture and I see PSA then (according to your argument) you have no good reason to disagree with me.

I'm not expecting you to agree with my view of the atonement, and I don't think others are either. What surprises me, from what you say, is that you are so adamant that myself and others are wrong. You keep using phrases like:

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
"I would say that after a great deal of experience..."

which sound (to me) as if you want to pull rank in some way. You want to be able to say "I've studied this longer than anyone else / understood it better / got more authority to say this ... whatever" (fill in your own options) But you know how hollow that would sound on the Ship.

I know it must really annoy you and so I want to try and convince you that I am not trying to wind you up. The simple fact is that if it is true that people like me look into Scripture and find what they are already looking for then it MUST also be true for you. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[QB] [QUOTE] Any other view seems to me to be a way of seeing sin as less serious than God sees it.QUOTE]

[QUOTE] I'm sorry, I can't understand the reasoning here at all. Surely "just forgiving" (this seems to have been the phrase most used) is much more costly, much more demanding of the forgiver than is punishment. Ergo, it is, in fact, treating sin more seriously, for the very reason that the resolution is more costly.

Forgiving is only possible if justice is somehow satisfied. Justice is only satisfied if some kind of consequence results to redress the balance caused by wrongdoing. You deny this at your peril as it is a cornerstone of natural law based in human conduct through the ages. My contention is that it is how God is rather than an aberration caused by our fallenness. Therefore, sin requires redress. The fact that such redress cost the life of the Holy One, the Saviour, is an indication of how seriously God takes it. If we suggest forgiveness is possible on any other basis we devalue it by putting a lesser value on its price than God has. In other words, we simply don't realise that left alone it would destroy us and disenable God's purposes for us.
True, the Bible says that mercy triumphs over justice. This is because God in Christ has shown us mercy. He has done so without compromising the justice principle as Christ was judged to show us mercy.
Regarding forgiveness, it is very glib to demand it at times. How do you forgive the murderer of your child or the rapist of a loved one or the person who has destroyed your life through fraud, or the cheating partner, or the guy who seduced your wife? As a Christian, I may find it in my heart to do this ONLY because, when it comes to the crunch, God, in Christ, has forgiven me more. It will be a long costly process but perhaps as I realise the depth of God's forgiveness of me, I may find, grace in my heart to let a major offence go. Without Christ I have no chance at all.
 
Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Forgiving is only possible if justice is somehow satisfied. Justice is only satisfied if some kind of consequence results to redress the balance caused by wrongdoing.

Jamat, what do you make of what people have been saying on this thread about restorative justice as distinct from retributive justice?

In restorative justice, no punishment is needed because the wrong is actually put right, the hurt to the victim is undone, the wrongness in the perpetrator's character is fixed.

On earth we demand retributive justice because most wrongs cannot actually be righted, so they must be punished instead; but the suggestion has been made that God can actually put right these wrongs and make them as though they never happened, which is better than punishment.

[edit: code]

[ 05. June 2007, 23:28: Message edited by: Talitha ]
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S,
What surprises me, from what you say, is that you are so adamant that myself and others are wrong.
...
which sound (to me) as if you want to pull rank in some way.

The reason I am adamant is the amount of evidence for my position that there is. By mentioning my experience and study I am not trying to pull rank but trying to allude to the fact that there is a lot of evidence without posting 200 pages worth of it here. Since neither time nor space will permit me to go through even a small proportion of the evidence here I can only allude to it in very general way. And you seem to be responding with a "who are you to think you might have studied more and read more books and looked at more evidence than me? I'm as smart and as well studied as you are, so you can't be sure anything you think is right if it disagrees with me. It's not possible that I commit any errors that you've learned to avoid." Well, whatever, you can think what you like, I'm calling it a day.


Jamat,
quote:
Forgiving is only possible if justice is somehow satisfied.
This isn't usually the case. eg when a mother forgives a child who has done something wrong she does this instead of invoking punishment. Usually in the world forgiveness and punishment are mutually exclusive... forgiveness is only possible if justice is not satisfied.

quote:
You deny this at your peril as it is a cornerstone of natural law based in human conduct through the ages.
That's not true at all. It is our Western concept of justice which is unusual in terms of how human societies throughout the ages have tended to work. Most societies in history (and virtually all the ones remaining today that have not had significant Western influence) are based on honour-shame systems where the thing of essential importance is the removal of any consequences of the wrongdoing. Instead of punishing wrongdoing, justice consists of making it as if the wrongdoing had never happened. A lot of evangelical missionaries have serious problems explaining the gospel to such people because PSA makes no sense at all to the natives, precisely because PSA is so heavily dependent on Western notions of retributive justice and can't translate into the majority of human societies where the only justice they know is restorative. It's worth noting that any system of restorative justice inherent combines forgiveness and justice due to its very nature.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:

In restorative justice, no punishment is needed because the wrong is actually put right, the hurt to the victim is undone, the wrongness in the perpetrator's character is fixed.

On earth we demand retributive justice because most wrongs cannot actually be righted, so they must be punished instead; but the suggestion has been made that God can actually put right these wrongs and make them as though they never happened, which is better than punishment.


Nicely put, Talitha. It's my hope that God does put right all wrongs, though I don't think His way is going to actually make things as though they hadn't happened. I think of the resurrected Jesus--raised by God with the wounds still on him. The pain is acknowledged: the meaning gets changed. Life moves past the hurt.

Indeed, I'd say that's about eight different kinds of better than punishment. It's the kind of restoration that makes me embrace the newer paradigm of restorative justice on earth--even as the vaguest shadow of my hopes for 'as it is in heaven', it's a far brighter thing than what we've been doing.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Hi Talitha. I think the distinction between retributive or restorative justice is nice. If justice can be restorative that is preferable obviously. I don't see the two as either/or necessarily, rather as which best fits a circumstance. The atonement combines the two in my view. Christ was crucified and underwent punishment (retribution) in order to achieve restoration or redemption. The principle of justice or redress is the thing. Clearly the issue is what creates the 'satisfaction' justice demands. An unredressed wrong is the basis of many Shakesperian plots. Hamlet's fathers Ghost stalks the battlements of Elsinore seeking a revenge hero. (not terribly germane but interesting nonetheless.)

Starlight. I do not accept that the principle of redressing wrong to achieve justice is only a product of western culture. In every society there is a law of payback which is the same thing however crude. In 498 BC?(Check that) when Zedekiah rebelled against the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar, the latter came and punished him by besieging Jerusalem, sacking it and blinding Zedekiah after slaughtering his family in front of his eyes. The Maoris of NZ call the principle UTU which loosely translated means revenge. In their culture it can work positively as well. You can earn favour by doing a good turn as well as revenge by doing a bad one. I would maintain that there is a concept of natural justice that is universal and transcends cultural boundaries.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Sorry for double post but how many mothers actually forgive wrongdoing in their children? They deal with it variously but they always redress it in order to train their offspring. If they forgave without consequence the world would be run by little monsters. One of my siblings illustrates the point.'Now if you put the milkshake maker in the bath then it won't make milkshakes any more will it?'.Wrongdoing can be self-punishing but in my experience most parents if they shield offspring from consequence just delay the inevitable by absorbing that consequence themselves and sooner or later the kids learn about it the hard way.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Jamat - you think revenge is a good thing, despite being proscribed throughout the NT, and condemned by Jesus in the parable of the unforgiving servant?

Which is a good illustration. How is justice "satisfied" by the master forgiving the servant his debt in this parable? It is the servant who demands the very satisfaction that you are promoting who Jesus condemns. Nor do I see any satisfaction being demanded by the father of the prodigal son; it's the older son, who points out how unjust this is, who gets condemned.

No, Jesus' model of forgiveness in His teaching seems to be in place of satisfaction.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Forgiving is only possible if justice is somehow satisfied. Justice is only satisfied if some kind of consequence results to redress the balance caused by wrongdoing. You deny this at your peril as it is a cornerstone of natural law based in human conduct through the ages. My contention is that it is how God is rather than an aberration caused by our fallenness. Therefore, sin requires redress. The fact that such redress cost the life of the Holy One, the Saviour, is an indication of how seriously God takes it. If we suggest forgiveness is possible on any other basis we devalue it by putting a lesser value on its price than God has. In other words, we simply don't realise that left alone it would destroy us and disenable God's purposes for us.
True, the Bible says that mercy triumphs over justice. This is because God in Christ has shown us mercy. He has done so without compromising the justice principle as Christ was judged to show us mercy.

If I might ask, whay do you think that the concept of retribution is not merely a product of our conception of justice having been devalued by the fall? In ask this in light of Jesus clear teaching that we should not seek the redress of wrongs, but rather forgive them. This, coupled with His claim that "I and the Father are One" does seem, to me, to suggest that God is far more interested in forgiving freely as opposed to punishment as a way of dealing with sin - indeed, it seems he takes a very dim view of refusing to offer forgiveness, and with very good reason, as the passage hints. Only forgiveness is actually capable of dealing with sin - punishment just doesn't cut the mustard. All it does is imprison the person doing the punishing.

So I simply reject as unbiblical and untrue to real life that "sin requires a redress", if, by that, you mean that someone must take the wrap. That Jesus died to save us from the consequences of our sin is, in my view, incontravertible. That it has anything to do with redress, punishment or, in that sense, judgement is not supportable.

Oh, and, what Talitha said!

quote:
Regarding forgiveness, it is very glib to demand it at times. How do you forgive the murderer of your child or the rapist of a loved one or the person who has destroyed your life through fraud, or the cheating partner, or the guy who seduced your wife? As a Christian, I may find it in my heart to do this ONLY because, when it comes to the crunch, God, in Christ, has forgiven me more. It will be a long costly process but perhaps as I realise the depth of God's forgiveness of me, I may find, grace in my heart to let a major offence go. Without Christ I have no chance at all.
Well, of course, it isn't for any one of us sinful creatures to demand of another that he or she forgives. Indeed, it is the fact that forgiveness is so costly that means it treats the sin so much more seriously than does a desire for redress. But the fact remains when, as you describe, someone does forgive a deep wrong, we recognise this as being a Christ-like act. Of course, it is often conditioned by a deep sense of gratitude for the forgiveness that we ourselves have received, but the point is that we recognise something of God in the process, which is strongly suggestive that the decision not to exact rightful redress is something deep within the heart of God.

(Sorry, Karl, x-posted)

[ 06. June 2007, 09:06: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Sorry for double post but how many mothers actually forgive wrongdoing in their children? They deal with it variously but they always redress it in order to train their offspring. If they forgave without consequence the world would be run by little monsters. One of my siblings illustrates the point.'Now if you put the milkshake maker in the bath then it won't make milkshakes any more will it?'.Wrongdoing can be self-punishing but in my experience most parents if they shield offspring from consequence just delay the inevitable by absorbing that consequence themselves and sooner or later the kids learn about it the hard way.

I think that I would say you are confusing punishment with disciplining. The point that the mother is trying to make to her son in the example that you give is that our choices have consequences. This is certainly a valuable life-skill, and some short term discomfort may well be the best way of driving it home, but it is a means to an end only. The end is that the child does not put the shake-maker into the bath again, and if that result can be acheived by less unpleasant means, then the parent would do well to choose those means. In other words, the parental discipline is pragmatic, rather than principled. This seems to me to be a totally different argument to the one that you have pursued hitherto, and a world away from the Atonement, unless the mothers actions would be the punishing of the naughty brat's innocent brother for his misdemeanours.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I do not accept that the principle of redressing wrong to achieve justice is only a product of western culture. In every society there is a law of payback which is the same thing however crude.

Jamat, I agree that there is a fundamental principle here that is universal, but I don't think that you have correctly identified it. JJ gets at it when he says:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
If I might ask, why do you think that the concept of retribution is not merely a product of our conception of justice having been devalued by the fall?

This is the way that I see it. There is a pure and universal form of this principle, but it has been corrupted.

The pure form is that influx is according to eflux. You receive according to what you give. Everything that you do returns to you. You are able to receive life from God in the exact measure that you, as if of yourself, think, love and do the things that are consistent with that life.

This principle has numerous expressions in the Bible. For example:
quote:
Luke 6:38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.”

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

These two examples state the principle positively. Love comes from God, we receive it from Him in the exact measure that we give it to others.

It is also stated slightly less purely:
quote:
Matthew 7:12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
This is less pure because it is oriented around what we want people to do to us. A better version of it would be that we want better for others than for ourselves - an idea that finds expression in this statement:
quote:
John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.
It is "greater love" because it values others more than self. This is a more pure expression of God's love - which is why Jesus speaks of this in relation to Himself when He says:
quote:
Matthew 20:28 "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep."

The principle is that His willingness to lay down His life expresses the enormity of His love. This is true for everyone. The greater the love, the more powerfully it expresses itself, and the greater the love that eventually "returns" to the one expressing it. Jesus' death expresses the idea that He is willing to give up everything for our sakes.

Another less positive version of the same idea:
quote:
Matthew 7.1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you."
Here you get what you give, but in a less positive way.

The classic expression of this principle, in its corrupt form, of course, is the lex taliones:
quote:
Exodus 21.23 You shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Leviticus 24:20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him.

Deuteronomy 19:21 Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

No pity, no mercy, perfect retribution.

And of course perfect retribution, in this sense, doesn't work at all in the long run. It only justifies revenge. But it was taught in the Bible because it makes sense to people's (low) moral sensibilities, and because it limits the natural tendency to retaliate above and beyond the original wrong.

So Jesus redirected the concept back to its original principle:
quote:
Matthew 5.38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
That is, a person is to love everyone, to love them more than they are loved in return, and to wish well even to those who do not wish them well.

In short, God rejects retaliation. It is a corruption of the true principle, which is that love returns to the one who gives it. Or, put another way, the true principle is that people receive love and life from God according to their state of harmony with that life and love, that is, in the measure that these things are a part of their life.

So the idea that "justice" requires "payback" is completely wrong. A version of this is necessary in human society, but this is not how God's justice actually works. Jesus' death is not about fulfilling the requirements of justice, but about loving others more than He loved Himself.
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
Freddy: what a superb post. God's ways are higher than our ways...

-Chris.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

So Jesus redirected the concept back to its original principle:
quote:
Matthew 5.38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
That is, a person is to love everyone, to love them more than they are loved in return, and to wish well even to those who do not wish them well.
Ummh. The 'You have heard ... but I tell you' pattern of the Sermon on the Mount flows out of Christ's explanation of his teaching about his relationship to the Law. We have to interpret them in the light of Matthew 5: 17-18 :

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Clearly he was redirecting the OT but he was not contradicting it... he was fulfilling it. There must have been something about his ministry that enables us to stop taking revenge. To simply say that he is pointing to a higher morality does not fit with Matthew 5.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
In short, God rejects retaliation. It is a corruption of the true principle, which is that love returns to the one who gives it. Or, put another way, the true principle is that people receive love and life from God according to their state of harmony with that life and love, that is, in the measure that these things are a part of their life.

So the idea that "justice" requires "payback" is completely wrong. A version of this is necessary in human society, but this is not how God's justice actually works. Jesus' death is not about fulfilling the requirements of justice, but about loving others more than He loved Himself.

There is still one unanswered question if we assume all this - why doesn't this make God contingent to our actions? Presumably if we decided to carry on rebelling against God forever then he would have to watch us turning heaven into hell forever... wouldn't he?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
The 'You have heard ... but I tell you' pattern of the Sermon on the Mount flows out of Christ's explanation of his teaching about his relationship to the Law. We have to interpret them in the light of Matthew 5: 17-18 :

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

In fairness, I don't see that the idea of the law allowing limited retaliation (a tooth for a tooth), as an accomodation to human sinfulness, is at all contradicted by Jesus' statement that He came to fulfil the law. Jesus seems to have held this view, if His teaching on divorce in Mt 19:8 is anything to go by. Of course, the "retaliation" Jesus brings is blessings for cursing, etc etc, as per the Sermon on the Mount.

quote:
There is still one unanswered question if we assume all this - why doesn't this make God contingent to our actions? Presumably if we decided to carry on rebelling against God forever then he would have to watch us turning heaven into hell forever... wouldn't he?
Well, not necessarily.

One could take the Orthodox position (roughly held as well, I think, by Freddy) that God does not send anyone to hell, but that they can send themselves there by continually rejecting God's grace.

Or one could adopt a universalist position, whereby the ultimate victory of Jesus is acheived when our spirits and bodies are remade at death or at the eschaton, either instantaneously or as the result of some kind of purgatorial process. In either case, we are freed completely from the bondage of sin, and able to choose that which we would always have chosen, had we not been so enslaved. We would become more truely ourelves, and thus be able to, and therefore choose to, respond to God's love.

Either position is fully compatible with a perfect heaven.

I really don't think that this is that closely linked with the particular model of Atonement. There are PSA believing universalists, and CV believers in non-universal salvation.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
One could take the Orthodox position (roughly held as well, I think, by Freddy) that God does not send anyone to hell, but that they can send themselves there by continually rejecting God's grace.

I have to admit that this is often how I explain hell but (deep down) I think it is a cop out since God created the world where hell is the consequence for rejecting him in the first place. (They may choose to go there, God may not want to send them there, but that is what must happen... it's rather like the parent who tells their child, "This is only happening to you because you chose to be naughty!" - maybe but the parent is still enforcing the punishment.)

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Or one could adopt a universalist position, whereby the ultimate victory of Jesus is acheived when our spirits and bodies are remade at death or at the eschaton, either instantaneously or as the result of some kind of purgatorial process. In either case, we are freed completely from the bondage of sin, and able to choose that which we would always have chosen, had we not been so enslaved. We would become more truely ourelves, and thus be able to, and therefore choose to, respond to God's love.

That sounds uncannily like God forcing us to choose to love him and so this life has become nothing more than an illusion.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I really don't think that this is that closely linked with the particular model of Atonement. There are PSA believing universalists, and CV believers in non-universal salvation.

I don't dispute that but inconsistency (if that is what it is [Biased] ) is hardly original.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Or one could adopt a universalist position, whereby the ultimate victory of Jesus is acheived when our spirits and bodies are remade at death or at the eschaton, either instantaneously or as the result of some kind of purgatorial process. In either case, we are freed completely from the bondage of sin, and able to choose that which we would always have chosen, had we not been so enslaved. We would become more truely ourelves, and thus be able to, and therefore choose to, respond to God's love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That sounds uncannily like God forcing us to choose to love him and so this life has become nothing more than an illusion.

But if God is "forcing" me to do what I want to do anyway, am I really being, in any meaningful sense of the word, forced? [Two face] In any case, all calvinistic understandings have this same poroblem with them, just as all arminian understandings struggle not to be seen as making God's actions contingent on ours.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
That sounds uncannily like God forcing us to choose to love him...

I have exactly that response to those who preach Hellfire and damnation. Go figure...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally seeker, top ten works for me.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that?

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Any other view seems to me to be a way of seeing sin as less serious than God sees it.

It's fine to say that's the outcome of other theories for you, but it's not accurate or legitimate to say "Everyone who rejects PSA does so because they want to minimise sin". My own motivation as a pacifist is to avoid blessing the sin of retribution by saying that God uses it to create justice. I accept that Johnny S sees God's retribution as forbidding human retribution, but it seems to me that most of Christianity has not taken that on board in our theology and that Christianity does regard retribution as being the key to achieving justice.

[ 06. June 2007, 16:51: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

But if God is "forcing" me to do what I want to do anyway, am I really being, in any meaningful sense of the word, forced? [Two face] In any case, all calvinistic understandings have this same poroblem with them, just as all arminian understandings struggle not to be seen as making God's actions contingent on ours.

Fair point. I think complete and total 'freedom' is a fairly modern invention.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
I think complete and total 'freedom' is a fairly modern invention.
Actually, I agree with you there, John. As a notion, I think it owes more to human pride than an objective assesment of reality.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
In short, God rejects retaliation. It is a corruption of the true principle, which is that love returns to the one who gives it. Or, put another way, the true principle is that people receive love and life from God according to their state of harmony with that life and love, that is, in the measure that these things are a part of their life.

So the idea that "justice" requires "payback" is completely wrong. A version of this is necessary in human society, but this is not how God's justice actually works. Jesus' death is not about fulfilling the requirements of justice, but about loving others more than He loved Himself. [/QB]

I think that Christ rejected the idea of human retaliation. However, God, because he is God is the only being capable of true justice which is justice from a pure motive. Consequently, the scriptures teach he reserves that right for himself. The principle is not altered by Jesus but the gospel and the coming of the Holy Spirit renders us capable of a higher way. God however is still the judge of all the earth. "Vengeance is mine I will repay" and all that. To not take our own vengeance is indeed our challenge from Jesus' teaching but it doesn't mean there is no vengeance at all

Incidentally Freddy That was a great post. Well done!

On the issue of whether the payback instinct is merely part of our fallenness, I see where you are coming from but to me it seems clear that because it is so pervasive in the Bible, that we must accept it as part of the 'way things are' a bit like the law of gravity.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
On the issue of whether the payback instinct is merely part of our fallenness, I see where you are coming from but to me it seems clear that because it is so pervasive in the Bible, that we must accept it as part of the 'way things are' a bit like the law of gravity.

It's pervasive in the Old Testament. So let's just ignore Jesus' teaching and witness about forgiveness? How can we claim to be disciples of Jesus if we don't think his central teaching of forgivness has anything to do with how we're called to live our lives?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
On the issue of whether the payback instinct is merely part of our fallenness, I see where you are coming from but to me it seems clear that because it is so pervasive in the Bible, that we must accept it as part of the 'way things are' a bit like the law of gravity.

It's pervasive in the Old Testament. So let's just ignore Jesus' teaching and witness about forgiveness? How can we claim to be disciples of Jesus if we don't think his central teaching of forgivness has anything to do with how we're called to live our lives?
I accept Jesus' teaching on forgiveness unreservedly. None of my previous statements suggest or imply anything else. The issue has always been about a theological basis for God's forgiveness of us and our consequent ability and responsibility to forgive one another. The principle about justice needing to be satisfied is the issue. Jesus will in fact be the judge in the end. All authority in heaven and on earth is in his hands. Matt 18-24 makes interesting reading for anyone who thinks there are going to be any soft options involved in his judgements. In my view the need for redress of wrong, evil, sin, is a central tenet of the Bible. God has achieved this in Christ and so by proxy, as it were, we can be seen as forgiven, cleansed, righteous because our faith in him qualiies us for inclusion in the cross. As Paul says in Gal2:20. "I am crucified with Christ, yet not I, but Christ lives in me and the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the son of God who loved me and gave himself for me." Consequent to this, we also should forgive as we have been forgiven; we should love as we have been and are loved. Christ has radically changed the outcomes for those who believe in him without compromising the need for sin to be judged.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue has always been about a theological basis for God's forgiveness of us and our consequent ability and responsibility to forgive one another. The principle about justice needing to be satisfied is the issue.

Maybe the nature of forgiveness is the real issue here.

In my mind, forgiveness is like a person losing weight when they stop overeating. The new slim body that they receive is the result of forgiveness. What has happened is that their system has been "corrected" and so it now functions better as a result. There is no actual punishment or retribution involved - it only seemed that way because being overweight is unpleasant and losing weight is even more difficult.

The same is true on the spiritual level with forgiveness from sin. When a person stops sinning they become forgiven. The problem is that it is hard to stop sinning. So Jesus came to teach us how and to remove the spiritual impediments that stood in the way. There is no punishment or retribution involved - it only seemed that way because sin makes life unpleasant and it is difficult to reform.

So justice does not need to be satisfied. What needs to happen is for people to change. This process is called "repentance and forgiveness of sins."
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy:
There is no punishment or retribution involved - it only seemed that way because sin makes life unpleasant and it is difficult to reform.

Some might be inclined to think that this model removes the church as a meaningless middleman. If sin is by definition unpleasant and self-evidently bad, then why do we need to teach people? If God's good is such a clear thing, then won't people learn to do it on their own by natural processes of action and reaction?

Yes, I'm playing the devil's advocate here...
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Maybe the nature of forgiveness is the real issue here.

In my mind, forgiveness is like a person losing weight when they stop overeating. The new slim body that they receive is the result of forgiveness. What has happened is that their system has been "corrected" and so it now functions better as a result.

Freddy, sometimes I understand what you are getting at ... but at others I don't get you at all ... [Confused]

Why on earth would you come up with an analogy for sin and forgiveness that is purely personal? Doesn't sin do even more damage to other people ... and God? You've got to have a relational model for sin.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue has always been about a theological basis for God's forgiveness of us and our consequent ability and responsibility to forgive one another. The principle about justice needing to be satisfied is the issue.

Maybe the nature of forgiveness is the real issue here.

In my mind, forgiveness is like a person losing weight when they stop overeating. The new slim body that they receive is the result of forgiveness. What has happened is that their system has been "corrected" and so it now functions better as a result. There is no actual punishment or retribution involved - it only seemed that way because being overweight is unpleasant and losing weight is even more difficult.

The same is true on the spiritual level with forgiveness from sin. When a person stops sinning they become forgiven. The problem is that it is hard to stop sinning. So Jesus came to teach us how and to remove the spiritual impediments that stood in the way. There is no punishment or retribution involved - it only seemed that way because sin makes life unpleasant and it is difficult to reform.

So justice does not need to be satisfied. What needs to happen is for people to change. This process is called "repentance and forgiveness of sins."

Forgiveness is contingent upon other things such as repentance. Repentance is a response to the revelation of the cross. Forgiveness is therefore a fruit, an outcome. Certainly, it is a central concept. My contention that it is contingent upon the satisfaction of justice which I see as more fundamental. Christ was judged for our sin. (2 Cor 5:21)People in my experience simply cannot just 'change' and 'stop' sinning. I certainly couldn't! Even if they could there is the problem of the nature of sin that Paul calls the 'old man'. There needs to be a supernatural transaction; an encounter based on the cross experience that transforms and renews. The experience of God's forgiveness then,in turn, enables us to love and forgive each other.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
If sin is by definition unpleasant and self-evidently bad, then why do we need to teach people?

Sin is not self-evidently bad. It is confusing. But it does ruin people's lives.

So we need instruction about sin, just like we need instruction about health, finances, and everything else.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Maybe the nature of forgiveness is the real issue here.

In my mind, forgiveness is like a person losing weight when they stop overeating. The new slim body that they receive is the result of forgiveness. What has happened is that their system has been "corrected" and so it now functions better as a result.

Freddy, sometimes I understand what you are getting at ... but at others I don't get you at all ... [Confused]

Why on earth would you come up with an analogy for sin and forgiveness that is purely personal? Doesn't sin do even more damage to other people ... and God? You've got to have a relational model for sin.

OK.

Sin is like a community that is overrun with crime. It is unsafe and unpleasant. Repentance is effective measures being put into place to eliminate crime. Forgiveness is when there isn't any more crime and it is safe and pleasant to live there again.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
People in my experience simply cannot just 'change' and 'stop' sinning. I certainly couldn't!

That's the problem right there. [Disappointed]

The truth is that people are able to change their behavior. It happens all the time. Right here on the ship. Otherwise why would the hosts bother to warn people? Why would we have ship's commandments?

This ability to change is assumed throughout the Bible. Jesus repeatedly advised people to 'change" and 'stop' sinning. If they couldn't do it, why would He speak so strongly about it?

This to my mind is the worst aspect of PSA. It is directly linked to the false idea that people cannot stop sinning. With God's help, they can. Or so Jesus said.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Originally posted ny Jamat:
quote:
The principle about justice needing to be satisfied is the issue. Jesus will in fact be the judge in the end. All authority in heaven and on earth is in his hands. Matt 18-24 makes interesting reading for anyone who thinks there are going to be any soft options involved in his judgements. In my view the need for redress of wrong, evil, sin, is a central tenet of the Bible.
I still think you are missing the point that there is more than one way in which sin, evil and so on can be redressed. One way is that it can be redressed by punishment. Tyhe problem with this schema is that it doesn't actually work. It does not, in fact, redress the wrong, on the contrary, the wrong remains. The other way of redressing wrong is by forgiveness. No-one here is arguing that God would not be entitled to exact retribution, but why would He want to - why would He choose to employ a method which He knows is ineffective in producing a positive outcome? That question is poointed up even more by the life of Jesus, who repoeatedly forgives without precondition. The whole basis of your argument seems, to me, to be a very contentious (in biblical terms) model of justice.

quote:
Christ has radically changed the outcomes for those who believe in him without compromising the need for sin to be judged.

Could you point any passage anywhere in the Bible to back up your assertion that God is bound by some rule that says He must deal with sin in this way?

quote:
Forgiveness is contingent upon other things such as repentance. Repentance is a response to the revelation of the cross. Forgiveness is therefore a fruit, an outcome. Certainly, it is a central concept. My contention that it is contingent upon the satisfaction of justice which I see as more fundamental. Christ was judged for our sin. (2 Cor 5:21)People in my experience simply cannot just 'change' and 'stop' sinning. I certainly couldn't! Even if they could there is the problem of the nature of sin that Paul calls the 'old man'. There needs to be a supernatural transaction; an encounter based on the cross experience that transforms and renews. The experience of God's forgiveness then,in turn, enables us to love and forgive each other.

Actually, there are lots of examples in scripture where Jesus forgives people without any prior repentance. That's not to say that the cross is not a spur to repentance, but I believe that repentance is responsive, it is the fruit, not the root, of forgiveness. I agree with you that, in order to break the habits (actually, it's a bit more powerful than that) of sinning, then ontological change is a necessary within us, and that is indeed the result of being joined to Christ in His resurrection, becoming part of the new creation. But that's nothing to do with forgiveness. We are forgiven already, people have been being forgiven ever since the garden, as it were, just because that is God's nature, His way of dealing with sin. It is the making new, the gift of eternal life, that was wrought in the paschal event, not forgiveness. We could be forgiven and still subject to the law of sin and death, (what you refer to, quoting Paul, as "the old man"), that would eventually destroy us. Eternal life is constrained, not by moral guilt, but by ontology. Or so it seems to me.

[ 08. June 2007, 09:51: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue has always been about a theological basis for God's forgiveness of us and our consequent ability and responsibility to forgive one another. The principle about justice needing to be satisfied is the issue. Jesus will in fact be the judge in the end. All authority in heaven and on earth is in his hands. Matt 18-24 makes interesting reading for anyone who thinks there are going to be any soft options involved in his judgements. In my view the need for redress of wrong, evil, sin, is a central tenet of the Bible. God has achieved this in Christ and so by proxy, as it were, we can be seen as forgiven, cleansed, righteous because our faith in him qualiies us for inclusion in the cross.

OK, I understand this and it's been being said for the last however many weeks this discussion has been going on in the various threads on atonement.

If by "justice has to be satisfied" you mean "someone[1] has to be punished for all wrongdoings" then I do not agree with you.

[1] Clearly, in PSA, the "someone" who is punished is not the wrongdoer him/herself, so I can't see how statements about the consequences of sin apply.

I believe that the desire for revenge is sinful and that Jesus stated this quite clearly.

I have a recent edition of The Living Pulpit in front of me and the cover says: "Atonement. One who forgives ends the struggle." Which I totally agree with. PSA is "The God who hurts people ends the struggle." It's a "do as I say, not as I do" religion. It's just sinful human "If I destroy everyone who disagrees with me that world will be a better place." Might be a better place if you're happy to have no-one in it!
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I am loathe to rejoin this debate since I think we've covered this all already so this is just an attempt at clarification. [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:


If by "justice has to be satisfied" you mean "someone[1] has to be punished for all wrongdoings" then I do not agree with you.

[1] Clearly, in PSA, the "someone" who is punished is not the wrongdoer him/herself, so I can't see how statements about the consequences of sin apply.

This point has been dealt with before. To be fair, PSA sees God punishing our sins, in Christ. Christ becomes sin... it is sinful humanity that is being punished at the cross (as well as being God's son willingly accepting the blame himself.) The 'in Christ' language Paul uses (it is argued by supporters of PSA) holds together both Christ as representative human being rightly punished and as God dying in our place. I am well aware of the other problems that you have with this but please do portray PSA accurately! [Smile]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I am loathe to rejoin this debate since I think we've covered this all already so this is just an attempt at clarification. [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:


If by "justice has to be satisfied" you mean "someone[1] has to be punished for all wrongdoings" then I do not agree with you.

[1] Clearly, in PSA, the "someone" who is punished is not the wrongdoer him/herself, so I can't see how statements about the consequences of sin apply.

This point has been dealt with before. To be fair, PSA sees God punishing our sins, in Christ. Christ becomes sin... it is sinful humanity that is being punished at the cross (as well as being God's son willingly accepting the blame himself.) The 'in Christ' language Paul uses (it is argued by supporters of PSA) holds together both Christ as representative human being rightly punished and as God dying in our place. I am well aware of the other problems that you have with this but please do portray PSA accurately! [Smile]
I do think you are straining somewhat at a gnat whilst swallowing the pachyderm whole here, John. Whether PSA means Christ is punished in our place, our sin is punished in Christ, or whatever gloss you want to put on it, is not really the point of Seeker's post, as far as I can see. The point I read her as making is that the whole dimension of punishment is an inappropriate mechanism for dealing with sin, and is characteristic of human fallenness rather than the Divine Nature. This point stands, regardless of whether myself or Christ is the recipient of that "punishment".

And, incidentally, I'm fairly confident that your position, which seems, to me, to be pretty well identical with NT Wright's position, would be rejected as waaaay to liberal by many if not most of the advocates of PSA, because it is our sins, rather than our persons, which are the object of divine wrath.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
the point of Seeker's post, as far as I can see. The point I read her as making is that the whole dimension of punishment is an inappropriate mechanism for dealing with sin, and is characteristic of human fallenness rather than the Divine Nature.

This is my main objection, absolutely correct.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
And, incidentally, I'm fairly confident that your position, which seems, to me, to be pretty well identical with NT Wright's position, would be rejected as waaaay to liberal by many if not most of the advocates of PSA, because it is our sins, rather than our persons, which are the object of divine wrath.

I'd want to distinguish between 'PSA advocates' and 'PSA-only advocates'. I totally agree, from my reading of PSA-only blogs at the moment, that Johnny S would be seen as waaay too liberal by many of these authors.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I totally agree, from my reading of PSA-only blogs at the moment, that Johnny S would be seen as waaay too liberal by many of these authors.

Nope. I'm a neo-Nazi Conservative flirting with liberalism merely as a front to my evil plan of winning you over to the dark side of the force... but, it's not working. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny S:
Nope. I'm a neo-Nazi Conservative flirting with liberalism merely as a front to my evil plan of winning you over to the dark side of the force... but, it's not working. [Big Grin]

Funny. That sounds a lot like me, but from the opposite side of the spectrum. Oh yeah, and maybe I'm more of a pinko commie than neo-nazi... [Snigger]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I'd want to distinguish between 'PSA advocates' and 'PSA-only advocates'. I totally agree, from my reading of PSA-only blogs at the moment, that Johnny S would be seen as waaay too liberal by many of these authors.

A slightly more serious response. [Angel]

I think you are still working on a caricature of PSA. I come from a stable similar to the writers of the 'Pierced for our Transgressions' camp. (Yes, I know, I'll do penance later. [Big Grin] ) While I think the polemic coming from that camp is way too pugilistic sometimes it should be noted that they feel they are defending PSA from those who want to remove it entirely. Hence it is hardly surprising that they often come across as 'PSA only'.

Also, and I know that I will take a lot of heat from the ship on this one, I wouldn't pay much attention to blogs. I think blogs are a useful tool for discussion but I never, ever, ever, take them as representative of anything. IMHO 90% of the time they give a platform to people who no one listens to in real life. I come from a church tradition which has had the equivalent of bloggers for decades before the Internet was even invented - usually retired men with too much time on the hands ... okay that is a caricature now but I hope you get the point.

A big, big sorry [Frown] to all you bloggers out there - you can just read this and know that you are part of the 10% [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think you are still working on a caricature of PSA.

But the caricature of PSA is being TAUGHT in churches and Sunday schools. You see it as a caricature. I see it as bad theology being taught to children, young people and adults that makes them want to leave Christianity.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I come from a stable similar to the writers of the 'Pierced for our Transgressions' camp. (Yes, I know, I'll do penance later. [Big Grin] ) While I think the polemic coming from that camp is way too pugilistic sometimes it should be noted that they feel they are defending PSA from those who want to remove it entirely. Hence it is hardly surprising that they often come across as 'PSA only'.

OK. I see what you're saying. Can I tell you how I see it? I see people who seem convinced that if I don't believe in PSA, I don't believe in sin. I see them trying to caricature me and thousands of moderate, mainstream Christians as people who don't care about sin, about truth or about God's word.

I see them working on a caricature of those of us who don't believe in PSA.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think you are still working on a caricature of PSA.

But the caricature of PSA is being TAUGHT in churches and Sunday schools. You see it as a caricature. I see it as bad theology being taught to children, young people and adults that makes them want to leave Christianity.
I think you just summed up my beef with PSA in a nutshell. It's not the theory, it's the way the theory is taught and what the way the theory is taught implies that drives people away from Christianity in droves.

Quite frankly, to anyone who thinks a little bit, the combination of that reading of PSA and the anthropomorphizing of God makes God into a royal asshole of a deity. Not only does he scream "Love me or you'll burn in hell forever!" but he murders his own son, brutally, as a human sacrifice to himself because if he didn't do that he'd have to take his rage out on all of us. I mean, if he was a literal parent, he'd be doing time in jail for physical and verbal child abuse, not to mention neglect.

If that's the only way to look at God (and some seem to think so), then I'm an atheist.

ETA:

quote:
OK. I see what you're saying. Can I tell you how I see it? I see people who seem convinced that if I don't believe in PSA, I don't believe in sin. I see them trying to caricature me and thousands of moderate, mainstream Christians as people who don't care about sin, about truth or about God's word.

I see them working on a caricature of those of us who don't believe in PSA.

I couldn't have put it better myself. [Overused]

[ 09. June 2007, 12:50: Message edited by: mirrizin ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Can I tell you how I see it? I see people who seem convinced that if I don't believe in PSA, I don't believe in sin. I see them trying to caricature me and thousands of moderate, mainstream Christians as people who don't care about sin, about truth or about God's word.

I see them working on a caricature of those of us who don't believe in PSA.

Fair point.

I don't want this to degrade into a 'you started it' playground scrap, but (in my world anyway) this all 'kicked off' with various people (on both sides of the pond) taking some very deliberate pot shots at PSA. While I appreciate that your experience is different Seeker, it feels as if it is okay to attack conevo beliefs as 'a monstrous depiction of God' but completely out of order when the charge of 'not taking sin seriously' (or whatever) comes back.

I know that you are not saying that Seeker but that is the context of the debate, IMHO.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Quite frankly, to anyone who thinks a little bit, the combination of that reading of PSA and the anthropomorphizing of God makes God into a royal asshole of a deity. Not only does he scream "Love me or you'll burn in hell forever!" but he murders his own son, brutally, as a human sacrifice to himself because if he didn't do that he'd have to take his rage out on all of us. I mean, if he was a literal parent, he'd be doing time in jail for physical and verbal child abuse, not to mention neglect.

Come on Mirrizin, that really is a gross caricature! I have never come across, even at the popular level, of any supporter of PSA who has not described the cross in terms of God willingly surrendering himself in the person of his son - what else is Gethsemane about than the conscious decision of Christ to face the cross?

This 'child abuse' idea popularised by Brian McLaren and picked up by Steve Chalke is a total caricature of PSA and you will never win anyone over if you persist in using it. It just doesn't fit with traditional PSA theology and never has. I think some folk on the ship have raised some really good questions about PSA but the fact that you can make that comment after pages and pages of discussion demonstrates (to me anyway [Big Grin] ) that you are still not engaging properly with the issues but are attacking straw men / straw people.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Say, isn't this thread about Christus Victor, not PSA? Ah well...
quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny S:
I think some folk on the ship have raised some really good questions about PSA but the fact that you can make that comment after pages and pages of discussion demonstrates (to me anyway [Big Grin] ) that you are still not engaging properly with the issues but are attacking straw men / straw people.

And to be fair, what I posted was what I hear from opponents of PSA. And yes, I was using a straw man to point out some of the weaknesses in the argument.

Then again, I guess that's what everyone does, to some extent. As you say, when someone likes an idea, they emphasize the nice bits. If they don't like it, they emphasize the not-nice bits. If we take the nice bits from everything and toss the not nice bits into Gehenna, maybe we'll come out with something a little better, eh?

I don't mind that con-evos (admitting I'm not one by a long shot) find PSA to be a powerful interpretation. It's not PSA that bugs me, really. Intellectual constructs by themselves couldn't hurt a fly, as illustrated by the Flying Spaghetti Monster fallacy. It's what people do with the intellectual constructs that matters.

It's the folks who believe PSA to be the only reading of scripture that bug me, and this is the impression I've gotten from both con-evos and from atheists who felt compelled to leave Christianity. There is a style of PSA out there that really puts a heavy emphasis on the punishment thing. I don't necessarily believe that its yours, but I can't really deny it exists when I hear it from people all the time, even from people who would never recognize the phrase "penal substitutionary atonement" if I used it to refer to what they appear to believe to be the essential fundamental of Christianity. All they ever talk about is the "blood of Christ" and how they're "saved" because "the bible says so," but if you bring up any alternative reading of scripture they get scared and start talking about "false prophets" with the implication that you must be one.

Also, I read a lot of atheists who use PSA, or a simplified elementary Sunday School version of it, to bash Christianity with the style of arguments that I just used. It's a straw man, but it's a straw man with enough substance that I think it throws a monkey wrench into the classical Christian argument. Why did God need to punish anyone?

OK, for a hopefully more nuanced version of the same argument...

In my experience, outside of this board, punishing people doesn't really solve anything (at least, not after they pass a certain age in elementary school), and offering sacrifices doesn't really solve anything (read Isaiah).

In fact, IME, the idea of punishment tends to make things worse, grinding salt into already bleeding wounds and inspiring retaliation in the true "eye for an eye" sense. Reality is already enough punishment for some people.

Why should I select as essential a reading of the crucifixion that emphasizes punishment and sacrifice? I mean...isn't the stuff Christ did before the crucifixion just as important? Or was that "Love thy neighbor, help the helpless, feed the poor" stuff just something he said so that he could be eventually killed for his wishy washy liberal beliefs, so that we could all get our "pie in the sky when we die."

And please understand that if I put things in a very aggressive manner it's because I'd really like to know why this is useful. I used to believe something like it, but now that I think about it more, it makes less and less sense to me.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't want this to degrade into a 'you started it' playground scrap, but (in my world anyway) this all 'kicked off' with various people (on both sides of the pond) taking some very deliberate pot shots at PSA. While I appreciate that your experience is different Seeker, it feels as if it is okay to attack conevo beliefs as 'a monstrous depiction of God' but completely out of order when the charge of 'not taking sin seriously' (or whatever) comes back.

I know that you are not saying that Seeker but that is the context of the debate, IMHO.

It would be interesting - probably in a private conversation with you as I otherwise have visions of the thread deteriorating into a nasty one - who you think 'started it'.

Perspective is interesting.

I heard people using the term 'cosmic child abuse' long before either McLaren and Chalke wrote their books; I assumed they'd picked up the term in their pastoral offices. My initial reaction to both books was 'been there, done that, got the tee shirt 20 years ago'. I didn't think either of them said anything particularly new or revolutionary. (And I still think Steve Chalke should just become a Methodist [Big Grin] )

I've belonged to both hyperconservative and mainstream churches. I heard lots of anti-mainstream rhetoric in the conservative church and no rhetoric against other Christians in the mainstream one. I don't know who it is that conservatives are fighting; it seems to be radically liberal non-faith based academic theology. Why they think that your average mainstream Methodist or Anglican or URC member in the pew is a radically liberal non-faith based academic theologian, only they and God know.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I have never come across, even at the popular level, of any supporter of PSA who has not described the cross in terms of God willingly surrendering himself in the person of his son - what else is Gethsemane about than the conscious decision of Christ to face the cross?

Fair point, but if you're still going at it from the idea that God is willingly surrendering himself TO HIMSELF (ie as the propitiation of our sins, punished in our stead), we still have the problem of why God needs the blood. Crassly put, having a masochist at the other end of it doesn't make the sadism okay.

(And now, I find myself in the interesting position of making two disclaimers aimed at radically different audiences:
1) I don't actually believe that the cross is an example of cosmic S/M.

2) I don't have a problem with consensual S/M on a human level.

Where else but on Ship of Fools?)
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Orignially Posted by Seeker963:
(And I still think Steve Chalke should just become a Methodist [Big Grin] )

Pardon me for my ignorance, and for a possible tangent, but who is this Steve Chalke, what does his theology have to do with Methodism, and why isn't he a Methodist? [Confused]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Perspective is interesting.

You bet ya.

What can I say other than my experience is different to yours?

My guess is also that we tend to hear what we are expecting to hear - I'm sure I frequently miss pointed digs at others in my churchmanship as others do also.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
who is this Steve Chalke, what does his theology have to do with Methodism, and why isn't he a Methodist? [Confused]

Steve Chalke is a well known Baptist over in here in the UK who was caught up in a debate about the atonement after challenging PSA. I'm a Baptist and Seeker is a Methodist (I think) and hence her invitation for him to join the Methodists... they need all the people they can get [Big Grin]

As far as infinite_monkey and S&M goes I don't want to go there. [Confused]
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Ah. It all makes sense now. [Killing me]

It might not surprise you that I am also a Methodist (UMC), though I was raised Presbyterian (PCUSA).
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
who is this Steve Chalke, what does his theology have to do with Methodism, and why isn't he a Methodist? [Confused]

Steve Chalke is a well known Baptist over in here in the UK who was caught up in a debate about the atonement after challenging PSA. I'm a Baptist and Seeker is a Methodist (I think) and hence her invitation for him to join the Methodists... they need all the people they can get [Big Grin]

As far as infinite_monkey and S&M goes I don't want to go there. [Confused]

Here's another bit of perspective. I don't think Steve Chalke launched an attack on PSA in its academic form. I think he was trying to tell people who grew up with the horrible popular version of PSA that they could still be Christians even if they didn't believe in 'that sort of God' (for all values of 'that sort of God'). The book is very much at a popular and pastoral level.

Chalke founded Oasis Trust. My invitation for him to become a Methodist is because his theology is totally in line with ours, even if some Baptists doubt his salvation.

It doesn't matter if our numbers are small, Johnny S. I think this thread has proven how outraged human beings get when people preach outrageous grace. [Razz]
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
So...(following an interesting IRL conversation)...

It's not that PSA is bad. It's that people misunderstand PSA, and then spread their misunderstandings under the guise of religion.

And because their particular "PSA" is, on some fundamental level, a mistaken orthodoxy, it naturally produces mistaken orthopraxis. Because of these bitter fruits, the "preacher" has to start enforcing a strict "my way or the highway" theology in order to keep everyone toeing the line, so to speak, rather than merely letting God do God's job.

And of course, if the preacher can, by force of will, make this work, he generates followers...and so this interpretation of religion (heresy?) starts to spread like a malignant tumor...

I hope in constructing this thought experiment/straw man I haven't just discovered the secret to explaining American fundamentalism over the last 30 years... [Help]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
So...(following an interesting IRL conversation)...

It's not that PSA is bad. It's that people misunderstand PSA, and then spread their misunderstandings under the guise of religion.

I'm not sure if this post is addressed to me?

I think that there are two separate issues here:

1) A 'popular' version of PSA which I actually happen to think is heard by a lot of people in the way that you characterised it earlier. Obviously, others don't hear it that way, but I think a lot of people do hear it that way and are put off Christianity by it.

2) I also disagree with the 'real' version of PSA.

I think that those are two separate issues in some ways. Those who believe in PSA seem to want to hear only the response "No, that's not the real PSA, let me put you straight." Except that, personally, I don't believe in "the real version" either.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
That wasn't addressed at anyone, though I think your post sparked the thought in my head, so I typed it.

I think it is useful to distinguish between PSA as understood by clergy, theologians, and laity.

And I agree that the "popular" version of PSA I read in some places is pretty sick. I'm not sold on academic PSA, though...

And the reading of CV in the originally posted article rocked my world.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

As far as infinite_monkey and S&M goes I don't want to go there. [Confused]

Righty then, take out the shoddy analogy. I still think the point stands--and I think it stands in particular as a reason many folks look at popular Christianity and decide not to "go there" either.

quote:
Posted 09 June, 2007 19:07

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I have never come across, even at the popular level, of any supporter of PSA who has not described the cross in terms of God willingly surrendering himself in the person of his son - what else is Gethsemane about than the conscious decision of Christ to face the cross?


If you're still going at it from the idea that God is willingly surrendering himself TO HIMSELF (ie as the propitiation of our sins, punished in our stead), we still have the problem of why God needs the blood.


 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Isaiah 1:11
To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

Isaiah 66:3
He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.


Jeremiah 7:22
For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
23But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.


Hosea 6:6
For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.


Micah 6:8
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[ [QUOTE] Christ has radically changed the outcomes for those who believe in him without compromising the need for sin to be judged.

Could you point any passage anywhere in the Bible to back up your assertion that God is bound by some rule that says He must deal with sin in this way?

Such a reading of scripture is justified by the whole Mosaic covenant. Particularly read Lev 17 the law of the sin offering in conjunction with Hebrews 8, 9 10.
The contention is that the means of approach to God was required to be on the basis of the shedding of blood or taking of a life since otherwise the life of the one who approached God would, on account of his transgression, be forfeit. Christ by becoming the priest and the sacrifice fulfilled perfectly the requirements of the Mosaic covenant bringing it to an end. Without such a requirement for the treatment of sin, Christ would not have needed to come or to die. If he had not come, We would still be required to sacrifice animals. For a nutshell statement read Romans 5:10 which states,"..having been justified by his blood we shall be saved from the Wrath of God through him.". Consider also Ro 3:25.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[ [QUOTE] Christ has radically changed the outcomes for those who believe in him without compromising the need for sin to be judged.

Could you point any passage anywhere in the Bible to back up your assertion that God is bound by some rule that says He must deal with sin in this way?

Such a reading of scripture is justified by the whole Mosaic covenant. Particularly read Lev 17 the law of the sin offering in conjunction with Hebrews 8, 9 10.
The contention is that the means of approach to God was required to be on the basis of the shedding of blood or taking of a life since otherwise the life of the one who approached God would, on account of his transgression, be forfeit. Christ by becoming the priest and the sacrifice fulfilled perfectly the requirements of the Mosaic covenant bringing it to an end. Without such a requirement for the treatment of sin, Christ would not have needed to come or to die. If he had not come, We would still be required to sacrifice animals. For a nutshell statement read Romans 5:10 which states,"..having been justified by his blood we shall be saved from the Wrath of God through him.". Consider also Ro 3:25.

I think this reading of the bible emphasises a certain slant on the Old Testament and it makes Jesus into a person whose mission was mainly about being the perfect sacrifice.

The problem, for me, is that I'm supposed to be a disciple of Jesus. And Jesus is supposed to be a fulfilment of the law and the prophets. Myrrh has just reminded us of one of the central messages of the prophets and s/he has probably also demonstrated that either side can prove their point by pulling texts out of the bible. So, somehow, as Christians we have to make sense of the bible.

All this is to say that I doubt I can prove to you that my reading of the bible is 'the right reading'. But I can certainly satisfy myself with an honest conscience that my reading of the bible is not unbiblical, as you seem to be implying.

Simple version: Jesus taught us to forgive, to 'turn the other cheek' (certainly an outrageous form of making oneself available to those who would hurt one) and to put the needs of others on an equal footing with our own. Jesus had a healing ministry, not a ministry of administering eye-for-eye justice. Jesus said that if we've seen him, we've seen the Father.

If God's main message was that eye-for-eye justice must be done, then why did Jesus waste three years giving humankind the opposite message? Why didn't legions of angels come down and smite everyone after the crucifixion? Why did Jesus refuse to be this kind of Messiah even though that's what his people wanted him to be?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
If you're still going at it from the idea that God is willingly surrendering himself TO HIMSELF (ie as the propitiation of our sins, punished in our stead), we still have the problem of why God needs the blood.



True.

However, that is the problem the bible leaves us with.

Interestingly, even Richard Dawkins picks up on that - quote - "Paul, as the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes makes clear, was steeped in the old Jewish theological principle that without blood there is no atonement." Clearly Dawkins wants to use that as a stick to beat Christians with but he is using good scholarship to do so.

And as far as all the texts about 'God didn't really want sacrifice anyway' from Psalm 51, Hosea etc. - as promised I got my friend to discuss this one with Gordon Wenham. Gordon is convinced that these passages are correcting a wrong understanding of sacrifice rather than leaving it behind. I know that proves nothing in itself - Gordon is Mr. Conservative. [Big Grin] However, as an internationally respected Professor of OT he would not hold those views unless he was confident that they could be justified.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by Jamat:
If he had not come, We would still be required to sacrifice animals.

If this is true, then why don't Jewish people still practice animal sacrifice, given that they don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah?
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
I just received my copy of 'Living Pulpit' and the following article is well worth reading apropos of many of the issues we've been discussing here. Justice in Forgiveness by Myron S. Augsburger.

Regarding the Jewish people and animal sacrifice, you will find an explanation in your copy of the Authorised Daily Prayer Book [Biased] - a book (AIUI) authorised by all streams of British Judaism. They see the Torah and the prophets as ambivalent on the matter. One last thought. The raging, blood-thirsty, angry God who Christians claim is the God of the Old Testament doesn't seem to be be the way the Jewish people read their scriptures at all. Jewish prayers are well worth reading - and praying - for their extravagant praise and adoration of a forgiving and merciful God. Just a thought.
 
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mirrizim,
frankly, to anyone who thinks a little bit, the combination of that reading of PSA and the anthropomorphizing of God makes God into a royal asshole of a deity. Not only does he scream "Love me or you'll burn in hell forever!" but he murders his own son, brutally, as a human sacrifice to himself because if he didn't do that he'd have to take his rage out on all of us. I mean, if he was a literal parent, he'd be doing time in jail for physical and verbal child abuse, not to mention neglect.

If that's the only way to look at God (and some seem to think so), then I'm an atheist.

There's quite an interesting article by an Eastern Orthodox Christian on that subject here (scroll down a bit to get to the start). He takes a similar view to you.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I just received my copy of 'Living Pulpit' and the following article is well worth reading apropos of many of the issues we've been discussing here. Justice in Forgiveness by Myron S. Augsburger.

Why do you particularly recommend this guy? Isn't he advocating PSA? [Confused] [Confused] [Ultra confused]

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Regarding the Jewish people and animal sacrifice, you will find an explanation in your copy of the Authorised Daily Prayer Book [Biased] - a book (AIUI) authorised by all streams of British Judaism. They see the Torah and the prophets as ambivalent on the matter.

Funny that. The temple was destroyed in AD 70, they live in a nation which has traditionally seen Jesus as the 'atonement' for our sins and you think it significant that British Jews don't make much of the need for actual blood sacrifices anymore? If they did it would be a basic admission that the Jewish religion (in a cultic sense) has come to an end.

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
One last thought. The raging, blood-thirsty, angry God who Christians claim is the God of the Old Testament doesn't seem to be be the way the Jewish people read their scriptures at all. Jewish prayers are well worth reading - and praying - for their extravagant praise and adoration of a forgiving and merciful God. Just a thought.

Play fair Seeker - you're setting up a false dichotomy here. Who has tried to make out that God isn't forgiving and merciful? (Arguably PSAers would say that 'the cross' is an even greater demonstration of his mercy and lengths he will go to in order to forgive.)

Whether God is merciful and forgiving is not being debated, how he does it is.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:
Originally Posted by Jamat:
If he had not come, We would still be required to sacrifice animals.

If this is true, then why don't Jewish people still practice animal sacrifice, given that they don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah?
Modern Judaism had to find alternatives since the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Ultra orthodox Judaism looks forward to its rebuilding so they can resume animal sacrificees.

[ 11. June 2007, 00:07: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:

All this is to say that I doubt I can prove to you that my reading of the bible is 'the right reading'. But I can certainly satisfy myself with an honest conscience that my reading of the bible is not unbiblical, as you seem to be implying.

Please accept my apology for any inference that yours or any other poster's view of atonement is not sincerely held. In my view, Just like you don't need to know how an engine works to drive a car, so you don't need a detailed systematic theology to have the benefits of faith in Christ. My view is strongly held and,I hope, based in my understanding of scripture. In defending my view I have no intention of offending others.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I just received my copy of 'Living Pulpit' and the following article is well worth reading apropos of many of the issues we've been discussing here. Justice in Forgiveness by Myron S. Augsburger.

Why do you particularly recommend this guy? Isn't he advocating PSA? [Confused] [Confused] [Ultra confused]
I just thought it was an interesting article. And I'm not sure that he is advocating PSA. But whether or not he is, I think it's an interesting article. I'm not a do-or-die anti-PSA partisan, although I don't like it very much and I'd certainly like to hold open the possibility for including in the Christian Church those who are told they can't be in the church unless they accept PSA.

Another tangential comment. There are some people I've read who I wasn't actually sure whether they were advocating PSA or not (e.g. Miroslav Volf, Stephen Sykes, Joel Green) because they said things that could have been construed as believing in a mild form of PSA. Yet I see Sykes and Green listed by PSAers as people who are 'the enemy' and categorically opposed to PSA. As you said upthread, perception is interesting.

I'd be interested to know why you think he's PSA? I'm suspecting it's because he talks about accountability for sin. But as I've said before, I take accountability for sin as read in a Christian framework.

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Funny that. The temple was destroyed in AD 70, they live in a nation which has traditionally seen Jesus as the 'atonement' for our sins and you think it significant that British Jews don't make much of the need for actual blood sacrifices anymore?

I'm not sure how Christian views about Jesus should affect Jews. Most of the Jewish people I know test Christian values as to whether or not they deviate from the Jewish values. If our values deviate, they are found wanting. I don't seem them testing Jewish values against Christian ones.

And no, I thought it was surprising that they were even holding blood sacrifice as something that might have some significance at all for them. But I think you do Judaism a disservice if you think that it's Christianity and the destruction of the Temple alone that caused it to give up its blood sacrifice. I'm no expert on Jewish history, but I'm given to believe that such thinking was already developing in Jesus' time and was part of the basis of the Pharisees' teaching.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Play fair Seeker - you're setting up a false dichotomy here. Who has tried to make out that God isn't forgiving and merciful?

OK, I apologise. As I understand PSA, there is some sort of iterative relationship between Jesus' sacrifice and God's mercy such that God cannot/would not be merciful had his wrath not eventually been assuaged by Jesus' death. My impression - and I apologise if I'm wrong - is that PSAers generally want 'people like me' to focus on God's anger and wrath and there is consternation if we see God as mainly merciful and self-giving.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Please accept my apology for any inference that yours or any other poster's view of atonement is not sincerely held. In my view, Just like you don't need to know how an engine works to drive a car, so you don't need a detailed systematic theology to have the benefits of faith in Christ. My view is strongly held and,I hope, based in my understanding of scripture. In defending my view I have no intention of offending others.

Thank you. I hope that I can conduct my discussions in the same spirit and I apologise for misunderstanding you.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Could you point any passage anywhere in the Bible to back up your assertion that God is bound by some rule that says He must deal with sin in this way?
Such a reading of scripture is justified by the whole Mosaic covenant. Particularly read Lev 17 the law of the sin offering in conjunction with Hebrews 8, 9 10.
The contention is that the means of approach to God was required to be on the basis of the shedding of blood or taking of a life since otherwise the life of the one who approached God would, on account of his transgression, be forfeit. Christ by becoming the priest and the sacrifice fulfilled perfectly the requirements of the Mosaic covenant bringing it to an end. Without such a requirement for the treatment of sin, Christ would not have needed to come or to die. If he had not come, We would still be required to sacrifice animals. For a nutshell statement read Romans 5:10 which states,"..having been justified by his blood we shall be saved from the Wrath of God through him.". Consider also Ro 3:25.

There are two points here, one about sacrifice, and one about the point that Paul is trying to get across in Romans. If I might, I will deal with them separately.

Firstly,the point about the Levitical code. Certainly, I would not dispute that the sacrificial system involved the shedding of blood, and that this system prefigures the Atonement. What I do dispute is that there is any penal element to all this. The ox, or the goat, or the lamb were not punished instead of the one in need of atonement. Indeed, the sin bearer of Ch 16 , the scapegoat, is not punished, rather driven out of the camp. The sacrificed animal must be perfect. So there is something different going on here than "sin must be dealt with by punishment", because there is no punishment here, and yet sin is dealt with. So what is going on here? I think the clue is in the use of ritual sacrifice in late bronze age culture, which we see in, for example, Gen. 15 . Sacrifice was seen as a seal of committment, the shedding of blood (being costly in terms of sheep-hearders) representing the investment in the promise. Thus, to sacrifice was to bring to mind the covenant. This is further developed in Gen. 22 , where God challenges Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, in order to demonstrate to him that, firstly, He is not like the God of the surrounding nations, requireing appeasement, but, more pertinately to this argument, it is God who is the prime mover in committment. It is God who provides the sacrifice. Abraham has to do nothing, the goat, if you like, is God's. This, surely, is a pointer to grace.

And what is this covenant? Well many things, but amongst them is a promise to remember their sins no more. Jeremiah makes it quite clear that this promise is made on the basis of God's sovereign actions. There is no punishment involved, no sense of compulsion upon God to deal with sins in any way other than the way of forgiveness, of deliberate decision to put aside any demand for punishment or redress. To sum up, the covenant is the thing to which the sacrificial system was intended to point the people of Israel. They were forgiven, not because they sacrificed, but because the sacrifice pointed them to the true source of forgiveness, the committment of God towards them, as symbolised in the covenant relationship.

With regards to the Romans verses, I do think that Romans 3:25 is key, but I don't read it as you do. Paul is trying to get across to (in this little section) his Jewish flock the way in which Christ is the fulfilment of the Jewish faith, but in order to do that, he has to correct some misunderstandings that he perceived they had. Amongst those misunderstandings was the belief that their (as a nation, and maybe also personally) disobedience had caused God to turn His back on them. On the contrary, Paul says, you are indeed guilty, as all of us are, but that doesn't mean that we can't access forgiveness, because forgiveness is not based on what we have done, but on the decision of God to forgive. He was trying to contradict their view that God wanted to punish them. Romans 3:25 shows clearly that they had not been punished for their sins because God's plan is to reveal His restorative justice in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Justice is empty-tomb shaped as far as God is concerned, the revelation of a new creation. It was the people to whom Paul wrote who percieved that God "ought" to behave as a wrathful deity towards them. Paul knew something quite different.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I'd be interested to know why you think he's PSA?

quote:
He took into himself what it means to bear his own wrath on our sin.

 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
I should probably add that there is more going on in Romans 3-6 than this little summary, of course, but I've just pulled from it the mini theme dealing with God's wrath.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It was the people to whom Paul wrote who perceived that God "ought" to behave as a wrathful deity towards them. Paul knew something quite different.

The problem with this argument is that it 'fits' whatever way you take it.

I could add - "Paul knew something quite different... that God had appeased his wrath in Christ" and it would still fit your reading of Romans.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It was the people to whom Paul wrote who perceived that God "ought" to behave as a wrathful deity towards them. Paul knew something quite different.

The problem with this argument is that it 'fits' whatever way you take it.

I could add - "Paul knew something quite different... that God had appeased his wrath in Christ" and it would still fit your reading of Romans.

Well, of course that is true, but the point which stimulated this little exchange was a request for what Jamat considered to be passages which backed his assertion that sin can only be dealt with by retributive justice. I can't see that these verses in Romans can be used to back that assertion. As a matter of fact, I do (of course [Big Grin] ) think that my reading is the most natural reading in the context, why else would I hold it, but I accept that I can't "prove" that this is what was in Paul's mind. Like so much here, interpretation is conditioned by what we see as the "big picture". I think, in general, if you have a strong sense of the need for retributive justice, and are offended by the notion of anyone "getting away with it", you will probably find PSA attractive, and be able to find texts to justify this stance. If, on the other hand, you are unconvinced that punishment does anything to remedy sin, and find it incomprehensible that the killing of an innocent victim has anything to do with justice, you will probably interpret those same texts in a different way, and draw quite different conclusions. As the late John Wimber used to say, "experience changes theology".
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Like so much here, interpretation is conditioned by what we see as the "big picture".

Thanks JJ, I think (as ever) you've hit the nail on the proverbial head. Our vicious circle that we can't seem to escape is that it is impossible to discuss our respective 'biblical big pictures' without some degree of proof-texting - but, in so doing, we always read said passages through our own 'big picture'! [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As the late John Wimber used to say, "experience changes theology".

I have come across this maxim many times in Charismatic circles, but I'm not sure what it means. I say this with no malice to John Wimber (I went to hear him speak several times) but surely it is ironic that experience cruelly taught him that his theology was faulty - i.e. God does not always heal? (Please do not read that as a cheap jibe. [Disappointed] )

I think we owe the Charismatic movement a great debt in teaching us the vital importance of experience, but such experience must always be interpreted... precisely because experience is always so subjective.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I'd be interested to know why you think he's PSA?

quote:
He took into himself what it means to bear his own wrath on our sin.

Fair point, but the Augsburger seems to be emphasising that God's wrath is dissipated; God's wrath does not seem to be a major focus of his thesis. As I've said in the past, I have less problems with a 'soft emphasis' on God's wrath. Also people like Wright (seen as 'soft on PSA') and Sykes (seen as 'anti PSA') would say similar.

I realise that we're getting into the fuzzy areas of intention of meaning but, to me, it's making 'God's wrath' central and important to all of soteriology and Christology and 'being a Christian' that I object to. (And I appreciate that people like you don't do this, but again, I think you'd also be viewed as heretical by the 'Oak Hill crowd' who have, from my perspective, started the 'soteriology wars' in the UK.)
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Like so much here, interpretation is conditioned by what we see as the "big picture".

Thanks JJ, I think (as ever) you've hit the nail on the proverbial head. Our vicious circle that we can't seem to escape is that it is impossible to discuss our respective 'biblical big pictures' without some degree of proof-texting - but, in so doing, we always read said passages through our own 'big picture'! [Biased]
This is most certainly true (pace Luther) and it's the reason why I said that I more often not find that discussing the process of biblical interpretation is a fruitless exercise in frustration.

It's helpful, however, to arrive at a point such as this. [Big Grin] There's no hope of discussion, in my view, when the discussing parties steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that they have a 'big picture' that they are applying.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As the late John Wimber used to say, "experience changes theology".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have come across this maxim many times in Charismatic circles, but I'm not sure what it means. I say this with no malice to John Wimber (I went to hear him speak several times) but surely it is ironic that experience cruelly taught him that his theology was faulty - i.e. God does not always heal? (Please do not read that as a cheap jibe. )

I think we owe the Charismatic movement a great debt in teaching us the vital importance of experience, but such experience must always be interpreted... precisely because experience is always so subjective.

Actually, I don't think that his theology ever was the "God always heals", far from it. At least, he was always at great pains to stress that he always considered healing to be "a mystery", and that we should never expect every person for whom we pray to be healed, any more than we should expect every person to whom we witness to become a Christian. What he did teach was that praying for healing should be a normative part of the life of the church. He had very harsh words about the "name it, claim it" school , who minister to people, find they aren't healed, and then leave the prayee (he used to say, "the victim") feeling guilty that they didn't have enough faith.

I think the specific point he was making in that quote was that we can read the bible from cover to cover, but until our experience makes us revisit what it says in the light of our experience, we can miss out on important themes. A bit like Jesus' point in the parable of the sower about the word needing to be "ploughed in" to our lives. Thus, for example, if we are comfortably off, we can miss out on teaching about God's provision. Specifically, in Wimber's case, until he was confronted with a pentecost-like experience, he didn't come to terms with the supernatural dimension of the Bible.

But your substantive point about the need to evaluate experience against scripture (and maybe tradition) is one with which I agree. We just have to accept that sometimes, we will find that our previous theology, the lens through which we view truth, will be flawed.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I just received my copy of 'Living Pulpit' and the following article is well worth reading apropos of many of the issues we've been discussing here. Justice in Forgiveness by Myron S. Augsburger.

Why do you particularly recommend this guy? Isn't he advocating PSA? [Confused] [Confused] [Ultra confused]

I found that an interesting article, with a take on PSA that is difficult to set down as either "for" or "against"--it seems to depend on the definition of PSA you're using. I was quite taken with Ausberger's description of the Cross as God saying:
quote:
“I will take into myself the whole intensity of your sin and speak back the word of forgiveness.”
but baffled and disconcerted by his subsequent statement that:

quote:
He literally experienced the intensity of our sin, and in doing so he could resolve his own wrath on sin and let us go free. (emphasis added).
That's the bit that I don't get--and also the bit of the essay that treads most heavily in PSA.

The paragraph right above seems to explain the sacrificial language used in the Epistles in a non-PSA way:

quote:
Peter writes that Christ bore our sins in his own body on the tree. (1 Pet 2:24) That is to say, Jesus literally absorbed into himself all of our sin, all of our hostility, all of our negativism toward God. He did this supremely when humanity was saying, “We would rather get rid of God then to serve him.” And God, in Jesus, took it all … all the way to the death. He carried all of our rejection.
He goes on to talk about the response this elicits in us--how it forces us to confront both the depths of our estrangement from God and the unrelenting force of God's love for us in spite of that, and how this works to effect reconciliation.

Just speaking for myself, I find that explanation most consistent with what I've experienced and been led to understand about the character of God (as shown in Christ) and the way it works in the world of men.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[

[QUOTE]Jeremiah makes it quite clear that this promise(forgiveness) is made on the basis of God's sovereign actions. There is no punishment involved, no sense of compulsion upon God to deal with sins in any way other than the way of forgiveness, of deliberate decision to put aside any demand for punishment or redress. To sum up, the covenant is the thing to which the sacrificial system was intended to point the people of Israel. They were forgiven, not because they sacrificed, but because the sacrifice pointed them to the true source of forgiveness, the committment of God towards them, as symbolised in the covenant relationship.

The Mosaic covenant pointed them toward itself? Or do you mean the New covenant of Jer 31:33 Which of course is fufilled in Christ when he spoke of 'a new covenant in my blood'.(Luke 22:20) The point at issue seems to be the purpose of blood sacrifice. I would suggest there is no explanation for the requirement of blood in your account and that therefore you are imposing an interpretation or reading based on your own preconceptions or values which find the concept of punishment repugnant. I have no problem with your view in the sense of your right to think what you want. I simply don't think it best fits the facts of scripture. In my view the sacrificial Mosaic system had a literal function of shielding them from God's anger. Think of Noah as a type. "God smelled the soothing aroma.." Now you may not like this God but he is the God of the OT. To reinvent him according to our sensibilities is not an option for me. It is far simpler to believe Paul in Romans thought that believers were literally 'justified by his(Christ's) blood and saved from the wrath of god though him.'If this is true, the God of the NT also has some 'wrath' which it is best to avoid and which in his grace and mercy he has found a way to help us do so.

quote:
With regards to the Romans verses, I do think that Romans 3:25 is key, but I don't read it as you do. Paul is trying to get across to (in this little section) his Jewish flock the way in which Christ is the fulfilment of the Jewish faith, but in order to do that, he has to correct some misunderstandings that he perceived they had. Amongst those misunderstandings was the belief that their (as a nation, and maybe also personally) disobedience had caused God to turn His back on them. On the contrary, Paul says, you are indeed guilty, as all of us are, but that doesn't mean that we can't access forgiveness, because forgiveness is not based on what we have done, but on the decision of God to forgive. He was trying to contradict their view that God wanted to punish them. Romans 3:25 shows clearly that they had not been punished for their sins because God's plan is to reveal His restorative justice in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Justice is empty-tomb shaped as far as God is concerned, the revelation of a new creation. It was the people to whom Paul wrote who percieved that God "ought" to behave as a wrathful deity towards them. Paul knew something quite different.
You need to prove that Paul had a concept of restorative justice for this to hold up. The word propitiation carries the sense of covering I think.(I'm no Greek scholar.)The concept Paul is dealng with is the covering of sin which was dealt with by the cross and seen by all creation (Devil, Principalities, Angels,and all Mankind)to be the fulfillment of justice owed for the problem of sin. Up to the cross, the sacrificial system had temporarily functioned to cover sin. Now Christ has dealt with it once and for all as the Hebrews writer states.(Heb 9:12) God is thus manifested as absolutely just as well as, paradoxically, absolutely merciful. This to me is a plain and straightforward reading but of course it plays havoc with those of us who can't bear the thought of a judging and punishing God. My point is and has always been that God is more merciful than punishing and that his love had to find some harmony with his holiness. We are not in our natural state 'holy'. God is. We have no understanding in our natural state of God's problem. Paul states that the natural man doesn't understand the things of God. (1Cor 2:14,15) I'm not suggesting I'm holy, far from it, just that we need to humble ourselves to accept the word as stated rather than struggle to find a way to make it acceptable to our minds and preconceptions.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
I was quite taken with Ausberger's description of the Cross as God saying:
quote:
“I will take into myself the whole intensity of your sin and speak back the word of forgiveness.”
but baffled and disconcerted by his subsequent statement that:

quote:
He literally experienced the intensity of our sin, and in doing so he could resolve his own wrath on sin and let us go free. (emphasis added).
That's the bit that I don't get--and also the bit of the essay that treads most heavily in PSA.

Thanks infinite_monkey (and thanks again to Seeker for the original article) - I think we are getting to the heart of the matter. Sin is not a concrete noun. We may use metaphors like poison and wounds to describe sin but it is not really a thing that Christ can take on himself. When I choose to 'take into myself the whole intensity of your sin and speak back the word of forgiveness' I am not taking sin onto myself but the consequences of sin. The reason, I feel, why the writer collapses back into PSA language is the CV has to paint sin in 'concrete' terms.

Now the key question of the atonement (IMHO) is how Jesus took all the consequences of sin on himself. If we only see physical death as that consequence then I can't see how we can speak of a universal substitution.

(Of course, at this point Starlight will say that we don't need to because it is all subjective ... okay, I admit that I am assuming at least some objectivity to the atonement...)

Unpleasant though we may find it I think that speaking of God's wrath provides the 'something' of the consequences of sin that Jesus can bear in our place. After all God made the world in the first place and so any pain we feel as a consequence of sin is the 'built in' consequence that he put into our world.

That said, I thought it was a great article ... but apparently I'm an arch liberal, to the left of Spong [Killing me]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
That said, I thought it was a great article ... but apparently I'm an arch liberal, to the left of Spong [Killing me]

Um, OK, now I don't think that's fair. I think I said that I think you'd probably be viewed as 'too liberal' by the PSA-only crowd. They view Tom Wright with suspicion as being too soft on PSA, for goodness sake.

I don't know if I'm allowed to link to my blog here (but a link can be found in my profile), but I've actually asked the question on my blog whether the article was PSA or not.

My favourite quote from Augsburger was his characterisation of God as saying:
quote:
I care more about you than about what you have done. I really love you, and I will move beyond the issue to the person.
To me, the whole argument about there needing to be retribution is that God would say: "I care more about how you've sinned than I care about you and I can't/won't love you until someone is punished."

P.S. to Johnny S if you read my blog, you are not the person who said that our repentance calls for God's forgiveness. That refers to a blogging conversation with someone else, just in case you think I'm misquoting you.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
The Mosaic covenant pointed them toward itself? Or do you mean the New covenant of Jer 31:33 Which of course is fufilled in Christ when he spoke of 'a new covenant in my blood'.(Luke 22:20) I would suggest there is no explanation for the requirement of blood in your account and that therefore you are imposing an interpretation or reading based on your own preconceptions or values which find the concept of punishment repugnant.
Sorry If I wasn't clear. The sacrificial system was intended to remind them of the covenant, the point being that it was the covenant, not the sacrifices, on which thy depended for "salvation". I have readily agreed with you that this pointed towards Christ, and the concept that we are saved by the new covenantal relationship of grace.

quote:
The point at issue seems to be the purpose of blood sacrifice.
Agreed!

quote:
I would suggest there is no explanation for the requirement of blood in your account and that therefore you are imposing an interpretation or reading based on your own preconceptions or values which find the concept of punishment repugnant.
And I would suggest that there is no evidence in the scriptures that blood sacrifice has any penal aspect to it. A penal interpretation just doesn't fit with the scriptures. I really don't think that it is enough to say, "I can't think of any other explanation than a penal one for blood sacrifice, and therefore, even in the absense of any evidence pointing that way, that is the belief I hold." That really does seem to me like reading into the scriptures that which you believe ought to be there.

With regard to my views on punishmnet, I would say that my considered reading of scripture has taught me that punishmnet is, indeed, incapable of dealing with sin, and that, in fact, sin is so serious that only forgiveness occasioned with love is powerful enough to " cover " it.

quote:
In my view the sacrificial Mosaic system had a literal function of shielding them from God's anger. Think of Noah as a type. "God smelled the soothing aroma.." Now you may not like this God but he is the God of the OT. To reinvent him according to our sensibilities is not an option for me. It is far simpler to believe Paul in Romans thought that believers were literally 'justified by his(Christ's) blood and saved from the wrath of god though him.'If this is true, the God of the NT also has some 'wrath' which it is best to avoid and which in his grace and mercy he has found a way to help us do so.

It seems to me that we either assume that there is a process within the scriptures of progressive revelation, as per Hebrews 1, whereby some aspect of the unknowable God which were out of the comprehension of the likes of Noah and Abraham, are more readily understood by those who have the historic revelation of Jesus life and ministry, or we are faced with a whole host of contradictions between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God. Now, I don't have a problem with progressive revelation myself, so I don't have the problem of how to reconcile a God who changes his mind because he smells a barbecue, with the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ. The reinterpretation of the former in the light of the latter is, as I'm sure you know, quite a strong theme in scripture, not least in the teaching ministry of Jesus Himself.

quote:
You need to prove that Paul had a concept of restorative justice for this to hold up.
Well, I think that the case for Paul understanding jusatice as being restorative is easily proved. How else are we to interpret Rom 8:1-2 , Rom 8:20-21 , Col 1:20 or Eph 1:9-10 . They all seem pretty restorative. And, furthermore, the Old Testament references to justice are pretty well couched in terms of restoring Israel. Granted, this is often associated with the destruction of the Godless nations surrounding them, but that is just a necessary means to the end of vindicating His people. The question, of course, arises, do those nations represent evil people now (to simplify it) or sin itself, the disordering of the world. I would say the latter, but I accept that this interpretation is read back from the New Testament, and, as I say, I don't have a problem with that.

quote:
The word propitiation carries the sense of covering I think.(I'm no Greek scholar.)The concept Paul is dealng with is the covering of sin which was dealt with by the cross and seen by all creation (Devil, Principalities, Angels,and all Mankind)to be the fulfillment of justice owed for the problem of sin. Up to the cross, the sacrificial system had temporarily functioned to cover sin. Now Christ has dealt with it once and for all as the Hebrews writer states.(Heb 9:12) God is thus manifested as absolutely just as well as, paradoxically, absolutely merciful.
But there is only a paradox between justice and mercy if you take a picture of justice which requires destruction rather than restoration, and again, this is an assertion which I cannot find in scripture. There are certainly scriptures which describe the destruction of the wicked, but there is no sense in which God is bound to destroy, nor yet a sense that if He did not, then He would be being unjust. If you want to go down that road Exodus 33:19 rather emphasises the free unfettered choice of God. I see justice as a sub-set of love, as it relates to the ordering of creation, just as mercy is a sub-set of love from the subjective point of view of the recipient.

quote:
This to me is a plain and straightforward reading but of course it plays havoc with those of us who can't bear the thought of a judging and punishing God. My point is and has always been that God is more merciful than punishing and that his love had to find some harmony with his holiness. We are not in our natural state 'holy'. God is. We have no understanding in our natural state of God's problem. Paul states that the natural man doesn't understand the things of God. (1Cor 2:14,15) I'm not suggesting I'm holy, far from it, just that we need to humble ourselves to accept the word as stated rather than struggle to find a way to make it acceptable to our minds and preconceptions.

Funnily enough, I think that my reading of scripture is plain and straightforward too. I hate to inject a bit of postmodernity here, but all our interpretive frameworks are the product of our experience, pilgrimage, teaching and so on, yours no less than mine. To me, it seems glaringly obvious, and I'm sure that, to you, your quite different conclusions also seem glaringly obvious. It is difficult to step aside from that framework, and it only happens when we are challenged to do so by God. I became a christian within a church set up that held views pretty similar to yours, and, whilst I always thought that the arguments for PSA were, shall we say, unconvincing, I was content enough to carry on and sideline those doubts as being part of the mystery. When God did challenge me about what I now believe was an inferior understanding of His nature, it was like a light going on. Not saying that I understand it all, of course not, but I can say that I find a CV type understanding of the paschal event to be consistent with the scriptures and with my experience. Am I standing above the word, as you suggest? Well, the initiative didn't come from me. I find it difficult to believe that having your opinions changed by the Spirit interpreting the scriptures to me is anything other than submitting my understanding to those scriptures. As for the "natural man", of course I've got that in spades, but should that prevent us obeying the injunction to love God "with all our minds"? That way, ISTM, lies complacency.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Certainly, I would not dispute that the sacrificial system involved the shedding of blood, and that this system prefigures the Atonement. What I do dispute is that there is any penal element to all this. The ox, or the goat, or the lamb were not punished instead of the one in need of atonement. Indeed, the sin bearer of Ch 16 , the scapegoat, is not punished, rather driven out of the camp. The sacrificed animal must be perfect. So there is something different going on here than "sin must be dealt with by punishment", because there is no punishment here, and yet sin is dealt with. So what is going on here? I think the clue is in the use of ritual sacrifice in late bronze age culture, which we see in, for example, Gen. 15 . Sacrifice was seen as a seal of committment, the shedding of blood (being costly in terms of sheep-hearders) representing the investment in the promise. Thus, to sacrifice was to bring to mind the covenant. This is further developed in Gen. 22 , where God challenges Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, in order to demonstrate to him that, firstly, He is not like the God of the surrounding nations, requireing appeasement, but, more pertinately to this argument, it is God who is the prime mover in committment. It is God who provides the sacrifice. Abraham has to do nothing, the goat, if you like, is God's. This, surely, is a pointer to grace.

JJ, this is great. So true. The sacrifice was to bring to mind the covenant.

To my mind the sacrifice did this in two ways.
So they were a recognition of the covenant - that all things are Gods, that His will is to be done, and that all good things are to be attributed to Him and not to ourselves. In return we receive His blessings.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
And what is this covenant? Well many things, but amongst them is a promise to remember their sins no more. Jeremiah makes it quite clear that this promise is made on the basis of God's sovereign actions. There is no punishment involved, no sense of compulsion upon God to deal with sins in any way other than the way of forgiveness, of deliberate decision to put aside any demand for punishment or redress. To sum up, the covenant is the thing to which the sacrificial system was intended to point the people of Israel. They were forgiven, not because they sacrificed, but because the sacrifice pointed them to the true source of forgiveness, the committment of God towards them, as symbolised in the covenant relationship.

This is right on also. The covenantal relationship is what it is all based on. God does His part if the people do theirs. The reciprocity is truly miraculous, given that humans actually have no power at all of their own. But God's love is such that He makes human freedom of thought, will and action possible - so the covenant can be a real thing.

The original, but unspoken, covenant was broken at the Fall. A new covenant was made with Noah, but it foundered in the idolatry and magic of the various nations. The covenant with Israel was made with Abraham, and then renewed and refined repreatedly. It was broken by Israel's long term disobedience. A new covenant was promised. I think the nature of the description is telling:
quote:
Jeremiah 31.31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD.
The new covenant seems to be about the fact that whereas Israel and Judah in the past failed to obey God, things would be different in the future. His law would be in their minds and hearts. Instead of being in ignorance, they would know the Lord.

I think that it is easy to see this as a reference to all people who know and love God, not strictly the Jews. It is about humanity's growing understanding of God and His will - and our willingness to do His will.

This is reflected in what Jesus said about His new commandments and the new covenant:
quote:
John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

John 15:12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

With this new commandment He restores the covenant, or makes a new covenant, the idea being that people will hear Him and love God and love one another.

But why blood?
quote:
Matthew 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.

Luke 22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

The word for covenant here is actually "testament," so we speak of the "New Testament."

Why is blood so essential?

I think that the blood from the beginning always stood for the truth of His words and the life that is in them. The central idea is that God's words bring people out of the darkness of ignorance into the light of understanding. This would bring them spiritual life, and rescue them from spiritual death, if they heard and obeyed it.

Jesus repeatedly makes a connection between blood, the truth, His words, and life:

His blood is life:
quote:
John 6:53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

John 6:54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.

John 6:56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Jesus' words are life:
quote:
John 5:24 I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

John 6:68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

Jesus' words quench our thirst:
quote:
John 4.13 Jesus answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”

Revelation 21:6 And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts.

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

Jesus' words are truth:
quote:
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 8:31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."

John 17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

Jesus came to give us the truth:
quote:
John 18:37 For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.

Mark 1:38 But He said to them, “Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also, because for this purpose I have come forth.”

Luke 4:43 “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, because for this purpose I have been sent.”

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

Jesus' words, His blood, living water, and the truth are all connected. So when people fight and overcome "by the blood of Jesus" it means that the truth conquers ignorance and falsity. As in Revelation:
quote:
Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.
This is why "testimony" is mentioned, because the battle is fought by means of the truth.

So it's all about the covenant, doing God's will, and the role of the truth in enabling this to happen. There are profound spiritual realities involved in the human ability to absorb information and to be changed by it. This is how God works with the human race, changing us in a way that is very powerful over time, but which in no way interferes with our freedom or apparent autonomy.

The point is that the Biblical language describes how God intervened to change the human race. PSA describes the exact opposite of what actually happened because it short-circuits the whole process of voluntary change. Christus Victor, however, leaves it intact and is much more in tune with both the Bible and the normal human experience of life.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


Why is blood so essential?

I think that the blood from the beginning always stood for the truth of His words and the life that is in them. The central idea is that God's words bring people out of the darkness of ignorance into the light of understanding. This would bring them spiritual life, and rescue them from spiritual death, if they heard and obeyed it.

Jesus repeatedly makes a connection between blood, the truth, His words, and life:

Freddy, as I keep saying, this view undermines the incarnation. There is also a very real sense ( [Big Grin] ) in which the blood will not let us lose our grip on the historic Christ event. Throughout the bible 'flesh and blood' has an earthy, incarnational sense to it = common humanity, e.g. 2 Samuel 5: 1, "We are your own flesh and blood."

While the link you make is there, the physical link is also there and cannot be denied.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Johnny, I'm not denying the physical link. I'm saying though that it has more power if we understand that there is more to it than just physical flesh and blood.

This should be obvious from Jesus' references to eating His flesh and blood. How do we eat His flesh and blood if not by imbibing the love and truth that comes from Him to us? [Confused]
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
So...the insistence on the importance of literal blood is to make the message of Christ's redemption more visceral, in the viscera sense, to cut through the intellect and thus move people to compassion, that is, to move them in the guts?

While it's tempting to take that sort of imagery and go "ew," I can see the utility of it.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
So...the insistence on the importance of literal blood is to make the message of Christ's redemption more visceral, in the viscera sense, to cut through the intellect and thus move people to compassion, that is, to move them in the guts?

While it's tempting to take that sort of imagery and go "ew," I can see the utility of it.

I can and do see the utility of it in an allegorical sense. But the idea of a God who won't forgive until there is an eviscerated human body on his altar is not only horrible but, again, contrary to everything that Jesus taught. [brick wall]

It just gets worse and worse. God is a macho hunter and all people of a sensitive disposition can literally go to hell?
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Agreed. Then again, some people think that "allegory" and "metaphor" are wimpy words for people who can't stare reality in the face and call a spade a spade.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Agreed. Then again, some people think that "allegory" and "metaphor" are wimpy words for people who can't stare reality in the face and call a spade a spade.

I'm going to rejoice in being a wimp. I really do think that what the world needs is more people who are worried about the welfare of their neighbour.

*bad day alert*

I'm sick and tired of the so-called 'Christian' macho god who acts like a gang-leader football hooligan and who tells all the people who don't belong to his football club that they are going to hell for having the wrong ideas and for caring.

I'm sick and tired of this god who is worried about Right Ideas And Doctrine and who is vitally worried about what we do with our genitals but who doesn't give a flip if people hurt other people physically, emotionally or mentally. What kind of justice is that?

The god who slaps people around because he thinks they've dissed him doesn't have a clue about justice. Justice means making things better for people. Not hurting them.

Why don't Christians worry about the kind of justice that makes the world a better place instead of about excluding people?

*remove 5 adverbs beginning with 'f'*

*/bad day alert*
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
So...the insistence on the importance of literal blood is to make the message of Christ's redemption more visceral, in the viscera sense, to cut through the intellect and thus move people to compassion, that is, to move them in the guts?

While it's tempting to take that sort of imagery and go "ew," I can see the utility of it.

Yes, that's the Mel Gibson argument. OliviaG
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Seeker963:

I'm in total agreement with you there.

ETA:

Though I also get frustrated with people who say that the bible is meaningless because it's all just "metaphor" and "allegory," as if the metaphors symbolize nothing but a fading illusion.

In some discussions I get the distinct feeling of being either stuck between two stools or between a rock and a hard place.

Sometimes, you just can't win... [Disappointed]

[ 12. June 2007, 20:59: Message edited by: mirrizin ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Though I also get frustrated with people who say that the bible is meaningless because it's all just "metaphor" and "allegory," as if the metaphors symbolize nothing but a fading illusion.

As you would expect, I share that frustration. I admit, though, that the burden is on the ones believing in metaphors to make them meaningful and compelling.

I also think that the events recorded in the Bible are, by and large, literally true. So, as I understand it, it is not only the accounts that are metaphoric but the events themselves. [Ultra confused]

If the events themselves had not been able to actually be living metaphors, imbued with deep significance, Christ would have had to come the moment that the Fall happened. This wouldn't have worked at all since humanity needed to be prepared. Or so I understand it.

In my understanding, the metaphors all represented Christ's struggles and victories - presenting them as current realities to the inhabitants of heaven, who were then able to be present with the human race because of them.

This was necessarily a temporary arrangement, according to this understanding. Yet it could hold the place of the Incarnation until humanity was sufficiently developed to be able to receive, record, and spread the gospel. This is why it is said that when Christ came He fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. Its metaphors had been holding the place that only He could fill. This is why the ritual law was abrogated when He came. This is why pre-advent religion is largely symbolic, and why Christianity is so much more explanatory and doctrinal.

Still, the Old Testament remains holy because Christ's victories are read backward into it, filling them with meaning.

So I don't see the metaphors as in any way a wimpy way to look at and explain Christ's actions. Rather, they are ways of grasping and dealing with spiritual and divine events that are essentially above out comprehension.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Oops. That last phrase should be "our comprehension" not "out comprehension." [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
It just gets worse and worse. God is a macho hunter and all people of a sensitive disposition can literally go to hell?

Where does the 'macho hunter' bit come from? My point about the 'gore' of the cross was a million miles away from Mel Gibson - it was to do with Christ sharing our humanity - I think you were reading all sorts of things into it that weren't there.

BTW - my earlier jibe about me being labelled 'liberal' was just a joke ... sorry if that wasn't obvious. [Smile]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Actually, I forgot to add...

When The Passion of the Christ came out the reaction from PSAers was interesting. Obviously some wanted to denounce it just because Gibson is RC!

However, the overwhelming (considered) response was that there was far too much emphasis on the physical suffering of Christ. It is interesting that the gospel accounts are much less gratuitous. PSA has traditionally placed a greater stress on the emotional and spiritual burden that Christ bore in being temporarily separated from the Father by the sins of the world.

Now, I know many of you may reject that idea, but I'm just pointing out that PSA is not the blood-thirsty monster it is sometimes made out to be.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Now, I know many of you may reject that idea, but I'm just pointing out that PSA is not the blood-thirsty monster it is sometimes made out to be.

But it is a blood thirsty monster. A God who is in some mysterious way satisfied by the death of His Son is not much less reprehensible than one who has a need for blood.

In CV, the suffering of Christ is the suffering of someone who is accomplishing a victory with every last ounce of His strength - even to the death. He is not satisfying some requirement, He is defeating an enemy.

This makes God a hero, not the victim of some peculiar law of the universe.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But it is a blood thirsty monster.

We are using blood thirsty in different ways! I'm not trying to wriggle out of the charge of blood being necessary for forgiveness but crying 'foul' when all sorts of flowery and emotive adjectives are piled on.

If (in some freak accident) I was in a rail carriage, my arm trapped in the doors, and I had to cut off my arm in order to save the rest of the passengers from certain death (lots of imagination required there [Big Grin] ) then sacrificing my arm was necessary but I can't be accused of being blood thirsty.

I'm arguing that the death of Jesus was necessary for our salvation, and therefore it involved the shedding of his blood. I realise that many disagree with me on that, but let's stay on topic... he says, suddenly aware that this is supposed to be a CV thread. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Not all PSAers are alike, to my eyes.

Do you judge an institution by its best partisans or by its worst?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm arguing that the death of Jesus was necessary for our salvation, and therefore it involved the shedding of his blood. I realise that many disagree with me on that, but let's stay on topic... he says, suddenly aware that this is supposed to be a CV thread. [Hot and Hormonal]

Yes. [Roll Eyes]

I totally agree that Jesus' death was necessary for our salvation. Your example is actually a good one:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If (in some freak accident) I was in a rail carriage, my arm trapped in the doors, and I had to cut off my arm in order to save the rest of the passengers from certain death (lots of imagination required there [Big Grin] ) then sacrificing my arm was necessary but I can't be accused of being blood thirsty.

No, you would not be blood-thirsty. You would have sacrificed your arm in a noble cause, so that others might live.

Jesus' sacrifice was like that.

Jesus willingly gave up the life of His physical body to assert the priority of the spiritual over the physical. This is the same priority that ought to be true of everyone - and when it is the person is free. Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.

This sacrifice is a victory. It is exactly the opposite of what hell wishes for every person. If everyone prioritized heavenly goals over worldly ones then hell would be utterly defeated. Jesus made it possible for this to happen.

But the sacrifice was not a payment, much less a payment to God. It was a re-prioritizing or a re-orientation - just as it would be if you sacrificed your arm so that people could get out of that train.

In this sacrifice, you're not giving your arm to a blood-thirsty God. You're not taking the punishment so that God will free the other passengers. You are selflessly valuing their lives and well-being over your own - doing whatever is necessary to remove the impediments to their escape. It would have been the same as if a villain were blocking the doors and you fought him and cleared the way, but being wounded in the process.

The point is that it is about power, effort, and the willingness to give everything for a cause. This is what God is willing to do for us in the cause of our salvation.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If (in some freak accident) I was in a rail carriage, my arm trapped in the doors, and I had to cut off my arm in order to save the rest of the passengers from certain death (lots of imagination required there [Big Grin] ) then sacrificing my arm was necessary but I can't be accused of being blood thirsty.

In contrast, if the passengers in the rail carriage were being held by terrorists, and the terrorists said that if a volunteer was willing to have her/his arm cut off, they would let everyone go - and actually did so after you volunteered to sacrifice your arm ... Would you consider the terrorists merciful or blood-thirsty? OliviaG
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
In contrast, if the passengers in the rail carriage were being held by terrorists, and the terrorists said that if a volunteer was willing to have her/his arm cut off, they would let everyone go - and actually did so after you volunteered to sacrifice your arm ... Would you consider the terrorists merciful or blood-thirsty? OliviaG

That's why people often see the ransom as being paid to the devil. [Disappointed]

But in Johnny's situation, where his arm is somehow trapped and this is somehow preventing people from leaving the train, I can see a primitive but God-fearing person seeing this in terms of sacrifice. I can see him saying within himself in that situation, "God, I want you to free these people from this train. I will sacrifice my arm so that you can do this. I give You my arm in payment for these people."

I can see him thinking in terms of a God who is in charge of everything, who caused the accident, who trapped him in the train, who is holding back the people, and who can somehow be appeased or impressed by the gift of the severed arm.

But no one thinks that way anymore. Do they?

[ 13. June 2007, 19:26: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
That's why people often see the ransom as being paid to the devil. [Disappointed]

Leading people like me to wonder who's actually in charge in that vision of existence. God buys us back from the Devil? Really? OliviaG
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
That's why people often see the ransom as being paid to the devil. [Disappointed]

Leading people like me to wonder who's actually in charge in that vision of existence. God buys us back from the Devil? Really? OliviaG
The fall is all about who owns us. Devil is 'god of this world' according to Jesus. The cross demonstrated Gods wisdom as well as his power in legally reclaiming us. Prior to it devil had a right as 'spiritual father' of our 'fallenness'. Remember Aslan in 'Lion witch and wardrobe'?.. had to die as white witch had a legal claim on the kid who ate her turkish delight.
Now let the sky and the wrath of all who object to such medieval heresies fall on my head.(Too much coffee, sorry)
God is in charge though.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The cross demonstrated Gods wisdom as well as his power in legally reclaiming us. Prior to it devil had a right as 'spiritual father' of our 'fallenness'. Remember Aslan in 'Lion witch and wardrobe'?.. had to die as white witch had a legal claim on the kid who ate her turkish delight.

So the debt was indeed paid to the devil, or paid to revoke the devil's legal right to our souls. [Frown]

And without us even playing the guitar real good. [Disappointed]

CV is better because it has Aslan beating the tar out of the White Witch, and taking back Edmund by force. [Angel]
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Why does God have to deal with any devil in the first place? Why must there always be an embodied adversary?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
I don't think that there really is a devil. It's just a way of personifying the opposite of God, as hell denotes the opposite of happiness.

Since the reality, as I believe, is not an individual, the victory does not involve actually capturing him, or eliminating him, by force. It's just easier to think of it in those terms.

But we should be smarter than that.

Martin Luther King fought against racism, but he knew that racism was no particular individual, and that fighting against it did not involve literally attacking and destroying anyone. The battle was for the hearts of the country, and there was more to be gained by physically losing than physically winning.

Pacifists everywhere understand this principle.

So Jesus was not trying to overcome an actual individual named Satan. He was fighting for the hearts and minds of humanity. His adversary was the wickedness in their hearts and minds, and the spiritual forces behind that wickedness.

In objective terms, there is not even a contest here. God is infinitely more powerful than any evil force. But when we are talking about the free choices of any given individual the balance of power between serving self and serving God is much more equal. It is important that it be equal, otherwise the free choice is not free.

So the contest was to restore the equilibrium in human hearts and minds, so that people could be led to live happy and fulfilling lives in freedom.

Like the fight against racism, victories in these kinds of battles are often better served by defeat than victory. The point is to expose the real situation and see it in relation to the way that things ought to be. This is how you change the world.

I think that this is a more adequate way of looking at it than the idea of a price being paid to either God or the devil.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
I'd tend to agree with you to a considerable extent, Freddy.

Dragging "sin" (usually of the genital rather than financial or politico-military variety) and "the Devil incarnate" ("our" enemy) up are standard tactics of the New Religious Right (Falwell, Robertson etc. ad infinitum et ad nauseam).

Saying this, I think there is/are powers of evil both within and without ourselves which are not fully explicable as the individual or collective Shadows (as per Professor Jung).

I think we - and I suspect you'd agree on this - need to exercise extreme caution on pinning this on any entity.

In the past Jews, Germans, Russians, "the Yellow Peril"??? have all been labelled "the Devil Incarnate".

I think we need to go beyond simplistic literalist "Biblical interpretation" (usually translates as "what I fervently desire the Bible to be: a street directory for the incredibly simplistic & gullible wishful thinkers like myself") & the morbid, dead theology of the Middle Ages. [Votive]

Once again, I suspect you'd be with me on this.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Since the reality, as I believe, is not an individual, the victory does not involve actually capturing him, or eliminating him, by force. It's just easier to think of it in those terms.

But we should be smarter than that.

Martin Luther King fought against racism, but he knew that racism was no particular individual, and that fighting against it did not involve literally attacking and destroying anyone. The battle was for the hearts of the country, and there was more to be gained by physically losing than physically winning.

Pacifists everywhere understand this principle.

So Freddy, to clarify ...

In CV Jesus (the mighty warrior) fights a terrific battle with (the personfication of) evil and rips his (its) head from its (his) shoulders ... in fact kicks its butt real darn good. However, it's okay to use this blood thirsty / show of power through strength metaphor because everyone really knows that the cross is about weakness and pacifism.

However, in PSA it is outrageous to suggest that the cross is about turning away God's wrath because then (when we apply the atonement model to human ethics) that would imply power through strength / blood thirsty / not being willing to forgive unconditionally.

Have I got it about right? [Razz]

John.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Freddy said himself that this was not a matter of literally attacking or destroying anyone.

To continue the MLK Jr analogy, We Shall Overcome was not sung by men wielding weapons intending to beat the shit out of the racists. They merely asserted their position and held the line, so to speak, and took whatever was offered to them.

The strength in the song, and in CV, methinks, is not the power to beat anyone down, but the power to endure in spite of being beaten down, to survive in spite of everything the enemy can throw at you. It's a very different kind of strength than throwing everything you have at the enemy.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Freddy said himself that this was not a matter of literally attacking or destroying anyone.

But the whole point is that a 'Victor' metaphor will naturally (on this planet / in our culture) carry connotations of victory through strength. I know that is not what CV says, but the metaphor itself naturally points that way.

I don't see how that this is signficantly different from using a model of propitiation but at the same time saying that this does not mean that we should take revenge on others. It is a model which makes one point, but needs qualifying ... as do all models.

You want to say that CV is a model that subverts culture and shows strength through weakness - why can't I do the same thing with PSA?
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
I, for one, have learned not to correlate strength with violence. If anything, I think violence tends to be the last resort of the weak.

Also, IMO, PSA always emphasizes the need for vengeance in the negative, much the same way that "you don't have to think about elephants anymore" will make you instinctively think of an elephant. When God commits an ultimate act of brutality to end all of God and humankind's brutality, it's still brutal.

Like it or not, the need for retribution, for punishment, for revenge and retaliation seems to be woven in the very fabric of PSA, while CV takes retaliation out of the entire equation. There was no enemy to beat up, there was no need to punish, Christ simply overcame the power of sin within himself and within all of creation.

You can try to work that kind of thing into PSA too, but it might not look like what most people recognize as PSA.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But the whole point is that a 'Victor' metaphor will naturally (on this planet / in our culture) carry connotations of victory through strength. I know that is not what CV says, but the metaphor itself naturally points that way.

(Trying to make up for my previous PSA post...)

See, I think the paradox actually increases the power and beauty of the metaphor. A victory achieved though obedience, suffering, and death - all the things humans normally associate with losing. OliviaG
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Where does the 'macho hunter' bit come from? My point about the 'gore' of the cross was a million miles away from Mel Gibson - it was to do with Christ sharing our humanity - I think you were reading all sorts of things into it that weren't there.

I think that I really do not understand PSA. Because sometimes you say things that I can wholeheartedly agree with and other times you pronounce my view of the cross as insufficient for human ethics and morality and - it seems to me - also 'fluffy' and insubstantial.

I see a very human Jesus submitting himself to the worst violence that the human race has to offer. Both in order to 1) give us a moral example of forgiveness and an offer of reconciliation and 2) to 'inject' (for want of a better term) this costly and self-sacrifical forgiveness and reconciliation into the very fabric of creation.

Yet this kind of self-sacrifice and costly forgiveness is apparently the sort of thing only a weak person does and we must have a First Person of the Trinity who has to have the taste of blood in his mouth. (methaphorical, of course)

I truly don't 'get' how my view discards morality and ethics nor do I 'get' how my view makes Jesus less than a blood and guts human. Nor do I understand how saying 'The Father hates sinners and wants to taste blood before he will offer forgiveness' injects morality and ethics into creation rather than violence.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
BTW - my earlier jibe about me being labelled 'liberal' was just a joke ... sorry if that wasn't obvious. [Smile]

Not obvious, no.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
BTW - my earlier jibe about me being labelled 'liberal' was just a joke ... sorry if that wasn't obvious. [Smile]

Not obvious, no.
Sorry then, I thought from my previous posts that it was fairly obvious that I'm not that liberal. [Frown]

And on the subject of saying sorry - does anyone think Gracious Rebel's thread in purg on 'apologies' has any relevance to our discussion? I'd be interested in comments from an atonement perspective.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
In CV Jesus (the mighty warrior) fights a terrific battle with (the personfication of) evil and rips his (its) head from its (his) shoulders ... in fact kicks its butt real darn good. However, it's okay to use this blood thirsty / show of power through strength metaphor because everyone really knows that the cross is about weakness and pacifism.

To me, CV is more like: Jesus, the omnipotent incarnation of God but also fully human, fights the temptation of the sinful lie (story: temptation in the desert) that "If you just destroy everyone who opposes God, then good will reign from your destructive act".

In so doing, the blood Jesus spills is his own. Not because God demanded Jesus' blood but because humanity - in effect - demanded Jesus' blood by refusing to imitate his example.

We said (and, IMO, in PSA we continue to say) "No Jesus, your preaching of loving my enemy is wrong. The only way that right can reign on earth is for those who are against you to be violently destroyed." This is the great lie of all human existence. When Peter opposed Jesus' saying that the son of man must be crucified rather than kill his enemies, Jesus called him 'Satan'.

God's truth is that the person who forgives ends the struggle. The lie of the flesh is that 'In ending those who oppose us, we end the struggle'. We don't end the struggle, of course, because we always find new enemies to search out and destroy. We always find someone to hate.

I know this because I do it.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, in PSA it is outrageous to suggest that the cross is about turning away God's wrath because then (when we apply the atonement model to human ethics) that would imply power through strength / blood thirsty / not being willing to forgive unconditionally.

Have I got it about right? [Razz]

Yes, I'd say that's about right. The good bit of PSA, I guess, is that God kills himself instead of his enemies. I can deal with that as long as its a metaphor for the cost and difficulty of forgiving human sin.

But when you get down to 'God refuses to forgive until he tastes human blood', you've just reduced God's desires to the level of the great lie - that peace comes from slaughter. IMO, of course.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Why does God have to deal with any devil in the first place? Why must there always be an embodied adversary?

The devil isn't embodied but he's not just the projection of our subconscious need to personify evil either. Christ acknowledged his personality, his reality and his influence. We therefore can assume same.. I would have thought.

No real need for Aslan to die to kick white witch's sorry butt Freddy?
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Sorry then, I thought from my previous posts that it was fairly obvious that I'm not that liberal. [Frown]

It IS obvious from your previous posts that you're not that liberal. This is the whole point of my comment. I think that what's going on in Sydney-influenced Anglicanism and hyperconservative Calvinist free churches and this whole movement of PSA-or-to-hell-with-you isn't conservative in the sense of 'unchanged orthodoxy'. I think it's legalistic, putting heavy burdens on people and chasing many others away from Christianity. But, of course, I'm imagining all of this and these people don't exist, so 'whatever'.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
That's why people often see the ransom as being paid to the devil. [Disappointed]

Leading people like me to wonder who's actually in charge in that vision of existence. God buys us back from the Devil? Really? OliviaG
The fall is all about who owns us. Devil is 'god of this world' according to Jesus. The cross demonstrated Gods wisdom as well as his power in legally reclaiming us. Prior to it devil had a right as 'spiritual father' of our 'fallenness'. Remember Aslan in 'Lion witch and wardrobe'?.. had to die as white witch had a legal claim on the kid who ate her turkish delight.
Now let the sky and the wrath of all who object to such medieval heresies fall on my head.(Too much coffee, sorry)
God is in charge though.

Actually, I pretty much agree with all of this, Jamat, though I would possibly not express it in quite that language.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
No real need for Aslan to die to kick white witch's sorry butt Freddy?

That's the way it actually works in the story. Aslan's death and resurrection is made much of, but what did it really do? Nothing but release Aslan from the fetters of a mysterious law. He then kicked the White Witch's behind - which no one said he couldn't have done all along. It's like he was held up by a technicality.

In other words, the cultural demand for Christus Victor is so great that Lewis could not ignore it if he was to have any kind of story at all. But wishing to write a Christian allegory he threw in the artificial device of the deep magic requiring a blood payment.

The real story, however, is how Aslan defeats the White Witch, how Edmund reforms, and how the Pevensies come to rule.

As for the violence, doesn't everyone know that love conquers all and that the pen is mightier than the sword? The martial language is just imagery.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Freddy said himself that this was not a matter of literally attacking or destroying anyone.

But the whole point is that a 'Victor' metaphor will naturally (on this planet / in our culture) carry connotations of victory through strength. I know that is not what CV says, but the metaphor itself naturally points that way.

I don't think that "victory through strength" connotations have really been much of a problem for the 'Victor' metaphor. Indeed, I think the beauty of this metaphor, and of the Passion story in general, is that honoring the strength of Jesus helps us redefine what it means to struggle and prevail.

The Saxon poem Dream of the Rood, excerpts of which date from 750 or before, uses militaristic language and advances a Christus Victor understanding.

That poem has no separation of God and Christ:
quote:
The young hero stripped himself--he, God Almighty--
strong and stout-minded. He mounted high gallows,
bold before many, when he would loose mankind.

I hear and honor your defense of PSA as being less about blood n' guts and more about the cost of sin in terms of seperation from God (a much harder concept for Mel Gibson to film, as it's easier to buy 10 gallons of fake blood than fake dereliction [Smile] ) I still can't accept it--to me, that's no less "monsterous" for being less "bloodthirsty". The danger of PSA is that it can be seen as making God an antagonist.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Much as I love the Narnia stories I don't think CS Lewis was trying to write a full explanation of the atonement. I get a little nervous when we try to argue from a novel to the atonement, rather than from scripture in the light of a novel.

I'm still not convinced by anyone's differentiation between the subversive nature of CV versus PSA. I like CV because, as others have eloquently described, it turns upside down our human ideas about strength and victory. So why can't we say the same about PSA? (That we live in a world where we learn to take revenge and not to forgive, but God subverts that and turns it upside down by 'taking that revenge upon himself' and enabling forgiveness. Jesus shows us a new world order by 'squaring up' the old one.)

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963: But when you get down to 'God refuses to forgive until he tastes human blood', you've just reduced God's desires to the level of the great lie - that peace comes from slaughter. IMO, of course.
But that is to engage in anthropomorphism (sp?) to a level that no one else has. It is a huge leap from 'a blood sacrifice is necessary' to 'God is a vampire'! I'm trying to get passed the language we don't like to the issues we find objectionable.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
The danger of PSA is that it can be seen as making God an antagonist.

But that is precisely the point. In some sense, the bible repeatedly portrays God as the antagonist. I think one of the biggest disasters in recent years was the evangelical cliche - God loves the sinner but hates the sin - a grain of truth but gross reductionism. If sin is not some alien substance, but a part of me, an action of my will to rebel against God, then at the same time as loving me and wanting to forgive me he must also be my antagonist. How can it be any other way? In my relationship with my children I am constantly in a dual role of both unconditional love and antagonist. It is not an either / or, but a both / and.

If PSA has the danger of over-emphasising God's wrath and portraying him as completely against humanity then you raise the only problem I have with CV. It removes the necessity for God to be the antagonist. Sin is this 'thing' out there for him to destroy, not a part of my very essence. I think PSA is an essential (but not exhaustive) model in reminding us that we are each personally responsible for our sin.

IMHO all atonement models fall down on neglecting either God's love or his anger at sin.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963: But when you get down to 'God refuses to forgive until he tastes human blood', you've just reduced God's desires to the level of the great lie - that peace comes from slaughter. IMO, of course.
But that is to engage in anthropomorphism (sp?) to a level that no one else has. It is a huge leap from 'a blood sacrifice is necessary' to 'God is a vampire'! I'm trying to get passed the language we don't like to the issues we find objectionable.
Anthropomorphism that no-one has engaged in?????

You mean to tell me that you've never heard this in Sunday School? You never heard Christians asying this? I heard it from fellow congregants and in housegroups on a regular basis. Even in the Methodist Church whose official material for preachers asks us to be very careful how we preach PSA.

It's exactly the kind of anthropomorphism that I'm trying to get past as well.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Much as I love the Narnia stories I don't think CS Lewis was trying to write a full explanation of the atonement. I get a little nervous when we try to argue from a novel to the atonement, rather than from scripture in the light of a novel.

Of course.

The point, though, was not to argue from the novel. I was just pointing out that even though the first Narnia book is obviously meant to explain PSA it can't help but fall into the pattern and logic of Christus Victor.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
The danger of PSA is that it can be seen as making God an antagonist.

But that is precisely the point. In some sense, the bible repeatedly portrays God as the antagonist.
Yes, it does. In much the same way that a child will see a disciplining parent as the antagonist.

It is important to understand that a parent is not actually the antagonist but is trying to help the child out of parental love. The child's perspective is nothing more than a child's perspective.

But PSA asserts that God actually is an antagonist who will not be reconciled unless His demand for justice is satisfied.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If PSA has the danger of over-emphasising God's wrath and portraying him as completely against humanity then you raise the only problem I have with CV. It removes the necessity for God to be the antagonist. Sin is this 'thing' out there for him to destroy, not a part of my very essence. I think PSA is an essential (but not exhaustive) model in reminding us that we are each personally responsible for our sin.

I think that it is just the opposite. PSA removes our responsibility for our sin and for changing our ways.

If we are utterly depraved it is fruitless to try. PSA is a device for divesting ourselves of responsibility without requiring us first to change our ways. Christ's payment does it for us.

CV, by contrast, certainly recognizes that sin is a part of my very essence. But because Christ has conquered it, and because He is with us, we also can conquer it in ourselves through His power.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
IMHO all atonement models fall down on neglecting either God's love or his anger at sin.

I don't think that this applies to CV.

CV absolutely emphasizes God's love - He opposes sin out of love for humanity, willing to give everything for our sakes.

Nor does it in any way neglect God's "anger" at sin. Why else would He fight against it? Why else would He help us fight against it? But it's not really anger or wrath, it's more like a physician's opposition to disease and ill health, which focused on restoring health and caring for the patient, not some blind fury against cancer and heart disease.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Anthropomorphism that no-one has engaged in?????

You mean to tell me that you've never heard this in Sunday School? You never heard Christians asying this?

I've never heard it said that God likes the taste of human blood, no.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Anthropomorphism that no-one has engaged in?????

You mean to tell me that you've never heard this in Sunday School? You never heard Christians asying this?

I've never heard it said that God likes the taste of human blood, no.
OK, you're actually being a bit pedantic, but then you're changing my words in your detail-focus.

I didn't say 'God likes the taste of human blood in his mouth.'

The image I disagree with is the idea that God is sitting around waiting for literal human blood to be spilled from literal slaughtered human flesh before God will forgive. This is certainly taught in church.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Didn't it say in the Old Testament that the smells of the burnt offerings were pleasing to God?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Much as I love the Narnia stories I don't think CS Lewis was trying to write a full explanation of the atonement. I get a little nervous when we try to argue from a novel to the atonement, rather than from scripture in the light of a novel.

Of course.

The point, though, was not to argue from the novel. I was just pointing out that even though the first Narnia book is obviously meant to explain PSA it can't help but fall into the pattern and logic of Christus Victor.

Which, Freddy, without meaning to insult your view, reveals your subjective bias to CV. Mine is the opposite of course but we need to see outside our frames to see that they are frames. My challenge would be which frame best fits the scriptural revelation and I would argue PSA is the one that causes the fewest mental flip-flops. It neatly, consistently and literally encompasses the whole OT in its orbit and shows how the revelation of Christ alters only our approach to God and not God himself. In this frame, he can be both loving, and just, wrathful and merciful, outreaching and yet with the integrity of holiness. In PSA, the Gospel is really good news because the 'deep magic' meant we were lost but now, the 'lion' of Judah has rescued us.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If PSA has the danger of over-emphasising God's wrath and portraying him as completely against humanity then you raise the only problem I have with CV. It removes the necessity for God to be the antagonist. Sin is this 'thing' out there for him to destroy, not a part of my very essence. I think PSA is an essential (but not exhaustive) model in reminding us that we are each personally responsible for our sin.

IMHO all atonement models fall down on neglecting either God's love or his anger at sin. [/QB]

My point precisely in most of my previous posts. However according to some.. 'sub scriptural!To me though, it is PSA which as a theoretical construct best describes the literal realities of scripture. Rightly understood, God's mercy and love are present in spades and his integrity or righteous nature is not compromised. I think it is worth remembering that many Pente leaders have nada genuine knowledge or theological training and easily fall into the errors of overemphasis of the wrath and neglect of the love. They are practical,literal and sometimes incredibly naive in they way they treat scripture. I think, though, that the fruits of PSA should not be judged by bad apples (sorry to mix metaphors.)
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Didn't it say in the Old Testament that the smells of the burnt offerings were pleasing to God?

Yup. Behold in all its glory, an old-timey PSA sermon which makes that exact point, citing a whole bunch of OT passages and concluding that Jesus was the most fragrant burnt offering of all.

Urk. I want to express my notice of and appreciation for the fact that PSA folks on this thread come at it with a bit more nuance and finesse than this guy.

[ 15. June 2007, 04:09: Message edited by: infinite_monkey ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Thanks Jamat & infinite_monkey.

I think the point Jamat is making is that some of this thread has involved comparing popularist PSA preachers with sophisticated CV writers and theologians - hardly fair.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
My point precisely in most of my previous posts. However according to some.. 'sub scriptural!To me though, it is PSA which as a theoretical construct best describes the literal realities of scripture. Rightly understood, God's mercy and love are present in spades and his integrity or righteous nature is not compromised. I think it is worth remembering that many Pente leaders have nada genuine knowledge or theological training and easily fall into the errors of overemphasis of the wrath and neglect of the love. They are practical,literal and sometimes incredibly naive in they way they treat scripture. I think, though, that the fruits of PSA should not be judged by bad apples (sorry to mix metaphors.)

A has been observed before, I do think that there is a problem here, in that PSA as sometimes popularly portrayed is very difficult to defend, even for those who believe that, correctly understood, it is a key scriptural doctrine. It is, actually, quite difficult, for those of us who have a principled objection to PSA (ie, the doctrine itself, not just the way it is sometimes presented) to restrain ourselves from beating the straw man about the head. In defence, it's not a straw man of our creation, but, nevertheless, it probably doesn't move the debate on much. There is, of course, a question as to whether a doctine which is so easily misrepresented by its' proponants is a good doctrine, but that is the subject, possibly, of a different debate.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My challenge would be which frame best fits the scriptural revelation and I would argue PSA is the one that causes the fewest mental flip-flops. It neatly, consistently and literally encompasses the whole OT in its orbit and shows how the revelation of Christ alters only our approach to God and not God himself. In this frame, he can be both loving, and just, wrathful and merciful, outreaching and yet with the integrity of holiness.

Well, mine too, Jamat. One* of the main reasons I have for rejecting absolutely the doctrine (ie, not just the presentation) of PSA is precisely because I don't find it plainly expressed (or, rather, I don't find it expressed at all) in scripture, and in order to see it there, I have to do a considerable amount, to say the least, of mental flip-flopping of my own. In short, all the consistency that you find in it, I find remarkably absent. I'm not sure, really, where this gets us, but I do think it is an accurate summary of our positions.

*The other main reason is that I think it is a doctine that leads to a view of God that portrays Him as less than He is, indeed, as less than are His human creatures at their best.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
No real need for Aslan to die to kick white witch's sorry butt Freddy?

That's the way it actually works in the story. Aslan's death and resurrection is made much of, but what did it really do? Nothing but release Aslan from the fetters of a mysterious law. He then kicked the White Witch's behind - which no one said he couldn't have done all along. It's like he was held up by a technicality.

ETA: John, I take your point about not elevating TLTWATW to the level of scripture, but it seems to me that CSL was drawing on his understanding of scripture to create his book. It is, if you like, a (hopefully) helpful retelling of what he saw there, but the scripture came first.

In other words, the cultural demand for Christus Victor is so great that Lewis could not ignore it if he was to have any kind of story at all. But wishing to write a Christian allegory he threw in the artificial device of the deep magic requiring a blood payment.

The real story, however, is how Aslan defeats the White Witch, how Edmund reforms, and how the Pevensies come to rule.

As for the violence, doesn't everyone know that love conquers all and that the pen is mightier than the sword? The martial language is just imagery.

<snip>

I was just pointing out that even though the first Narnia book is obviously meant to explain PSA it can't help but fall into the pattern and logic of Christus Victor.

Actually, Freddy, I don't think that Jack Lewis did intend the book as an apologia for PSA, quite the reverse. It seems to me that it was written with the CV motif present throughout. The magic from the dawn of time was literally that - the law of retribution, of cause and effect, of looking after number one. The fall, if you like. The deep magic from before the dawn of time was the unfallen state, the unity that exists within the Trinity, where sacrifice really is more powerful than self-interest, forgiveness greater than retribution.

The willing submission of the victim, the binding (aka the incarnation, God subjects Himself to the laws of creation) and the breaking of the spell of the white witch in what she percieved to be her moment of triumph, releasing creation to be what it was always intended to be, symbolised by the breaking of the table and the coming of spring -these all parallel the key features of CV.

With regard to the ensuing battle, of course it was included to make an entertaining story, but, even there, there are echoes of the history of redemption. The formerly powerless subjects of the witch are released from their imprisonment to the forces of evil, but now must "take up arms" given to them by Aslan (the gifts of the Holy Spirit) to realise through their lives the victory that Aslan had, by His death and resurrection, secured.

[ 15. June 2007, 09:31: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Now, I know many of you may reject that idea, but I'm just pointing out that PSA is not the blood-thirsty monster it is sometimes made out to be.

But it is a blood thirsty monster. A God who is in some mysterious way satisfied by the death of His Son is not much less reprehensible than one who has a need for blood.

This makes God a hero, not the victim of some peculiar law of the universe.

God is satisfied by the death of himself in God the Son. All objections to PSA can be traced back to a sub-trinitarian understanding of God. This is a self-sacrificial decision made within, and only within, the God-head.

God is not subject an any law outside of himself. However, he is subject to his own intregrity as both merciful and just. This is why is both just and the one who justifies. This is why God chooses the path of self-substitution. Only God can satisty God.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
In defence, it's not a straw man of our creation, but, nevertheless, it probably doesn't move the debate on much. There is, of course, a question as to whether a doctine which is so easily misrepresented by its' proponants is a good doctrine, but that is the subject, possibly, of a different debate.

Very good question - and one that bothers me. If we were going to discuss this then, to be fair, it should also be coupled with the question of why, globally speaking, PSA is so popular? Maybe I come from a narrow cave within Christianty, but I've not come across popular examples of preachers who exclusively use the CV model.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
In defence, it's not a straw man of our creation, but, nevertheless, it probably doesn't move the debate on much. There is, of course, a question as to whether a doctine which is so easily misrepresented by its' proponants is a good doctrine, but that is the subject, possibly, of a different debate.

Very good question - and one that bothers me. If we were going to discuss this then, to be fair, it should also be coupled with the question of why, globally speaking, PSA is so popular? Maybe I come from a narrow cave within Christianty, but I've not come across popular examples of preachers who exclusively use the CV model.
Yes, and if we use the 'it's hard to explain' argument against PSA then we should also use it against the Trinity. The church does an extremely bad job of explaining the nature of God. That, however, does not mean that God is not in fact triune.

[ 15. June 2007, 09:52: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
In defence, it's not a straw man of our creation, but, nevertheless, it probably doesn't move the debate on much. There is, of course, a question as to whether a doctine which is so easily misrepresented by its' proponants is a good doctrine, but that is the subject, possibly, of a different debate.

Very good question - and one that bothers me. If we were going to discuss this then, to be fair, it should also be coupled with the question of why, globally speaking, PSA is so popular? Maybe I come from a narrow cave within Christianty, but I've not come across popular examples of preachers who exclusively use the CV model.
Perhaps we ought to watch Steve Chalke's output for the next couple of years [Big Grin] . I've never heard him preach in person, but his televised talk from Spring Harvest* last year struck me at the time as being a powerful message.

(*though it could have been Pentecost Sunday, I can't remember precisely.)

Actually, most preachers, whatever their theological stance, seem to make moist heavy use of Abelard's moral influence arguments in their sermons. "When I survey", anyone?
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
And if we use the 'it's hard to explain' argument against PSA then we should also use it against the Trinity. The church does an extremely bad job of explaining the nature of God. That, however, does not mean that God is not in fact triune.

I'm sorry, but the hardest atonement model to explain is CV without lapsing into at least the language of SA, and often PSA in my experience. Jolly Jape was the first person I EVER heard do it, here on these boards, after 20 odd years as a Christian. And even then it left me with far more questions that it answered about how Jesus death actually atones for sin.

I think the moral influence theories are the most intuitive, but precisly because they appeal to our (IME sinful) sense that we had the capacity to save ourselves all along.

Cross-posted with JJ making the same point in a totally different way!

[ 15. June 2007, 10:00: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Now, I know many of you may reject that idea, but I'm just pointing out that PSA is not the blood-thirsty monster it is sometimes made out to be.

But it is a blood thirsty monster. A God who is in some mysterious way satisfied by the death of His Son is not much less reprehensible than one who has a need for blood.

This makes God a hero, not the victim of some peculiar law of the universe.

God is satisfied by the death of himself in God the Son. All objections to PSA can be traced back to a sub-trinitarian understanding of God. This is a self-sacrificial decision made within, and only within, the God-head.

God is not subject an any law outside of himself. However, he is subject to his own intregrity as both merciful and just. This is why is both just and the one who justifies. This is why God chooses the path of self-substitution. Only God can satisty God.

Rather a sweeping summary of the last nine pages, n'est-ce pas? Everyone who disagrees with PSA has a sub-trinitatian understanding of God? [Ultra confused]

How is asking the question "why does God need to be satified?", for example, in any way indicative of a sub-trinitarian understanding?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Perhaps we ought to watch Steve Chalke's output for the next couple of years [Big Grin] . I've never heard him preach in person, but his televised talk from Spring Harvest* last year struck me at the time as being a powerful message.

(*though it could have been Pentecost Sunday, I can't remember precisely.)

Actually, most preachers, whatever their theological stance, seem to make moist heavy use of Abelard's moral influence arguments in their sermons. "When I survey", anyone?

But therein lies our problem. We all borrow from all of the atonement models. I would argue that Steve Chalke's presentation could be seen as powerful precisely because his audience would be steeped in a PSA tradition. It is really hard to know how they would 'hear' him if we removed it altogether.

Rather like the other threads on atheistic morality. IMHO talk of secular morality is only possible in the world view of a dying religiousity. My prediction is that (if societal trends continue) in a few generations time it will be impossible to talk of a 'common morality' without sharing a common world view, such as a religious one. Similarly those of us from a western / protestant tradition have been so influenced by PSA that it is hard to imagine theology without it.

Of course, all that doesn't actually prove that much! [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Actually, most preachers, whatever their theological stance, seem to make moist heavy use of Abelard's moral influence
Presumably they buy it in tubs, and spread it on their face so they look better under the lights [Hot and Hormonal] [Killing me] [Killing me] !
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:[snip]My prediction is that (if societal trends continue) in a few generations time it will be impossible to talk of a 'common morality' without sharing a common world view, such as a religious one. Similarly those of us from a western / protestant tradition have been so influenced by PSA that it is hard to imagine theology without it.

Of course, all that doesn't actually prove that much! [Disappointed] [/QB]

An anecdotal observation; I think one scarcely encounters anything like Christus Victor in 'evangelical' churches – at least those outside the RC/Lutheran traditions.

K.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:[snip]My prediction is that (if societal trends continue) in a few generations time it will be impossible to talk of a 'common morality' without sharing a common world view, such as a religious one. Similarly those of us from a western / protestant tradition have been so influenced by PSA that it is hard to imagine theology without it.

Of course, all that doesn't actually prove that much! [Disappointed]

An anecdotal observation; I think one scarcely encounters anything like Christus Victor in 'evangelical' churches – at least those outside the RC/Lutheran traditions.

K.

Well mine is quite a small sample, but it does seem to be making way with many open evos in the UK. Part of this, no doubt, is a bit of "group identifier" thinking, an attempt to differentiate open evos from their more conservative brethren, but I do believe there is a genuine attempt to rehabilitate a venerable tradition which has largely, in the west, been forgotten.

[ 15. June 2007, 11:10: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Can someone help me with this angle on the thread topic: I was hitherto under the impression that PSA only crept into the theological thinking of the Church in its second millenium; however, according to this excellent book I'm reading most if not all of the 'theologies of the Cross' (Ransom, Christus Victor and PSA (often expressed as 'satisfaction')) were knocking around as mainstream ideas in the Patristic Period [Confused]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Now, I know many of you may reject that idea, but I'm just pointing out that PSA is not the blood-thirsty monster it is sometimes made out to be.

But it is a blood thirsty monster. A God who is in some mysterious way satisfied by the death of His Son is not much less reprehensible than one who has a need for blood.

This makes God a hero, not the victim of some peculiar law of the universe.

God is satisfied by the death of himself in God the Son. All objections to PSA can be traced back to a sub-trinitarian understanding of God. This is a self-sacrificial decision made within, and only within, the God-head.


No, not at all. Actually, my objection to PSA is based in part on my Trinitarian understanding of God.

Suppose someone owes me £1000. Now, if I forgive them the debt, I am £1000 poorer than I would be. I have lost out - suffered if you will. Taken the loss into myself. Forgiveness has a cost to the forgiver. I see God paying this price on the Cross - this is what it costs God. But there's no sense that I am suing myself for that £1000; similarly I don't actually see that God is turning round and slapping his own arse so that someone gets spanked for being naughty. He is taking all the crap onto Himself, and not responding to it. Letting it do its worst. What CV tells me is that ultimately that was the most powerful thing He could do. Having absorbed it all, He showed the power of Love and forgiveness was actually the greater by rising from death.

That's my take.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Sorry about the long post - if I take them one at a time then, inevitably someone posts in between and I get confused. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well mine is quite a small sample, but it does seem to be making way with many open evos in the UK. Part of this, no doubt, is a bit of "group identifier" thinking, an attempt to differentiate open evos from their more conservative brethren, but I do believe there is a genuine attempt to rehabilitate a venerable tradition which has largely, in the west, been forgotten.

I think you are right JJ but maybe make too much of a confession in so doing. Apparently in our desire to be more 'open' we need to distance ourselves from those we are not open with. [Frown]

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I was hitherto under the impression that PSA only crept into the theological thinking of the Church in its second millenium; however, according to this excellent book I'm reading most if not all of the 'theologies of the Cross' (Ransom, Christus Victor and PSA (often expressed as 'satisfaction')) were knocking around as mainstream ideas in the Patristic Period

Of course some people think that PSA was there in the NT all along... I'm seeking legal representation as we speak. [Big Grin] ... more seriously it is there in the patristics and even in a way to tackle issues raised on this thread:

Eusebius of Caesarea (Demonstratio Evangelica, x. 1;):

"And how can He make our sins His own, and be said to bear our iniquities, except by our being regarded as His body, according to the apostle, who says: ‘Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members?’ And by the rule that ‘if one member suffer all the members suffer with it,’ so when the many members suffer and sin, He too by the laws of sympathy (since the Word of God was pleased to take the form of a slave and to be knit into the common tabernacle of us all) takes into Himself the labours of the suffering members, and makes our sicknesses His, and suffers all our woes and labours by the laws of love. And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf ( and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. And what is that but the price of our souls? And so the oracle says in our person: ‘By his stripes we were healed,’ and ‘The Lord delivered him for our sins,’ with the result that uniting Himself to us and us to Himself, and appropriating our sufferings, He can say, ‘I said, Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee’"

Likewise, Cyril of Alexandria (De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate, iii. 100-102;):

"‘The Only-begotten was made man, bore a body by nature at enmity with death, and became flesh, so that, enduring the death which was hanging over us as the result of our sin, he might abolish sin; and further, that he might put an end to the accusations of Satan, inasmuch as we have paid in Christ himself the penalties for the charges of sin against us ‘For he bore our sins, and was wounded because of us’, according to the voice of the prophet. Or are we not healed by his wounds?’"


quote:
Originally posted by Karl liberal backslider:
Suppose someone owes me £1000. Now, if I forgive them the debt, I am £1000 poorer than I would be. I have lost out - suffered if you will. Taken the loss into myself. Forgiveness has a cost to the forgiver. I see God paying this price on the Cross - this is what it costs God. But there's no sense that I am suing myself for that £1000; similarly I don't actually see that God is turning round and slapping his own arse so that someone gets spanked for being naughty. He is taking all the crap onto Himself, and not responding to it. Letting it do its worst. What CV tells me is that ultimately that was the most powerful thing He could do. Having absorbed it all, He showed the power of Love and forgiveness was actually the greater by rising from death.

Karl, your analogy above only works if you give the person the £1000 in the first place. In other words, you pay the debt yourself. It is exactly the same as PSA - the only difference is that the debt is paid in advance, as it were. Your problem with PSA (as you put it in your post) is that God seems to have pay the debt twice. But PSA has never said that. In fact, since God's plan of salvation was there 'before the world began' I think your analogy is a good one for PSA. Well done Karl - you do support PSA after all. [Biased]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
No, if I forgo my right to the £1000, regardless of whether I gave it to the debtor or not in the first place, I'm still £1000 worse off than I would be than if I insisted on having it.

And the point is that I am not punishing myself. I am rather taking on myself the consequences of forgiving the debt.

I really don't know where you get
quote:
Your problem with PSA (as you put it in your post) is that God seems to have pay the debt twice.
from at all.

[ 15. June 2007, 14:30: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, if I forgo my right to the £1000, regardless of whether I gave it to the debtor or not in the first place

[Confused] What right?

How can he owe £1000 if you haven't lent it (or goods / services to equal value) in the first place? Debts must come from somewhere ... otherwise I feel compelled to point out that you owe me £500,000. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by JohnnyB
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well mine is quite a small sample, but it does seem to be making way with many open evos in the UK. Part of this, no doubt, is a bit of "group identifier" thinking, an attempt to differentiate open evos from their more conservative brethren, but I do believe there is a genuine attempt to rehabilitate a venerable tradition which has largely, in the west, been forgotten.

I think you are right JJ but maybe make too much of a confession in so doing. Apparently in our desire to be more 'open' we need to distance ourselves from those we are not open with.

A couple of things. Firstly, a desire to carve up your own turf is not exactly laudible, but it is human nature, and in any debate, it is likely to be a feature. It's so much easier to deal with stereotypes than to mess around with that icky truth stuff [Big Grin] .
In that respect, no party is able to take the high moral ground.

Secondly, whilst I wouldn't tar anybody on these boards with that label, and certainly not you, I do think that there is more openness on the part of opens to cooperate with conservatives or, indeed, liberals, than there is in certain conservative circles to return the compliment. Which proves absolutely nothing, of course. Doctrinally, I'd put my opposition to PSA at around the same level of conviction as is, for example, John Piper or Simon Vibert's support for it. Both sides hold stongly pricipled positions.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, if I forgo my right to the £1000, regardless of whether I gave it to the debtor or not in the first place

[Confused] What right?

How can he owe £1000 if you haven't lent it (or goods / services to equal value) in the first place? Debts must come from somewhere ... otherwise I feel compelled to point out that you owe me £500,000. [Big Grin]

I fell off my bike because he pulled out in front of me. I sued and the court awarded me £1000 in damages.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
How did you become Johnny B? Must be that strat around your neck! Sorry, John! Bl$%@*y typos!
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Now, I know many of you may reject that idea, but I'm just pointing out that PSA is not the blood-thirsty monster it is sometimes made out to be.

But it is a blood thirsty monster. A God who is in some mysterious way satisfied by the death of His Son is not much less reprehensible than one who has a need for blood.

This makes God a hero, not the victim of some peculiar law of the universe.

God is satisfied by the death of himself in God the Son. All objections to PSA can be traced back to a sub-trinitarian understanding of God. This is a self-sacrificial decision made within, and only within, the God-head.


No, not at all. Actually, my objection to PSA is based in part on my Trinitarian understanding of God.

Suppose someone owes me £1000. Now, if I forgive them the debt, I am £1000 poorer than I would be. I have lost out - suffered if you will. Taken the loss into myself. Forgiveness has a cost to the forgiver. I see God paying this price on the Cross - this is what it costs God. But there's no sense that I am suing myself for that £1000; similarly I don't actually see that God is turning round and slapping his own arse so that someone gets spanked for being naughty. He is taking all the crap onto Himself, and not responding to it. Letting it do its worst. What CV tells me is that ultimately that was the most powerful thing He could do. Having absorbed it all, He showed the power of Love and forgiveness was actually the greater by rising from death.

That's my take.

I see it more like this:

I am like a son whose father owns a bank. I take out a credit card from my Father's bank and run up a huge debt buying stuff he's told me not to buy. I am in trouble with him and there are legal implications if I don't repay him. Finally my debt becomes unpayable, but because of my pride, I refuse to approach my father and declare myself bankrupt and appeal for his mercy. Instead I sell myself into slavery to raise the capital to repay my debts myself.

Now, while walking through the slave market, my father sees me for sale. He pays the asking price at his own expense thereby writing off my debt with his own money. However, in writing off my debt he puts himself in a awkward position. He is open to the accusation of unfairness and favouritism from the other dedtors in the market that also owe him money. Why should I escape the consequences of my greed and pride and not they?

So, in order to justify his generosity and justify the scandal of letting me off he also takes the punishment that I deserve upon himself by taking the form of a slave and being made in human likeness etc.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Now, while walking through the slave market, my father sees me for sale. He pays the asking price at his own expense thereby writing off my debt with his own money. However, in writing off my debt he puts himself in a awkward position. He is open to the accusation of unfairness and favouritism from the other dedtors in the market that also owe him money. Why should I escape the consequences of my greed and pride and not they?

Except, of course, that in the situation towrds which this analogy points, he does indeed forgive the debts, not only of his son, but of all those who are his debtors.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
That's all very fine, Numpty, but the problem is that in the parable of the unforgiving servant, and that of the prodigal son, God seems to act more like in my scenario. How did the father in the prodigal son escape the "scandal" of letting the son off free? The older son certainly raised the issue, but the father just brushed his complaint off.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I fell off my bike because he pulled out in front of me. I sued and the court awarded me £1000 in damages.

Nice try, but however creative you become it won't wash ... the court awarded that money to compensate you - for medical treatment / new bike / inconvenience. When you come to buy your new bike you are 'paying the penalty'...

... so, where's my £500,000 then?

[ 15. June 2007, 15:46: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I fell off my bike because he pulled out in front of me. I sued and the court awarded me £1000 in damages.

Nice try, but however creative you become it won't wash ... the court awarded that money to compensate you - for medical treatment / new bike / inconvenience. When you come to buy your new bike you are 'paying the penalty'...


But I don't think you could call it a punishment. It's still a consequence of not demanding a punishment.

And it's also a case of refusing to persue justice. Still forgiveness comes at the expense of justice, but that's OK, because love triumphs over judgement.

The part of PSA I object to is not the S, but the P. And the idea it's based on that justice is satisfied if an innocent person is punished instead of a guilty one. It isn't.

[ 15. June 2007, 15:50: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's all very fine, Numpty, but the problem is that in the parable of the unforgiving servant, and that of the prodigal son, God seems to act more like in my scenario. How did the father in the prodigal son escape the "scandal" of letting the son off free? The older son certainly raised the issue, but the father just brushed his complaint off.

He doesn't let the son off 'free' - he pays for it all, including the banquet ... the elder son is not the only one unhappy to see him back, I doubt if the fatted calf was best pleased either! [Big Grin] The Father of the prodigal 'paid' the inheritance to his son before he left. I love Tim Keller on this parable.

[ 15. June 2007, 15:52: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's all very fine, Numpty, but the problem is that in the parable of the unforgiving servant, and that of the prodigal son, God seems to act more like in my scenario. How did the father in the prodigal son escape the "scandal" of letting the son off free? The older son certainly raised the issue, but the father just brushed his complaint off.

By sending the man who told the story to be nailed to a piece of wood, that's how. It was telling stories like that that got Jesus killed. But it wasn't the reason why he was killed.

[ 15. June 2007, 15:59: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But I don't think you could call it a punishment.

(Sorry about cross-posting)

[Confused] If a speeding ticket can be a fine, then it is entirely legitimate to see the money for your new bike as being a 'punishment'. The only reason why we wouldn't call it a punishment is because it is not being applied to the guilty party.

What is the difference between penalty and punishment?
 
Posted by Afghan (# 10478) on :
 
It occurs to me that this is really a theodicial problem in disguise. We would all accept, I think, that the crucifixion was necessary to bring about salvation from sin and death. The question is why was it necessary for a being who enjoys all the advantages of omnipotence to do it in this way?

The CV answer is that it is a question of instrumentality. The crucifixion (and resurrection) were the only means by which God could accomplish the defeat of sin and death. But then you end up with a rather strained idea of God's sovereignty His Will be done, sure, but He is limited in how it can be done.

PSA, on the other hand, claims that God was able to do it differently but that this would not satisfy the demands of justice. The strain is removed from the question of sovereignty but only by straining our definition of justice - where the innocent can justly bear the punishment of the guilty.

I suspect that where someone opts to locate the strain inherent in the mystery of the cross, depends on the much broader picture of how they see God.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Afghan:
It occurs to me that this is really a theodicial problem in disguise. We would all accept, I think, that the crucifixion was necessary to bring about salvation from sin and death.

Almost certainly a stupid question, but wasn't it the resurrection that accomplished this? If Good Friday brought salvation, what are people celebrating on Easter? OliviaG
 
Posted by Afghan (# 10478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Almost certainly a stupid question, but wasn't it the resurrection that accomplished this? If Good Friday brought salvation, what are people celebrating on Easter? OliviaG

I don't disagree. But even if it isn't sufficient, the crucifixion still seems to be necessary in all these theories. And in PSA and the ransom theory (and probably others) it seems to have a more central role than the resurrection. That is, it is the crucifixion that saves and the resurrection is the result of that salvation.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Afghan:
The CV answer is that it is a question of instrumentality. The crucifixion (and resurrection) were the only means by which God could accomplish the defeat of sin and death. But then you end up with a rather strained idea of God's sovereignty His Will be done, sure, but He is limited in how it can be done.

I can see this. It's important to understand, I think, that the defeat of sin and death was not the result of a contest in any absolute sense. God was only trying to defeat them in relation to humanity, since that is where they exist and the ones for whom they are a problem. He was not fighting a powerful enemy of the universe, but an aspect of human life.

The reason that God was and is limited as to how He can do this is that many possible ways of eliminating sin will also eliminate human freedom. The possibility of disobedience to God and of following self is integral to what it is to be human.

So it is not about any limitation of omnipotence, but of a hierarchy of goals. Since God's love requires that people be free to choose, He will not act in a way to eliminate that choice.

Christus Victor is about giving people the strength to make the choice, and showing us the path so that, in the long run, this is the way that humanity will choose.
quote:
Originally posted by Afghan:
I suspect that where someone opts to locate the strain inherent in the mystery of the cross, depends on the much broader picture of how they see God.

That's it exactly.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Afghan:
I don't disagree. But even if it isn't sufficient, the crucifixion still seems to be necessary in all these theories. And in PSA and the ransom theory (and probably others) it seems to have a more central role than the resurrection. That is, it is the crucifixion that saves and the resurrection is the result of that salvation.

Thank you, Afghan. I can see (the) crucifixion as necessary because a) well, duh, you have to die somehow before you can be resurrected, and b) you have to be pretty humble and obedient to go willingly to a death of incredible agony and degradation. The crucifixion has more meaning for me if I look at it as Jesus deliberately losing a battle in order to win the war. OliviaG

PS Thanks to all Shipmates who have posted - this has been a very interesting thread.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Afghan:
It occurs to me that this is really a theodicial problem in disguise. We would all accept, I think, that the crucifixion was necessary to bring about salvation from sin and death.

Almost certainly a stupid question, but wasn't it the resurrection that accomplished this? If Good Friday brought salvation, what are people celebrating on Easter? OliviaG
As I see it, the crucifixion was the defeat of the power of sin and death, and the resurrection was the "Big Bang" of the new creation that was to replace it.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
If God is merely a banker, then who writes the laws that hold the bank accountable?
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
If God is merely a banker, then who writes the laws that hold the bank accountable?

If God is just a shepherd who pays his wages?
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, if I forgo my right to the £1000, regardless of whether I gave it to the debtor or not in the first place

[Confused] What right?

How can he owe £1000 if you haven't lent it (or goods / services to equal value) in the first place? Debts must come from somewhere ... otherwise I feel compelled to point out that you owe me £500,000. [Big Grin]

I fell off my bike because he pulled out in front of me. I sued and the court awarded me £1000 in damages.
So if your experience a judicial decision has been made in your favour at the expense of an offender. The offender received a penalty for his negligence did he not? He became your debtor to the tune of £1000.00 and a debtor to the court in terms of an obligation of compliance.

However am I right in saying that, if he refused to pay you, that he would be in defiance of the court's judgement against him and could be disciplined accordingly? He is debtor both to you and to the court. To you he owes a debt of restitution and to the court he owes a debt of obedience.

Now, what if he refused to pay you your compensation in defiance of the court and the court just let him off? That would leave you with a sense of injustice and a feeling that the court is corrupt for not ensuring your compensation would it not?

Essentially that's what God does isn't it? God says to the guy who knocked you off your bike, 'It's OK, I decalre you not guilty and while you're at it don't worry about paying Karl,'

Whatever way you look at it that is a scandalous miscarriage of justice... unless God does something to clear his name.

So God does something. He decides to become your desire for restitution, and possibly vengeance; he decides to become the guy's refusal to pay; he decides to become the guy's negligence, he decides to become the guy's desire to avoid justice; he decides to become the guy's resentment; he decides to become the antipathy that exists between you; he decides to become everything that separates all parties in all things.

And then he takes that stuff (called sin) to the cross and dies in order to kill it. He kills your desire for restitution; he kills his desire to avoid justice; he kills the guy's refusal to pay; he kills the antipathy that exists between you; he kills the guy's resentment at justice done.

You can then both stand before him and there is nothing, simply nothing, to separate you from each other and each of you from him. Death is dead.
 
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As I see it, the crucifixion was the defeat of the power of sin and death, and the resurrection was the "Big Bang" of the new creation that was to replace it.

I like to think of it this way. You want to dwell in a beautiful new house, but the one you just inherited is trashed. Every room, from floor to ceiling, is filled with rubbish.

So first of all you hire a big rubbish removal bin and work from room to room, removing everything that is rotten, filthy, etc - cutting back, sanding back, scraping back, until the house is a clean, but empty, shell. That is the work of Good Friday.

Then you paint, and wallpaper, and put in curtains and blinds; cupboards and fixed furniture. You carpet and put in rugs and mobile furniture, and the empty shell is now a new and beautiful habitation - a home fit (for God) to live in. That is the work of Easter Sunday: the Resurrection.

The cleaning out is very important, but it is no end in itself - the job is only half done on Good Friday. The cleaning out is a necessary preparation for the grand new furnishing, the new creation. And when that is over, that is when you have your house warming.

The apostle Paul tells us that what rises from death is a whole lot better than what died.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
The apostle Paul tells us that what rises from death is a whole lot better than what died.

[Confused] And in the analogy you just used the house itself remains essentially unchanged ... I think the work of Good Friday and Easter day is a little more than cosmetic! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's all very fine, Numpty, but the problem is that in the parable of the unforgiving servant, and that of the prodigal son, God seems to act more like in my scenario. How did the father in the prodigal son escape the "scandal" of letting the son off free? The older son certainly raised the issue, but the father just brushed his complaint off.

He doesn't let the son off 'free' - he pays for it all, including the banquet ... the elder son is not the only one unhappy to see him back, I doubt if the fatted calf was best pleased either! [Big Grin] The Father of the prodigal 'paid' the inheritance to his son before he left. I love Tim Keller on this parable.
Sorry, for someone who says that there is no justice without retribution and therefore no forgiveness without retribution, that's a crazy answer. There is absolutely no retribution in the story whatsoever, nor is there retribution in your response. Nor is retribution demanded by the Father in this story.

As far as I'm concerned, you've just given my answer to the question "What is the cost of forgiveness to the Father?"

[ 16. June 2007, 13:48: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
As far as I'm concerned, you've just given my answer to the question "What is the cost of forgiveness to the Father?"

I repeat again. [Frown] The prodigal son uses a fiscal metaphor similar to that in Romans 4. The Father gives the younger son his inheritance when he leaves.

(As an aside it is interesting that in Semitic culture the younger son is only entitled to that inheritance on his Father's death - he is saying to his Dad: 'I wish you were dead!' Therefore the Father is crediting to his son what should be his on his own death.)

When he returns he takes him back and throws a party at his own expense. Therefore the Father has to 'pay the expense' of his son's rebellion. This fits perfectly with PSA. PSA assumes that God wants to forgive us, and that he takes the iniative in so doing.

Why are you are so annoyed that PSA fits so neatly with your understanding of the cross?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
As far as I'm concerned, you've just given my answer to the question "What is the cost of forgiveness to the Father?"

I repeat again. [Frown] The prodigal son uses a fiscal metaphor similar to that in Romans 4. The Father gives the younger son his inheritance when he leaves.

(As an aside it is interesting that in Semitic culture the younger son is only entitled to that inheritance on his Father's death - he is saying to his Dad: 'I wish you were dead!' Therefore the Father is crediting to his son what should be his on his own death.)

When he returns he takes him back and throws a party at his own expense. Therefore the Father has to 'pay the expense' of his son's rebellion. This fits perfectly with PSA. PSA assumes that God wants to forgive us, and that he takes the iniative in so doing.

Why are you are so annoyed that PSA fits so neatly with your understanding of the cross?

I'm sorry, I don't understand how this is in any way like PSA either. The point about PSA is that the Father is obliged that someone be punished before forgiveness can take place. In this example, true enough, there is a cost, and that cost is bourne by the Father. But that is the case also with CV, ie, the redemption cost of mankind is paid by God, in the Person of the Son. For the example given to resemble PSA, there would have to be a penal dimension, and this is not the case here. It is more nearly the analogy which I gave in response to Jamat earlier on ther thread, that of a passer-by dying in the process of saving a child from beneath the wheels of an oncoming train. Atonement, yes, sacrificial, yes, substitutionary, yes, penal, no.

Incidentally, I think the same is true of Numpty's (if I might say) excellent and passionate post. As an account of the Atonement it is inspired and excellent, but it is pure CV, rather than PSA. C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
As far as I'm concerned, you've just given my answer to the question "What is the cost of forgiveness to the Father?"

I repeat again. [Frown] The prodigal son uses a fiscal metaphor similar to that in Romans 4. The Father gives the younger son his inheritance when he leaves.

(As an aside it is interesting that in Semitic culture the younger son is only entitled to that inheritance on his Father's death - he is saying to his Dad: 'I wish you were dead!' Therefore the Father is crediting to his son what should be his on his own death.)

When he returns he takes him back and throws a party at his own expense. Therefore the Father has to 'pay the expense' of his son's rebellion. This fits perfectly with PSA. PSA assumes that God wants to forgive us, and that he takes the iniative in so doing.

Why are you are so annoyed that PSA fits so neatly with your understanding of the cross?

Let me try again. 'Fiscal debts' are not 'legal penal sentences requiring retribution'.

I have no problem with the idea of the cost of forgiveness.

I don't think it's fair to say that 'I am so annoyed that PSA fits neatly with your understanding of the cross'; you simply seem to be saying lots of contradictory things.

What I'm annoyed about is that I've understood our conversation thusfar to be that my view of the cross is soft and wishy-washy and grossly inadequate but your own approach is darn close to mine.

When I asked why my view is inadequate you said that God requires retribution or justics is not done. But there is no retribution in this story. Cost is cost, not retribution.

The reason that I am 'annoyed' that retribution should be part of soteriology is because I genuinely believe that retribution is sinful and because makes God less than a God of grace.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
The reason that I am 'annoyed' that retribution should be part of soteriology is because I genuinely believe that retribution is sinful and because makes God less than a God of grace.

Yes, retribution is sinful. What is not sinful is the idea that the evil that we do returns to us. It's not that God makes it return to us, it's that this is the very nature of sin.

God's work is to make it not return to us, especially by making it stop going out from us.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
The reason that I am 'annoyed' that retribution should be part of soteriology is because I genuinely believe that retribution is sinful and because makes God less than a God of grace.

Yes, retribution is sinful. What is not sinful is the idea that the evil that we do returns to us. It's not that God makes it return to us, it's that this is the very nature of sin.

God's work is to make it not return to us, especially by making it stop going out from us.

I'm trying to explain why I don't agree with PSA. The reason I don't agree is because PSA says other theories of atonement are inadequate because they don't say that God requires retribution for sin before he will forgive.

I may be being dim, but I don't see what your comment has to do with this conversation.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
If God is merely a banker, then who writes the laws that hold the bank accountable?

If God is just a shepherd who pays his wages?
Examine that. The fundamental answer I'd give is "he's not in it for the money--he's in it for the sheep."

And there, I think, is the crux of many people's issues with PSA. It implies that God wants to love us, but can't. Not until someone gets hurt. It puts the Law of retribution above the law of love, and it makes God bound to serve that Law first.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
All analogies break down at some point. My reply was intended to make that point.

As for your second point: neither 'law' (love or justice) can or should be set above the other. You can't run the attributes of God through a collating machine: he is a person. However, he happens to be a person who is loving and wrathful.

[ 16. June 2007, 19:02: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I may be being dim, but I don't see what your comment has to do with this conversation.

I was agreeing with you and attempting to back you up. I like your point that retribution is sinful, and that it is therefore unacceptable to say that God engages in it.

My point was to explain why there is retributive language in the Bible, or why there appears to be something like retribution that is a good thing.

The idea that what we do returns to us seems to me to explain it, without attributing retribution to God.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
[Confused] Your confused. I'm confused. We're all confused. [Confused]

You guys don't like PSA because it is all about God's thirst for blood and so we come up with analogies that are not so blood thirsty and you complain that there's no blood ... or that's the way it feels to me anyway! [Ultra confused]

I think (but tell me if I've got this wrong) that you want to define retribution as synonymous with revenge (an eye for an eye). However, how this could ever be applied to any atonement model is beyond me since Jesus is innocent! PSA is about Jesus receiving a punishment or a penalty that we deserve. If using fiscal language (entirely consistent with PSA) bothers some of you it makes me wonder what you are so bothered about - it makes it sound as if you want to keep on beating your straw man! [Big Grin]

I doubt if this is going to get us anywhere but how about thinking of justice in terms of 'fairness'?

When I look at the world I am repeatedly struck, like the Psalmist, that is is not fair. This really bothers me - how can God stand it when life is so unfair? Does that bother you guys at all? How does your theology cope with it? (I'm not talking about evil people being punished, just poor people having a rubbish life and bad stuff happening to them.) I don't want revenge, but I do want God to make it all fair. That is not just about 'fixing it' in the future but also 'undoing' the wrong of the past. What do others think?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
think (but tell me if I've got this wrong) that you want to define retribution as synonymous with revenge (an eye for an eye). However, how this could ever be applied to any atonement model is beyond me since Jesus is innocent! PSA is about Jesus receiving a punishment or a penalty that we deserve. If using fiscal language (entirely consistent with PSA) bothers some of you it makes me wonder what you are so bothered about - it makes it sound as if you want to keep on beating your straw man!

I doubt if this is going to get us anywhere but how about thinking of justice in terms of 'fairness'?

When I look at the world I am repeatedly struck, like the Psalmist, that is is not fair. This really bothers me - how can God stand it when life is so unfair? Does that bother you guys at all? How does your theology cope with it? (I'm not talking about evil people being punished, just poor people having a rubbish life and bad stuff happening to them.) I don't want revenge, but I do want God to make it all fair. That is not just about 'fixing it' in the future but also 'undoing' the wrong of the past. What do others think?

John, what troubles me, and, I presume others, is not that God exacts retribution, since I agree that this would be a poor description of the events of Good Friday, for the reasons that you give. Rather, it is that God would ever think that this was in any way an appropriate way of dealing with sin, given the expressed teaching of Jesus. I don't care if you call it retribution, revenge, punishment, or anything else. The whole concept is totally against what Jesus taught, and so, I conclude, also alien to the Father. And it is not even necessary that He carries out this punishment in order for it to be reprehensible - to say "He would have done it had it not been that Jesus satisfied His desire/need for retributive justice is equally insulting to Him. Why does God need to be "satisfied"? He is not like us, subject to human pride or anger. If He were, it would make Him contingent on us, which is somewhere that I don't think you would want to go.

With regards to fairness, I must say that I don't think that retribution/punishment does figure very much in my thinking when I view the world. But restoration, the putting right of wrong, the unmaking of suffereing, that does figure. And that's what I see Jesus doing in the Atonement. As someone once said "What does God do all day long? He goes around fixing things." Of course, the fulness of restoration must wait for the eschaton, but with every act of mercy inspired by the Holy Spirit, with every refusal to exact petty retribution by unkind word or spiteful action, with every decision to follow the way of the cross, we build that future Kingdom in the here and now.

So I, too, want God to make it all right, to heal both the present and the past. If that is really what you want, I'm intrigued that you think that PSA offers anything towards that, whilst you think CV does not.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
Johnny S, well I'm really confused now.

So, basically, you seem to be saying that if a PSA supporter wants to use 'less bloodthirsty' analogies, then that's great? But if I say use the same analogies as someone who doesn't like PSA, then I'm flouting God's word?

I said way back at the beginning of our conversation on PSA - in another thread even - that I'm willing to accept a 'soft' version of PSA that says 'really the Father and the Son are one anyway'. But, if you do that, it seems to me that there isn't any reason to believe in PSA at all.

I also talked about the concept of justice as having the primary goal of helping the victim. So, what do I make of injustice? I first try to help the poor. Wouldn't the whole world be better if literally everyone were worried about helping the poor? Wouldn't it be a much better world than one where everyone were worried about hurting anyone who had exploited another person? In the first instance, there's a chance that everyone might have a chance to eat. In the second world, you just have civil war and a bunch of angry, wounded people going out to hurt more people.

PSA was not historically born out of a concern for the victim. Nor do those people publishing books today calling non-PSAers heretics have a good track record of helping others. I don't think that believing PSA prevents them doing that but it certainly hasn't inspired people to help. Of course, Steve Chalke has an incredibly successful ministry in helping the poor. [Biased]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
restoration, the putting right of wrong, the unmaking of suffering, that does figure. And that's what I see Jesus doing in the Atonement. As someone once said "What does God do all day long? He goes around fixing things." Of course, the fulness of restoration must wait for the eschaton, but with every act of mercy inspired by the Holy Spirit, with every refusal to exact petty retribution by unkind word or spiteful action, with every decision to follow the way of the cross, we build that future Kingdom in the here and now.

I can see how God can 'put things right' but how does he 'unmake suffering'? Fixing is not the same as 'undoing'.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
So I, too, want God to make it all right, to heal both the present and the past. If that is really what you want, I'm intrigued that you think that PSA offers anything towards that, whilst you think CV does not.

IMHO CV is about 'fixing it' PSA is more about 'undoing the past'... wiping the slate clean, allowing us to start over again.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:

I also talked about the concept of justice as having the primary goal of helping the victim. So, what do I make of injustice? I first try to help the poor.

I think we often 'miss' each other over this issue. I am talking about what God does, you are talking about we do in response to what God does. If I can see that the two issues are closely related, can you see that they are not identical?

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
PSA was not historically born out of a concern for the victim. Nor do those people publishing books today calling non-PSAers heretics have a good track record of helping others. I don't think that believing PSA prevents them doing that but it certainly hasn't inspired people to help. Of course, Steve Chalke has an incredibly successful ministry in helping the poor. [Biased]

Wow, you are conflating a whole lot of issues here! Chalke is a Baptist, I conclude from this that Baptists are better than Methodists at helping the poor. [Big Grin] Be careful about generalising about how certain traditions help the poor. I made that mistake once and was shown some 'invisible' statistics that humbled me. We tend to look for overt social programmes. They are a good indicator but there are others. I would also look to folk like Tim Keller in NYC / Tim Chester in Sheffield as examples of PSAers motivated greatly to care for the poor.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
restoration, the putting right of wrong, the unmaking of suffering, that does figure. And that's what I see Jesus doing in the Atonement. As someone once said "What does God do all day long? He goes around fixing things." Of course, the fulness of restoration must wait for the eschaton, but with every act of mercy inspired by the Holy Spirit, with every refusal to exact petty retribution by unkind word or spiteful action, with every decision to follow the way of the cross, we build that future Kingdom in the here and now.

I can see how God can 'put things right' but how does he 'unmake suffering'? Fixing is not the same as 'undoing'.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
So I, too, want God to make it all right, to heal both the present and the past. If that is really what you want, I'm intrigued that you think that PSA offers anything towards that, whilst you think CV does not.

IMHO CV is about 'fixing it' PSA is more about 'undoing the past'... wiping the slate clean, allowing us to start over again.

Ultimately, the unmaking of suffereing is going to come about in the eschaton when all things are made new. For the here and now, He does it in Christians by the transforming work of the Holy Spirit, and through Christians, by their ministry of healing and reconciliation, and just by the salt and light of their presence. The idea of immediate rectification of all wrong in the here and now has, as far as I know, never been a part of Christian thought.

With regard to putting aside all that is past, wiping the slate clean, I would have thought that forgiveness and the regeneration of being grafted into Christ would do that without the need for PSA.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
CV is about 'fixing it' PSA is more about 'undoing the past'... wiping the slate clean, allowing us to start over again.

But, obviously, nothing has been 'undone' in this life. The hope of every Christian is eschatological and at the eschaton presumably all will be revealed to each one of us, no matter what theory of atonement we hold.

I don't understand how either the Father demanding the death of his Son or God killing himself 'wipes the slate clean'.

[Cross-posted with JJ. Really. I should probably just let him post because he says everything much better than I do.]

[ 16. June 2007, 21:09: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think we often 'miss' each other over this issue. I am talking about what God does, you are talking about we do in response to what God does. If I can see that the two issues are closely related, can you see that they are not identical?

I can see they are not identical.

I don't see your point becuase I can't even remotely imagine how PSA shows God to be helping the poor. Sorry if I'm being dim, but I really don't understand what you're trying to say at all. As I understand PSA historically, it was never worried about God helping anyone. It was worried about abstract legal concepts and about punishment, not help. (I see 'punishment' as destructive and 'help' as constructive.)

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Wow, you are conflating a whole lot of issues here! Chalke is a Baptist, I conclude from this that Baptists are better than Methodists at helping the poor. [Big Grin] Be careful about generalising about how certain traditions help the poor. I made that mistake once and was shown some 'invisible' statistics that humbled me. We tend to look for overt social programmes. They are a good indicator but there are others. I would also look to folk like Tim Keller in NYC / Tim Chester in Sheffield as examples of PSAers motivated greatly to care for the poor.

My remark about Chalke was something of a cheap shot, I admit. It was in response to what I understood to be your suggestion that PSA reveals a God who cares for the poor more than the other theories do. I do tend to assume that 'we become like the God we adore.' And I did admit that there is nothing to stop PSAers helping the poor. Finally, I'm emphatically not denominationalist and I have nothing against Baptists or any other 'denomination'.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
John, what troubles me, and, I presume others, is not that God exacts retribution, since I agree that this would be a poor description of the events of Good Friday, for the reasons that you give. Rather, it is that God would ever think that this was in any way an appropriate way of dealing with sin, given the expressed teaching of Jesus. I don't care if you call it retribution, revenge, punishment, or anything else. The whole concept is totally against what Jesus taught, and so, I conclude, also alien to the Father. And it is not even necessary that He carries out this punishment in order for it to be reprehensible - to say "He would have done it had it not been that Jesus satisfied His desire/need for retributive justice is equally insulting to Him.

Nicely put, JJ--you can presume for me any day of the week.

[Overused]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Jolly Jape said:
quote:
Incidentally, I think the same is true of Numpty's (if I might say) excellent and passionate post. As an account of the Atonement it is inspired and excellent, but it is pure CV, rather than PSA. C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.
Merci, mais je renoncerai au splendour en faveur de la victoire!

Is it not fair to say that the court will impose a penalty for non-payment of the compensation demanded of him? And would it not then be fair to say that the defaulter will also now face a double penalty? He is still obliged to make recompense for his original offence and now he is also obliged to pay the penalty for his disobedience to the court. I take my lead from the liturgy on this point.

Now, it is often the case that the judge is also the party against whom the first offence is made. Ultimately, it is against God, and God alone, that we sin. This is because all people bear his image. Therefore the recompense is ultimately owed to God and the penalty of non-payment is imposed by God. We owe God an infinite debt of love and we are incapable, and by narture we are also unwilling, to make restitution.

So now we do have a penalty, and the untimate penalty is death. Now, I believe that God, because he is just, does require payment of that penalty. I do not accept that the penalty that sin incurrs can be swept under the carpet of the universe. Death cannot be 'disappeared'. However, I don't accept that the scandal of God's unwillingness to exact that penalty from the guilty party can be ignored either.

In a nutshell a death must happen because a death penalty has been imposed. However, the guilty party has been let of scott free. That is unjust. It is unjust of God to let people off therefore God must clear his name. God is just and the justifier.


God is just. There is a has penalty to be paid.

[ 17. June 2007, 13:19: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
The question, perhaps, is why does a penalty exist?

I agree that all sins are sins against God. I don't think I agree that all sins are only against committed against God.

Numpty has articulated above a story-line that I understand to be more classically PSA: "All sins are against God's honour and therefore he has imposed a penalty that must be satisfied. Justice doesn't care at all about the people who have been hurt by sin and won't make any effort to restore them to abundant life. Justics is simply about earning a violent penalty for dissing God."

[ 17. June 2007, 14:17: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
The question, perhaps, is why does a penalty exist?

I agree that all sins are sins against God. I don't think I agree that all sins are only against committed against God.

Numpty has articulated above a story-line that I understand to be more classically PSA: "All sins are against God's honour and therefore he has imposed a penalty that must be satisfied. Justice doesn't care at all about the people who have been hurt by sin and won't make any effort to restore them to abundant life. Justics is simply about earning a violent penalty for dissing God."

That's not what I've said. I said that ultimately all sin is against God because humanity bears his image. If I deface a coin which bears the Queen's image both coin and the queen are dishonoured. If prosectuted for my offence I am required to make restitution for the damage to the coin that bears her image and to pay a penalty for the damage to the queen's honour itself.

We live, move, and have our being in God, therefore all sin is against him because he is in and through all things. Therefore, all righteousness is also ultimately toward God for exactly the same reasons.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Coming late to the discussion:

Jesus died at Passover not at the feast of Atonement in the autumn, if God hd meant to spread the message that the cross was about atonement, why did the crucifixion happen at Passover? Passover is about freedom, Atonement about forgiveness.

The New testament writers, notably Paul use Atonement language to describe the effects of the cross, but also Passover language. Paul says, "By Christ's death we are set free," that is not about atonement at all.

To me CV, like SA and PSA all have the same fault, they are trying to describe the effects of the cross by limiting them to Atonement. There is an atonement aspect to the cross, and I prefer the Substitutionary way of looking at it, even at times Penal Substitutionary. But the effects of the cross go much wider than that.

There is forgiveness in the cross, but also freedom. Let the two never be separated.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
That's not what I've said.

Sorry. You wrote that all sin is against God and against God alone, which I took to mean that no-one else is sinned against.

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I said that ultimately all sin is against God because humanity bears his image. If I deface a coin which bears the Queen's image both coin and the queen are dishonoured. If prosectuted for my offence I am required to make restitution for the damage to the coin that bears her image and to pay a penalty for the damage to the queen's honour itself.

We live, move, and have our being in God, therefore all sin is against him because he is in and through all things. Therefore, all righteousness is also ultimately toward God for exactly the same reasons.

Well, the thing is that I don't have a problem with there being a penalty for sin and I doubt that Jolly Jape does either.

I do believe - and I think there is historic precedent for it - that PSA is very firmly based on the idea that without a punishment having been both imposed and paid for, there is no justice.

I still think that the disagreement isn't about whether or not sins are sins or whether penalties are due to sins. I think the disagreement is about whether or not justice exists if a sin goes unpunished.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I do believe - and I think there is historic precedent for it - that PSA is very firmly based on the idea that without a punishment having been both imposed and paid for, there is no justice.

I'd agree, and go along with that.

quote:
I still think that the disagreement isn't about whether or not sins are sins or whether penalties are due to sins. I think the disagreement is about whether or not justice exists if a sin goes unpunished.
But no sin goes unpunished, for Christ came voluntarily to take the punishment. The fact that it is Chust's decision, makes the allegations of cosmic child abuse launched at PSA unfounded, but we've already had this discussion on another thread. Positions regarding different aspects of Atonement seemed entrenched there, and I can't see them changing here either.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Agreed.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
quote:
I still think that the disagreement isn't about whether or not sins are sins or whether penalties are due to sins. I think the disagreement is about whether or not justice exists if a sin goes unpunished.
But no sin goes unpunished, for Christ came voluntarily to take the punishment. The fact that it is Chust's decision, makes the allegations of cosmic child abuse launched at PSA unfounded, but we've already had this discussion on another thread. Positions regarding different aspects of Atonement seemed entrenched there, and I can't see them changing here either.
I guess we don't understand each other's perspective on this.

If you begin with the idea that it's absolutely and incontrovertibly true that justice is absent until a punishment has been executed, then to say that Jesus voluntarily accepted the punishment 'solves the problem' as it were.

The problem is that I (and presumably lots of others) believe that it is incontrovertibly false to say that there is no justice without punishment having been executed.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Let's take Karl's £1000 scenario from earlier:

quote:
Suppose someone owes me £1000. Now, if I forgive them the debt, I am £1000 poorer than I would be. I have lost out - suffered if you will. Taken the loss into myself. Forgiveness has a cost to the forgiver. I see God paying this price on the Cross - this is what it costs God. But there's no sense that I am suing myself for that £1000; similarly I don't actually see that God is turning round and slapping his own arse so that someone gets spanked for being naughty. He is taking all the crap onto Himself, and not responding to it. Letting it do its worst. What CV tells me is that ultimately that was the most powerful thing He could do. Having absorbed it all, He showed the power of Love and forgiveness was actually the greater by rising from death.

(Thanks Karl, that was a good description of CV.)

Noe look at it this way:


The big difference is if you look at the Godhead as three persons or one. Different understandings of the Trinity; who understands the Trinity anyway? I don't.

Is it the first one, where the debt is rubbed out, or the second where it is payed? I prefer the second, your mileage may vary.

But as I said in the earlier post, the problem with both PSA and CV is that they restrict the effects of the cross to Atonement, whilst the effects go much wider than that.

In the end the man to whom the debt has been forgiven/paid ids the same, He is set free from the burden of the debt. This is the story of the cross whichever way you look at it.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
As far as I'm concerned, you've just given my answer to the question "What is the cost of forgiveness to the Father?"

I repeat again. [Frown] The prodigal son uses a fiscal metaphor similar to that in Romans 4. The Father gives the younger son his inheritance when he leaves.

(As an aside it is interesting that in Semitic culture the younger son is only entitled to that inheritance on his Father's death - he is saying to his Dad: 'I wish you were dead!' Therefore the Father is crediting to his son what should be his on his own death.)

When he returns he takes him back and throws a party at his own expense. Therefore the Father has to 'pay the expense' of his son's rebellion. This fits perfectly with PSA. PSA assumes that God wants to forgive us, and that he takes the iniative in so doing.

Why are you are so annoyed that PSA fits so neatly with your understanding of the cross?

I'm sorry, I don't understand how this is in any way like PSA either. The point about PSA is that the Father is obliged that someone be punished before forgiveness can take place. In this example, true enough, there is a cost, and that cost is bourne by the Father. But that is the case also with CV, ie, the redemption cost of mankind is paid by God, in the Person of the Son. For the example given to resemble PSA, there would have to be a penal dimension, and this is not the case here. It is more nearly the analogy which I gave in response to Jamat earlier on ther thread, that of a passer-by dying in the process of saving a child from beneath the wheels of an oncoming train. Atonement, yes, sacrificial, yes, substitutionary, yes, penal, no.

Incidentally, I think the same is true of Numpty's (if I might say) excellent and passionate post. As an account of the Atonement it is inspired and excellent, but it is pure CV, rather than PSA. C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.

Beware using the parable as if it were an allegory. Allegorical treatment is back in fashion but most conservatives like C. H. Dodd cautioned against it and argued that parables make one point only - in this case unconditional love.

A further spanner in the works - Augustine regarded the prodigal son as Jesus!

[ 17. June 2007, 19:27: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I doubt if this is going to get us anywhere but how about thinking of justice in terms of 'fairness'?

When I look at the world I am repeatedly struck, like the Psalmist, that is is not fair. This really bothers me - how can God stand it when life is so unfair? Does that bother you guys at all? How does your theology cope with it? (I'm not talking about evil people being punished, just poor people having a rubbish life and bad stuff happening to them.) I don't want revenge, but I do want God to make it all fair. That is not just about 'fixing it' in the future but also 'undoing' the wrong of the past. What do others think?

Thanks for looking at it a different way--alas, it leaves me even more confused. The question of fairness is one of the things that most leads me away from PSA.

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
The problem is that I (and presumably lots of others) believe that it is incontrovertibly false to say that there is no justice without punishment having been executed.

I'd go a bit further and say that I believe it is utterly false to the character of God as revealed in Christ to say that justice can be done by hurting the innocent.

My theology, such as it is, copes with the unfairness/injustice of life by giving me a model of God in the midst of it, taking on the whole of human suffering and fear and showing me how those things get transformed. God doesn't cause or demand the unfairness--he moves through it, and teaches me to move through it too.

Where, fundamentally, is the fairness you see in PSA? How does an innocent man dying "for the sins of the people" and the satisfaction of God fix the future and undo the wrongs of the past? I honesty want to understand--it's so clear to me that my perception of PSA is vastly different from yours, and I want to get a better sense of your perception.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
Where, fundamentally, is the fairness you see in PSA? How does an innocent man dying "for the sins of the people" and the satisfaction of God fix the future and undo the wrongs of the past? I honesty want to understand--it's so clear to me that my perception of PSA is vastly different from yours, and I want to get a better sense of your perception.

This is the question that I would like to understand as well. [Confused] [Confused] I'm assuming that your question wasn't directed at me.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
Where, fundamentally, is the fairness you see in PSA? How does an innocent man dying "for the sins of the people" and the satisfaction of God fix the future and undo the wrongs of the past? I honesty want to understand--it's so clear to me that my perception of PSA is vastly different from yours, and I want to get a better sense of your perception.

This is the question that I would like to understand as well. [Confused] [Confused] I'm assuming that your question wasn't directed at me.
Hell no. [Smile]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
If I deface a coin which bears the Queen's image both coin and the queen are dishonoured. If prosectuted for my offence I am required to make restitution for the damage to the coin that bears her image and to pay a penalty for the damage to the queen's honour itself.

Well, it's not really that germaine to the discussion, but the sort of idea that you have expressed here is firmly dated in a medieaval understanding of kingship. Most people now would deride as lunacy the idea that defacing a coin of the realm has any effect on the Queen's honour - indeed the idea of honour being something one could own would itself be highly contentious. One could argue (and I say could ) that do so deface a coin is insulting to the Queen, but who would see it as damaging her in any material way? How much less, then, could the Father's "honour" be damaged by anything we could do.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I'm going to bed after a long Sunday so I'll stick to brief clarifications rather than my usual lengthy comments. [Disappointed]

quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
Where, fundamentally, is the fairness you see in PSA?

We've been over this before, but again I think this comes back to an understanding of the Trinity and what it means to be 'in Adam' and 'in Christ'. In Christ, my sins are punished - this is fair.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, it's not really that germaine to the discussion, but the sort of idea that you have expressed here is firmly dated in a medieaval understanding of kingship.

A fair point historically JJ, but I don't see what difference it makes. Elizabeth II or Elizabeth I (or more likely Henry III) so what? Whatever period of history you take will yield different attitudes to the monarchy ... whether or not our actions / words can bring dishonour to God needs to be demonstrated from elsewhere.

Presumably we could all become Republican and then there is no King at all ... is that atheism? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
Actually, the idea is much older than that--it goes back to the ancient notion (most explicitly remembered in Celtic cultures) of "face price." This is the belief that an offense committed against a king is of more weight than the same offense committed against a peasant (since the king has more honor to be offended), and therefore deserving of a greater penalty. If you believe (as I do) that all human beings are intrinsically equal, this is oppressive bullshit. You might still make the argument that the concept is valid as applied to God (even if all humans are equal to each other, they are not equal to God), but since the whole idea is really just an analogy to a spurious notion about human relationships and values, I don't think that holds up very well.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

One* of the main reasons I have for rejecting absolutely the doctrine (ie, not just the presentation) of PSA is precisely because I don't find it plainly expressed (or, rather, I don't find it expressed at all) in scripture, and in order to see it there, I have to do a considerable amount, to say the least, of mental flip-flopping of my own. In short, all the consistency that you find in it, I find remarkably absent. I'm not sure, really, where this gets us, but I do think it is an accurate summary of our positions.

*The other main reason is that I think it is a doctine that leads to a view of God that portrays Him as less than He is, indeed, as less than are His human creatures at their best. [/QUOTE][/qb]
Maybe you need to look at Paul's thinking more closely. For instance in Eph 1:7 "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses according to the riches of his grace."

Unpack redemption as buying back or legally reclaiming; Christ's blood as his life as a sufficient price paid, and forgiveness as the reward of the above. God's grace at work in the transaction is his unselfish motivation to do the above which expresses his love motive beyond any measure we can understand.

This is what Paul believed he was saying. Yes? No? If yes, then Paul assumed PSA as the foundation of the gospel he proclaimed. He also jealously guarded same proclamation. He states in Eph 2:13 that we gentiles are 'brought near' by the blood of Christ. This price paid is clearly the basis of the establishment of relationship. Blood sacrifice is not just an OT anachronism to Paul and it is Paul on whose writings are built almost every doctrine about who Christ really was and what he really did.

[ 18. June 2007, 07:33: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
As if by magic, or, hopefully, by the Holy Spirit, our rector more than touched on exactly this topic on Sunday.

His position was this - forgiveness does not depend upon repentance. Rather, repentance is the response to forgiveness.

That's worth repeating, because it made me sit up - repentance follows forgiveness, it does not precede it.

And then I realised that this was Biblical. Totally. Zaccaeus (was that the guy?) repented and started talking about paying back the people he'd cheated after Jesus invited Himself to dinner at his house. The objects of God's forgiveness in the parables of the sheep and the coins are things that are not even capable of forgiveness! And, in the lectionary for the day, the woman washing Jesus' feet He says is doing so not as an act of repentance so that she might be forgiven, but because she already has. And Paul reminds us that it was while we were still sinners that Christ died for us. God takes the initiative; He forgives, we respond.

Now, what's the direct relevance to this thread? Ah yes. Forgiveness, he reminded us, costs the forgiver - in exactly the way I have tried to illustrate myself earlier in this thread - it costs the forgiver because he must forgo seeing justice done. He must renounce his pound of flesh. His £1000.

[ 18. June 2007, 08:50: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
We've been over this before, but again I think this comes back to an understanding of the Trinity and what it means to be 'in Adam' and 'in Christ'. In Christ, my sins are punished - this is fair.

*Trying to understand*. So you’re saying that you think you must perceive your sins as punished and PSA provides that for you? Knowing that you have sinned and that God forgives you isn't enough?

I’d still like to understand how (if) you think PSA implies restorative benefit to the victims of sin? You suggested upthread that PSA (uniquely? I don’t know) helped those who had been the victim of sin restore their lives.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
His position was this - forgiveness does not depend upon repentance. Rather, repentance is the response to forgiveness.

That's worth repeating, because it made me sit up - repentance follows forgiveness, it does not precede it.

Amen. [Yipee]

I preached yesterday at a church in our circuit to which I’m not assigned and I said: ‘The gospel is: “You are forgiven, therefore you are free to repent.” Notice the order. First we are forgiven and in consequence of the forgiveness, we are free to repent.’ I got a couple of quizzical looks.

I expect, actually, that a PSAer could say that, though.

I think that the concept of forgiveness does play a huge part in the debate. I know I’ve said it a number of times before, but Miroslav Volf’s book Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace is well worth reading on the topic of forgiveness.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Now, what's the direct relevance to this thread? Ah yes. Forgiveness, he reminded us, costs the forgiver - in exactly the way I have tried to illustrate myself earlier in this thread - it costs the forgiver because he must forgo seeing justice done. He must renounce his pound of flesh. His £1000.

Yep, as Seeker says, this is also the PSA position. No one is disputing that God took the initiative in providing for our forgiveness.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
So you’re saying that you think you must perceive your sins as punished and PSA provides that for you? Knowing that you have sinned and that God forgives you isn't enough?

Yes, but how do I know that my sins have been forgiven? To put it extremely crudely (so please don't then go on to caricature my position from this one analogy) if Good Friday is Christ paying the wages of sin then Easter Sunday is (amongst other important things) the joyful sound of the cash register accepting the payment.

PSA does not just mean that I hope that God has forgiven me because of his forgiving character, it means that I know that he has forgiven me because he has definitively done so in history. As it were, he can't change his mind!

I think this is another key aspect that PSA brings over other atonement models. Most arguments on this thread have been over the nature of God, but I'm left wondering - how can we know what God is like? How can we be certain that his nature will not change?
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Yes, but how do I know that my sins have been forgiven? To put it extremely crudely (so please don't then go on to caricature my position from this one analogy) if Good Friday is Christ paying the wages of sin then Easter Sunday is (amongst other important things) the joyful sound of the cash register accepting the payment.

PSA does not just mean that I hope that God has forgiven me because of his forgiving character, it means that I know that he has forgiven me because he has definitively done so in history. As it were, he can't change his mind!

I think this is another key aspect that PSA brings over other atonement models. Most arguments on this thread have been over the nature of God, but I'm left wondering - how can we know what God is like? How can we be certain that his nature will not change?

Ah. OK. Perhaps a lightbulb is beginning to be dimly lit.

For me personally (and I do think it's a personal thing), I believe that God forgives because of the witness of Scripture, tradition but most especially because of the Gospel witness about Jesus. Beyond that, insisting that I must know the precise mechanism of exactly how God forgives me feels like hubris to me (not making accusations against you).

It's ironic, then. My problem with PSA is that is seems to present God as a God who doesn't have a gracious and forgiving character. And, it would appear, that you think you can't be entirely certain that God is gracious and forgiving (or just) without PSA?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
It's ironic, then. My problem with PSA is that is seems to present God as a God who doesn't have a gracious and forgiving character. And, it would appear, that you think you can't be entirely certain that God is gracious and forgiving (or just) without PSA?

Bingo.

I think that's where we've got to.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
It's ironic, then. My problem with PSA is that is seems to present God as a God who doesn't have a gracious and forgiving character. And, it would appear, that you think you can't be entirely certain that God is gracious and forgiving (or just) without PSA?

Bingo.

I think that's where we've got to.

OK, this is maybe jumping a few steps, and perhaps we'll have to revisit those steps in due course, but why does PSA seem to you to demonstrate all of those things, whilst to me it seems to indicate exactly the reverse. Why should it give us more confidence on the last day (to put it crudely) to be able to point to the cross and say "My sins were punished there in the person of Jesus, therefore I am forgiven", than to point to the Father and say, "Your very nature is to forgive, therefore I have confidence that I am indeed forgiven." The first seems rather a grudging forgiveness, and would, personally, give me less confidence than the second. I apologies for the crudeness of the language, but I think you should be able to see the point that I am making.

It's an issue of trust, a bit like the difference between someone writing a letter to you, witnessed by an attourney, declaring that they love you, as opposed to them telling you themselves, face to face. You could argue that the first is more legally watertight, but I doubt that you would find it as compelling as the second.

BTW, the usual disclaimers apply. My problem with the idea of my sins being punished in Jesus is with the word punished, not with the concept that He bore them, which, as you know, I believe to be true.

PS, kudos to your Rector, Karl. He indeed got it spot on!

[ 18. June 2007, 10:43: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I missed out the bit that would really put the cat amongst the pigeons - he described the idea that repentance must precede forgiveness as "a watered down Gospel" - in that the forgiving nature of God is compromised and made conditional.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Why should it give us more confidence on the last day (to put it crudely) to be able to point to the cross and say "My sins were punished there in the person of Jesus, therefore I am forgiven", than to point to the Father and say, "Your very nature is to forgive, therefore I have confidence that I am indeed forgiven." The first seems rather a grudging forgiveness, and would, personally, give me less confidence than the second. I apologies for the crudeness of the language, but I think you should be able to see the point that I am making.

It's an issue of trust, a bit like the difference between someone writing a letter to you, witnessed by an attourney, declaring that they love you, as opposed to them telling you themselves, face to face. You could argue that the first is more legally watertight, but I doubt that you would find it as compelling as the second.

Fair question JJ.

I suppose it comes down to how we know the 'very nature of God'. I like you're two types of communication. I believe the incarnation is what God does to tell us 'face to face'.

However, since we weren't there, the only way we can know about the 'face to face' bit of the incarnation is via scripture. Indeed, even 'face to face' communication has a good chance of ambiguity. I would rather have both forms to be clear on what is being communicated. (cf. a marriage - we need both the 'face to face' promise and the public historic certificate reminding us that it is so.)

Going back to the nature of God either we assert his forgiveness because it is a philosophical ideal we aspire to - but then we have created God in our own image and Feuerbach was right all along - or we God has to reveal himself to us in someway.

My understanding of revelation is that of event + explanation. I think that the only way you can maintain your position of 'the very nature of God is forgiveness' is either through a literalist / fundamentalist interpretation of the bible (God says he forgives and that is good enough for me) or through an event in history where God objectively forgives and tell us so.

My assumption is that you are not too keen on the fundamentalist approach of scripture and ... hence why I believe in PSA [Biased]

I realise that it is all not quite that simple but it is, at least, an attempt at answering your question. [Smile]

[ 18. June 2007, 11:03: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I missed out the bit that would really put the cat amongst the pigeons - he described the idea that repentance must precede forgiveness as "a watered down Gospel" - in that the forgiving nature of God is compromised and made conditional.

I'm beginning to like your Rector! [Big Grin]

[ 18. June 2007, 11:03: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
It's ironic, then. My problem with PSA is that is seems to present God as a God who doesn't have a gracious and forgiving character. And, it would appear, that you think you can't be entirely certain that God is gracious and forgiving (or just) without PSA?

Bingo.

I think that's where we've got to.

Which says to me that we are missing the point as to what grace and forgiveness are all about.

PSA seems to speak especially to the person who considers his own situation and future and fears punishment. In that situation, grace and forgiveness are defined as the taking away of that threat.

This is not an unreasonable point of view, and the Bible certainly speaks frequently from it. We fear the punishment of damnation and Jesus rescues us from it out of mercy and grace.

But to me this is not a big-picture take on the situation.

I would compare it to a situation where a business is going badly and the employees fear blame and the loss of work - and the solution is that through a miraculous act of mercy they are not blamed and they get to keep their jobs. Instead the president takes the blame, is fired, and is then re-hired to continue running the company.

How does that fix the company?

I would think that a more logical alternative would be to identify and change the problems with the company. The process would involve any number of measures for the purpose of putting the company back on the right path. These measures may or may not appear to the employees as punishments, and they may even include letting employees go. But the point is not to punish, or exact retribution, or fix blame, but to overcome the obstacles to success.

The first solution seems like PSA to me. It is a subjective view of redemption, where the point is not to fix the system but to escape blame.

The second solution is like CV, in which the point is to fix the problem.

In my opinion the first solution shows no real grace or mercy. True grace and mercy are shown in the measures to fix the company.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
It's ironic, then. My problem with PSA is that is seems to present God as a God who doesn't have a gracious and forgiving character. And, it would appear, that you think you can't be entirely certain that God is gracious and forgiving (or just) without PSA?

Bingo.

I think that's where we've got to.

OK. Well, that's helpful. Weird (to me), but helpful.

I'll probably have to let that sink in.

It does explain why people rhapsodise about PSA, which I found hard to understand.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

One* of the main reasons I have for rejecting absolutely the doctrine (ie, not just the presentation) of PSA is precisely because I don't find it plainly expressed (or, rather, I don't find it expressed at all) in scripture, and in order to see it there, I have to do a considerable amount, to say the least, of mental flip-flopping of my own. In short, all the consistency that you find in it, I find remarkably absent. I'm not sure, really, where this gets us, but I do think it is an accurate summary of our positions.

*The other main reason is that I think it is a doctine that leads to a view of God that portrays Him as less than He is, indeed, as less than are His human creatures at their best.


Maybe you need to look at Paul's thinking more closely. For instance in Eph 1:7 "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses according to the riches of his grace."

Unpack redemption as buying back or legally reclaiming; Christ's blood as his life as a sufficient price paid, and forgiveness as the reward of the above. God's grace at work in the transaction is his unselfish motivation to do the above which expresses his love motive beyond any measure we can understand.

This is what Paul believed he was saying. Yes? No? If yes, then Paul assumed PSA as the foundation of the gospel he proclaimed. He also jealously guarded same proclamation. He states in Eph 2:13 that we gentiles are 'brought near' by the blood of Christ. This price paid is clearly the basis of the establishment of relationship. Blood sacrifice is not just an OT anachronism to Paul and it is Paul on whose writings are built almost every doctrine about who Christ really was and what he really did. [/QB][/QUOTE]


I think I have said before that I don't have a problem with the concept of blood-sacrifice, properly understood, nor have I disputed the idea of Christ having ransomed us (ie bought us back out of slavery). The problem comes when you begin to ask "to whom is the ransom paid", which is something Paul didn't address. Is it, pace Origen, to Satan, or is it, pace PSA, to God. Both are problematic solutions, and both, IMHO are the result of pursuing a line of reasoning too far. In fact, the ransom is just the price paid to release the slave. It need not, per se, be payable to anyone. There are plenty of examples in the OT where God "ransoms" His people. There is no suggestion (bar one possible passage) that this ransom is paid to anyone at all (The exception being Isaiah 43:3 which seems to be poetic rather than literal). The concept is that to release a slave is costly, and that, in this case, it is God who pays the price. That is a long way from saying that He pays the price to Himself. In fact, Rene Girard would probably say thet He pays the price to us! (but Seeker's the Girardian expert round here, so I'll leave it to her to amplify that if you are curious.)

Ransom, rescue and blood sacrifice are all used to try to convey the meaning of the Atonement. None of these is punitive, none of these suggests that God cannot do anything He wants, that God cannot forgive sin without punishment being exacted, or any of the other distinctives of PSA.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I missed out the bit that would really put the cat amongst the pigeons - he described the idea that repentance must precede forgiveness as "a watered down Gospel" - in that the forgiving nature of God is compromised and made conditional.

I can see where that view of it comes from. What God does must always come first and be of primary importance. Nothing is conditional with Him.

But I think that ignoring the teachings that state that repentance precedes forgiveness leads to a crucial misunderstanding.

I think that the truth is that God's forgiveness is unconditional, it is always there, God's love is never retracted, nor does He fix blame or punish. So He has forgiven everyone.

The catch, though, is that all things are according to reception. We receive our lives from God, life is not an inherent property of our being. We receive that life according to our form, or our ability to receive. The same is true of forgiveness.

God's forgiveness precedes repentance, but we are unable to receive the benefits of that forgiveness until we repent.

This is consistent with all the laws of order in the physical world. The sun shines equally everywhere, but not everything on earth receives its light equally. The difference is not in the sun but in the receiver - its position on the planet, the cloud cover, its substance, and numerous other factors.

From a subjective point of view we can say that the sun won't shine on us unless we go out in the sun on a sunny day. But it's not the sun that changes.

Similarly, we can say that God won't forgive us unless we repent. But it's not God who changes. It's us, by His power.

So it is technically correct to say that forgiveness precedes repentance. But for all practical purposes repentance is what precedes forgiveness. God's grace is what makes this possible, since we have no power of our own.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So it is technically correct to say that forgiveness precedes repentance. But for all practical purposes repentance is what precedes forgiveness. God's grace is what makes this possible, since we have no power of our own.

I think it's important to teach that 'forgiveness precedes repentence' for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the god who does not forgive until we repent is not a god of grace and not the god of Scripture, but is the god of 'the world'.

Secondly, it depends what 'practical purposes' you're talking about. I know it's 'gospel' (sic) among many people that everyone thinks that they aren't sinners but in my experience, there are a lot of people in the world who think that God would not have anything to do with them. For the 'practical purpose' of the repentance of people like that, they need to know that God has already forgiven them and that they can dare to repent.

The grace of God's forgiveness is like a Christmas present. God gives it to us and that wonderful gift belongs to us whether we decide to open it or not. However, we can't benefit from the contents (God's forgiveness) unless we actually open the gift (our repentance).
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
My understanding of revelation is that of event + explanation. I think that the only way you can maintain your position of 'the very nature of God is forgiveness' is either through a literalist / fundamentalist interpretation of the bible (God says he forgives and that is good enough for me) or through an event in history where God objectively forgives and tell us so.

I like your definition of revelation!

Supremely, this, to me, is the life (and death, and resurrection) of Christ. Which I assume is true also for you. It does seem, to me, very difficult, even on the loosest interpretation of the Gospels, to come to the conclusion that one of the prime markers of Jesus' ministry was his profligacy with forgiveness. Heck, they even tried to lynch Him for it. So I feel confident that Jesus, at any rate, didn't seem to think there was a problem with, to use the phrase, "just forgiving". And if I also believe that He was One with the Father, as I do, then I think that I have sure ground for believing that forgiveness is in the nature of God. If you want a single verse that encapsulates this, I guess it would be Luke 23:34, though I would argue that it is such an important theme in Jesus ministry that it can be found woven througout all the Gospels. And, of course, I would also say that it has the ring of truth about it, but I recognise that this may be unacceptably subjective.

What I'm still not clear about, though, is how the faith that you have in PSA (I know, I know, but you know what I mean) is in any way founded on a more secure footing than that outlined above. We are both making as a basic assumption, that the Scriptures are a, more or less, accurate indication of what is God's word to us. Every inadequacy that you see in the supporting methodology for CV is also true for PSA.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Ransom, rescue and blood sacrifice are all used to try to convey the meaning of the Atonement. None of these is punitive, none of these suggests that God cannot do anything He wants, that God cannot forgive sin without punishment being exacted, or any of the other distinctives of PSA.

Especially since the most common Old Testament imagery involves God rescuing His people not by payment but by force.

For example:
quote:
Deuteronomy 7:8 The LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 9:26 Your people and Your inheritance whom You have redeemed through Your greatness, whom You have brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand.

Nehemiah 1:10 Now these are Your servants and Your people, whom You have redeemed by Your great power, and by Your strong hand.

Isaiah 50:2 Is My hand shortened at all that it cannot redeem? Or have I no power to deliver? Indeed with My rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness;

Isaiah 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD shall come with a strong hand, And His arm shall rule for Him

Jeremiah 32:21 You have brought Your people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs and wonders, with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, and with great terror;

Jeremiah 50.34 Their Redeemer is strong; The LORD of hosts is His name.
He will thoroughly plead their case,
That He may give rest to the land,
And disquiet the inhabitants of Babylon.
35 “ A sword is against the Chaldeans,” says the LORD,
“ Against the inhabitants of Babylon,

Joel 2:11 The LORD gives voice before His army, For His camp is very great; For strong is the One who executes His word. For the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; Who can endure it?

Micah 4:3 He shall judge between many peoples, And rebuke strong nations afar off; They shall beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore.

Jesus uses this same imagery on many occasions. For example:
quote:
Matthew 12:29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

Mark 3:27 No one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.

Luke 11:21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. But when a stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him all his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoils.

The strong man is sin or hell. The stronger one is Jesus. He doesn't buy anything, He just takes it.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
The grace of God's forgiveness is like a Christmas present. God gives it to us and that wonderful gift belongs to us whether we decide to open it or not. However, we can't benefit from the contents (God's forgiveness) unless we actually open the gift (our repentance).

Yes, that's it. And if we don't open it? I assume that we won't benefit from it.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
I know it's 'gospel' (sic) among many people that everyone thinks that they aren't sinners but in my experience, there are a lot of people in the world who think that God would not have anything to do with them. For the 'practical purpose' of the repentance of people like that, they need to know that God has already forgiven them and that they can dare to repent.

This has always baffled me, right from my first days as a Christian. It's so much an article of faith, and yet I can honestly say I have never, ever, met anybody claim that they were not a sinner. It's just so demonstrably false, and yet people continuously trot it out. But I have met people who say, in effect or even in actuality, "I've screwed up so badly that I can't believe that God would ever want anything to do with me." And we're supposed to be scratching where it itches? I don't think so!
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
If I deface a coin which bears the Queen's image both coin and the queen are dishonoured. If prosectuted for my offence I am required to make restitution for the damage to the coin that bears her image and to pay a penalty for the damage to the queen's honour itself.

Well, it's not really that germaine to the discussion, but the sort of idea that you have expressed here is firmly dated in a medieaval understanding of kingship. Most people now would deride as lunacy the idea that defacing a coin of the realm has any effect on the Queen's honour - indeed the idea of honour being something one could own would itself be highly contentious. One could argue (and I say could ) that do so deface a coin is insulting to the Queen, but who would see it as damaging her in any material way? How much less, then, could the Father's "honour" be damaged by anything we could do.
Well to be fair JJ, I think I'd be a bit upset if someone defaced an image (say a photograph) of me. If someone took a knife to a picture of me I would feel that I had in some way been violated.

How much more would God be 'upset' if someone took a knife to me? He'd be dishonoured on at least two counts: firstly, because his image in me had been attacked; and secondly, because a child of his had been attacked. The two things are not seperable from God's perspective. And, I don't think it is anachronistic to speak of honour being violated.

[ 18. June 2007, 12:49: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
The grace of God's forgiveness is like a Christmas present. God gives it to us and that wonderful gift belongs to us whether we decide to open it or not. However, we can't benefit from the contents (God's forgiveness) unless we actually open the gift (our repentance).

Yes, that's it. And if we don't open it? I assume that we won't benefit from it.
I think that's what I said. Or it's what I meant to say, anyway.

It's quite different from the idea of: 'Jump through this series of hoops and maybe, just maybe, God will give you a Christmas present. IF he's in a good mood, of course.'
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
If I deface a coin which bears the Queen's image both coin and the queen are dishonoured. If prosectuted for my offence I am required to make restitution for the damage to the coin that bears her image and to pay a penalty for the damage to the queen's honour itself.

Well, it's not really that germaine to the discussion, but the sort of idea that you have expressed here is firmly dated in a medieaval understanding of kingship. Most people now would deride as lunacy the idea that defacing a coin of the realm has any effect on the Queen's honour - indeed the idea of honour being something one could own would itself be highly contentious. One could argue (and I say could ) that do so deface a coin is insulting to the Queen, but who would see it as damaging her in any material way? How much less, then, could the Father's "honour" be damaged by anything we could do.
Well to be fair JJ, I think I'd be a bit upset if someone defaced an image (say a photograph) of me. If someone took a knife to a picture of me I would feel that I had in some way been violated.

How much more would God be 'upset' if someone took a knife to me? He'd be dishonoured on at least two counts: firstly, because his image in me had been attacked; and secondly, because a child of his had been attacked. The two things are not seperable from God's perspective. And, I don't think it is anachronistic to speak of honour being violated.

OK, point taken. It was the idea of honour as something we could posess, rather than something we could be given, which struck me as a bit foreign to our worldview. In the example you give, I probably wouldn't have uses the word "dishonoured" to describe how God would feel about it, but I do take your point.

Now I'd better take that picture of Cranmer off the dartboard [Big Grin] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
The grace of God's forgiveness is like a Christmas present. God gives it to us and that wonderful gift belongs to us whether we decide to open it or not. However, we can't benefit from the contents (God's forgiveness) unless we actually open the gift (our repentance).

Yes, that's it. And if we don't open it? I assume that we won't benefit from it.
I think that's what I said. Or it's what I meant to say, anyway.

It's quite different from the idea of: 'Jump through this series of hoops and maybe, just maybe, God will give you a Christmas present. IF he's in a good mood, of course.'

Yes. That's right. Quite different. God loves the human race, and nothing can ever change that.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Which is something any proponent of PSA will also affirm. Not the 'unopened present' bit which is a hackneyed and overly sentimental analogy, but certainly the 'repentance is not a Gucci work' bit.

[ 18. June 2007, 12:59: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Which is something any proponent of PSA will also affirm. Not the 'unopened present' bit which is a hackneyed and overly sentimental analogy, but certainly the 'repentance is not a Gucci work' bit.

Actually, I have heard both the "repentance must precede forgiveness" (I would guess majority) view, and the "repentance is a fruit of forgiveness" view from people very strongly committed to PSA. Actually, and perhaps surprisingly, the Calvinists seem to tend towards the latter, the Arminians to the former.

Which probably has no significance whatever!
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Which is something any proponent of PSA will also affirm. Not the 'unopened present' bit which is a hackneyed and overly sentimental analogy, but certainly the 'repentance is not a Gucci work' bit.

Gee, thanks, Numpty. [Hot and Hormonal] [Paranoid]

Gucci wouldn't really work round these parts.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
This has always baffled me, right from my first days as a Christian. It's so much an article of faith, and yet I can honestly say I have never, ever, met anybody claim that they were not a sinner. It's just so demonstrably false, and yet people continuously trot it out. But I have met people who say, in effect or even in actuality, "I've screwed up so badly that I can't believe that God would ever want anything to do with me." And we're supposed to be scratching where it itches? I don't think so!

But isn't that the point?

I've met plenty of both types: a) Lots of 'broken' people who cannot accept that God could possibly love / forgive them. But also b) plenty of people who think that God would be a fool not to have them on his team. We need an atonement model which speaks to both groups.

I may be wrong, but my guess is that you meet mostly category 'a' people because they are the ones who will often seek out church for help and / or are willing to talk about religious issues. Category 'b' people are happily getting on with their lives with little recourse to God. I think the gospel humbles the proud and lifts up the humble.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
We need an atonement model which speaks to both groups.

Speaking as a 'category a' person, I don't see how PSA is supposed helpful to 'category a' people. Edited to add: I guess if your construct of PSA was also helpful to the 'category a' person, that would help. This is yet another variable. There are many of us who for whom the construct is profoundly unhelpful.

I also think that there are both types of people. But I don't think it can be neatly divided into 'category a people in church' and 'category b people outside of church'. I also think that there are a lot more 'category a' people than 'category b' people. Some 'category a' people put up a blustery defensiveness; others of us just crumble and try to run away in a corner and hide from God.

[ 18. June 2007, 15:01: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
I've met plenty of both types: a) Lots of 'broken' people who cannot accept that God could possibly love / forgive them. But also b) plenty of people who think that God would be a fool not to have them on his team. We need an atonement model which speaks to both groups.

I suppose, in fairness, we ought to add a "category C" - those who don't believe in God at all, and just think you have to muddle through as best you can with the hand that fate/society/your genes has dealt you. This is probably the most numerous group in 21st Century Britain.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:


[QUOTE] [The problem comes when you begin to ask "to whom is the ransom paid", which is something Paul didn't address. Is it, pace Origen, to Satan, or is it, pace PSA, to God. Both are problematic solutions, and both, IMHO are the result of pursuing a line of reasoning too far

No sense in having a ransom payable to no one. The clear inference is that it is required by God because of the nature of his holy character. It is not payable to satan. What would he do with the blood of Christ? The price legally restores ownership of the possession that was in hoc to him is all. He never really owned it so he doesn't need to buy it back. His hold on God was to do with the consistency of the latter's character. " How can you forgive them and stay true to yourself?" was his issue. Check 1 Tim 2: 5,6 "one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all." This clearly states that Christ's blood, mediates between God and man..in Paul's thinking. I'd contend Paul did address your question.

quote:
In fact, the ransom is just the price paid to release the slave. It need not, per se, be payable to anyone. Ransom, rescue and blood sacrifice are all used to try to convey the meaning of the Atonement. None of these is punitive, none of these suggests that God cannot do anything He wants, that God cannot forgive sin without punishment being exacted, or any of the other distinctives of PSA.
I'd suggest that the nature of God is compromised if he freely fogives without the 'ransom' of the life of a perfect sacrifice. The concept of punitive is clearly a major issue for some. For me it is a by product, not a fundamental, It is just an abstraction to describe the process. Ransom, price paid, punishment... really all the same thing. So you don't like 'penalty' as a term? call it the necessary cost or price. A rose by any other name...
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I suppose, in fairness, we ought to add a "category C" - those who don't believe in God at all, and just think you have to muddle through as best you can with the hand that fate/society/your genes has dealt you. This is probably the most numerous group in 21st Century Britain.

Yep, but I was subsuming that category in my category 'b'. What I meant is humanity seems to be divided into two - those who are acutely aware that they are sinners and need God's forgiveness and those who aren't.

Surely the way we present the gospel has to be relevant to both groups? I know that you are not saying this, but I think we need PSA (alongside the other metaphors) to make it clear that sin is a serious issue. I am well aware that CV treats sin seriously but I'm thinking of the impact on the man / woman on the street. CV sometimes comes across to me a bit like this - "there was a deadly posionous snake outside your house, but its okay, Jesus killed it for you!" To which the reply from most people is, "Whatever! [Razz] I wasn't aware of the danger beforehand and now you're telling me that the danger is gone now anyway!"

Now, I'm sure that I've caricatured your handling of CV but I'd love you to explain how CV stops being a 'drama enacted in front of me the spectator' and something that catches me up into God's wonderful salvation plan.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Which is something any proponent of PSA will also affirm. Not the 'unopened present' bit which is a hackneyed and overly sentimental analogy, but certainly the 'repentance is not a Gucci work' bit.

Actually, I have heard both the "repentance must precede forgiveness" (I would guess majority) view, and the "repentance is a fruit of forgiveness" view from people very strongly committed to PSA. Actually, and perhaps surprisingly, the Calvinists seem to tend towards the latter, the Arminians to the former.

Which probably has no significance whatever!

I think it's highly significant because Calvinists 'tend towards the latter' for very good theological reasons. The notion that a person's repentance earns their forgiveness is ridiculous. Repentence is a gift from God; not an act of human free-will. The idea that repentence can be cashed for forgiveness in God's heavenly casino is why Calvinists reject the notion of total free-will and opt instead for limited freedom of choice.

However, IMO, the means by which God leads us to repentence isn't the apprehension of forgiveness itself but rather the reveleation of our need for forgiveness. This, in my opinion, is the difference between joy (the fruit of reconciliation) and repentance (the fruit of conviction of sin). In my view the work of regeneration begins when the Holy Spirit gives a revelation of poverty. Repentance does not move on from here: repentance is a resting in one's need for forgiveness coupled with a sincere desire for God's assistance to change. And this, as I've said, is something that God grants to us and not something that he demands of us.

[ 19. June 2007, 08:14: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
For clarity. Resting in one's need for forgiveness does not involve a sense of unforgiveness or forgiveness withheld: it's just that the sense of spiritual need and the sense of spiritual satisfaction are inseparable. I take this idea from the beattitudes: Matthew 5.6: Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, or they will be filled.

In a sense, the hunger and thirst is the filling; the filling is the hunger and thirst.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
[QUOTE] Where, fundamentally, is the fairness you see in PSA? How does an innocent man dying "for the sins of the people" and the satisfaction of God fix the future and undo the wrongs of the past? I honesty want to understand--it's so clear to me that my perception of PSA is vastly different from yours, and I want to get a better sense of your perception.

It is all to do with who this innocent man really is. He is God incarnate. In fact crucifying any other innocent man wouldn't have done the trick because it wouldn't have been fair. But this was God, accepting the sacrifice of an incarnation of himself. You couldn't accuse him of anything other than giving away his own sovereignty to allow the possibility of the reconciliation of his flawed creation. A love motive in other words. Remember too that Jesus didn't crucify himself, he submitted to the abuse of that very flawed creation to accomplish its redemption. Regarding the 'satisfaction' of God; it is all about God's integrity of character. No sin can approach him. Consequently, He must find a way to reach us while simultaneously dealing with our sin, and ensuring his own nature remains untainted by said sin. Should he have compromised his own nature by forgiving without that 'satisfaction,' I believe the moral balance of the universe would have been irretrievably compromised.
Paul outlines how calvary fixed both the past and the future in Romans. Essentially it is now possible for genuine holiness to be achieved by you and me because in accepting Christ's substitutionary death on our behalf, God imputes righteousness to us and this has the potential to revolutionise our very nature. See Gal 2:20. "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature." The past is forgiven, The present is redeemed and the future is assured as containing the hope of ultimate perfection in the image of God's own holiness. Good News indeed.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Jamat:

quote:
No sin can approach him. Consequently, He must find a way to reach us while simultaneously dealing with our sin, and ensuring his own nature remains untainted by said sin.
And yet when He was Incarnate in Christ He was able to let us approach Him, to reach us, to touch us, and yet remain untainted by sin.

quote:
Should he have compromised his own nature by forgiving without that 'satisfaction,' I believe the moral balance of the universe would have been irretrievably compromised.
That implies that the "moral balance of the universe" is something to which God must be made subject. Hello to the new God, "moral balance of the universe".
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That implies that the "moral balance of the universe" is something to which God must be made subject. Hello to the new God, "moral balance of the universe".

Come on Karl, give the guy a break.

Can God make a square circle? Does that bother me / am I bovvered?

I thought that we had agreed that we are using models to describe God in this debate?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Square circles are logical nonsense; they don't mean anything, which is why God can't make them.

Forgiving people just like that is not logical nonsense; the only thing that can prevent God from being able to do it is an outside limit on His omnipotence.

I think you're comparing apples and oranges.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Numpty, what an excellent post. This probably isn't the place to discuss the advantages/disadvantages of Calvinism per se, but I largely agree with the logic behind your position, and, certainly, the idea of "resting in repentance" strikes true with me, and is something buried waay back from my earlier days as a new Christian, and which, I confess, I haven't thought about for quite some time. Thanks!

The bit I'm not too sure about, though, is the idea that the motivator for repentance is the realisation of the need for forgiveness, rather than an appreciation of that forgiveness itself. I have no doubt that some experience that process in that order, but it wasn't so for me, and it does seem that there is biblical mandate for my experience (eg 1 John 4:19 and Romans 2:4 , which seem to suggest that it is the very act of God in forgiving us that leads to our repentance).

But, overall, I think we're in agreement about this. Sure I can't tempt you over to the dark side [Big Grin] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Sure I can't tempt you over to the dark side [Big Grin] [Big Grin]

I had been given the impression that PSA owned the copyright to that domain. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Surely the way we present the gospel has to be relevant to both groups? I know that you are not saying this, but I think we need PSA (alongside the other metaphors) to make it clear that sin is a serious issue. I am well aware that CV treats sin seriously but I'm thinking of the impact on the man / woman on the street. CV sometimes comes across to me a bit like this - "there was a deadly posionous snake outside your house, but its okay, Jesus killed it for you!" To which the reply from most people is, "Whatever! I wasn't aware of the danger beforehand and now you're telling me that the danger is gone now anyway!"

Now, I'm sure that I've caricatured your handling of CV but I'd love you to explain how CV stops being a 'drama enacted in front of me the spectator' and something that catches me up into God's wonderful salvation plan.

Another good post, John. I can see why you might find CV lacking in that sense. I think that I would say two things.

Firstly, I think that it is true to a certain extent that CV is a "spectators view of the atonement". My defence is that any substitutionary atonement understanding is, by its nature, subject to this limitation, PSA included. Where we get "caught up into it" is, imho, not at the crucifixion but at the resurrection.

Secondly, and I guess you will anticipate this, the difficulty you describe is predicated on seeing the Atonement as being primarily about forgiveness, rather than ontological change. From a subjective POV, I have no problem in meditating on the cross to say, "see how much He loves you. We ("you") did this to Him and He still forgives you". The difficulty that I would have is in seeing the cross as an instrument, rather than an example of forgiveness. Put basically, the cross demonstrates, rather than initiates, forgiveness. (For those who haven't been following this debate, I would add that the cross is essential for salvation, but salvation is not co-extendant with forgiveness, IMHO).

[ 19. June 2007, 09:23: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I'd suggest that the nature of God is compromised if he freely fogives without the 'ransom' of the life of a perfect sacrifice. The concept of punitive is clearly a major issue for some. For me it is a by product, not a fundamental, It is just an abstraction to describe the process. Ransom, price paid, punishment... really all the same thing. So you don't like 'penalty' as a term? call it the necessary cost or price. A rose by any other name...

To me, the difference is of utmost importance.

The cost to God and his creation of us following our sinful instincts is that his creation has been messed up and the eschatological solution of a New Creation is needed. The cost of sin to creation is hatred, murder, exploitation, etc. And God weeps. The cost that Jesus paid for following God's way rather than the way of sin was his painful crucifixion.

The above is vastly, vastly different than saying that God demands the price of a perfect human life before he will even think of forgiving us.

The God in paragraph 1 weeps with his suffering creation. The god in paragraph 2 seems to care primarily that either: a) abstract philosophical ideas about justice and forgiveness fall neatly into place like a mathematical formula or b) about his own honour.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
In a sense, the hunger and thirst is the filling; the filling is the hunger and thirst.

Sorry, Numpty, missed that line. Thought I'd better repeat it because - well, because it deserves repeating [Overused]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I'd suggest that the nature of God is compromised if he freely fogives without the 'ransom' of the life of a perfect sacrifice. The concept of punitive is clearly a major issue for some. For me it is a by product, not a fundamental, It is just an abstraction to describe the process. Ransom, price paid, punishment... really all the same thing. So you don't like 'penalty' as a term? call it the necessary cost or price. A rose by any other name...

To me, the difference is of utmost importance.

The cost to God and his creation of us following our sinful instincts is that his creation has been messed up and the eschatological solution of a New Creation is needed. The cost of sin to creation is hatred, murder, exploitation, etc. And God weeps. The cost that Jesus paid for following God's way rather than the way of sin was his painful crucifixion.

The above is vastly, vastly different than saying that God demands the price of a perfect human life before he will even think of forgiving us.

The God in paragraph 1 weeps with his suffering creation. The god in paragraph 2 seems to care primarily that either: a) abstract philosophical ideas about justice and forgiveness fall neatly into place like a mathematical formula or b) about his own honour.

[Overused] [Overused]

Exactly, Seeker!
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Surely the way we present the gospel has to be relevant to both groups? I know that you are not saying this, but I think we need PSA (alongside the other metaphors) to make it clear that sin is a serious issue. I am well aware that CV treats sin seriously but I'm thinking of the impact on the man / woman on the street. CV sometimes comes across to me a bit like this - "there was a deadly posionous snake outside your house, but its okay, Jesus killed it for you!" To which the reply from most people is, "Whatever!

And you think that the unchurched person on the street understands 'Jesus died to pay the price of your sins'? I have long-time Christian friends who don't understand that sound-bite and it's not because they are only pew-fillers or unconverted.

Of course, we must reach both groups. But I don't think that we can encapsulate the entire message of the Gospel into one sound-bite. I'd never call my theory of atonement 'the Gospel' and I think you may have 'slipped' and put your finger on why a lot of PSAers think that the rest of us are not Christians - because they think PSA is 'the Gospel'.

I actually think that adults are perfectly capable of processing a number of ideas. People are perfectly capable of understanding that 'grace' isn't the same thing as 'permissiveness' and that sin is serious.

We don't have to get all of Christian theology, Christology, soteriology and atonement theory into one sound-bite.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The bit I'm not too sure about, though, is the idea that the motivator for repentance is the realisation of the need for forgiveness, rather than an appreciation of that forgiveness itself. I have no doubt that some experience that process in that order, but it wasn't so for me, and it does seem that there is biblical mandate for my experience (eg 1 John 4:19 and Romans 2:4 , which seem to suggest that it is the very act of God in forgiving us that leads to our repentance).

But, overall, I think we're in agreement about this. Sure I can't tempt you over to the dark side [Big Grin] [Big Grin]

Surely it is impossible to appreciate having been forgiven (i.e. experience joy in Christ) unless a sense of one's need for that forgiveness has preceded it; even by a tenth of a second?

I do agree that the experience of joy in Christ should always be higher in our affections than the apprehension of guilt for sin: the focus is on the joy, but the sense of guilt is nonetheless indispensible. I think the reason that people often don't remember the sense of guilt that preceded the sense joy at their conversion is actually an evidence of grace rather than evidence of an absence of contrition. It's not that the contrition wasn't there; it's just that our joy in that moment literally obliterates (perhaps quite rightly) the sense of guilt that preceded it.

However, discussing other points of the ordo salutis might lead us away from the debate regarding the necessity of penalty in the atonement. I'll compose a post dealing with penalty as I understand it.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Jamat:

quote:
No sin can approach him. Consequently, He must find a way to reach us while simultaneously dealing with our sin, and ensuring his own nature remains untainted by said sin.
And yet when He was Incarnate in Christ He was able to let us approach Him, to reach us, to touch us, and yet remain untainted by sin.

quote:
Should he have compromised his own nature by forgiving without that 'satisfaction,' I believe the moral balance of the universe would have been irretrievably compromised.
That implies that the "moral balance of the universe" is something to which God must be made subject. Hello to the new God, "moral balance of the universe".

Good point. It's a problem. The way I see it is that the incarnation was a masking of the glory which only was evident in glimpses,at the transfiguration and maybe after the resurrection. Like your square circle a contradiction or paradox. Christ was God but not God in his 'manifest presence' as when Moses encountered him on Sinai. The incarnate Christ actually wasn't in 'fellowship' with humanity at any level that required him to reveal his essential nature.
The 'moral balance of the universe' is a bit pedantic I know. Trying to express that he contains an integrity within himself on which creation depends. Don't give me any breaks. If you can crack the consistency of my theology I'll change it.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
God is the 'moral balanace of the universe'. It's not that he is subject to something he must obey; but God has stated that his primary desire is for his name to be hallowed. Anything less would make him an idolater.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
God is the 'moral balanace of the universe'. It's not that he is subject to something he must obey; but God has stated that his primary desire is for his name to be hallowed. Anything less would make him an idolater.

But what does "His name to be hallowed" mean? And why is a God who demands a penalty more hallowed than one who freely forgives?

My thinking through this goes like this:

We are told to be holy, as God is holy
We are told to freely forgive

Therefore, "Freely forgive" must be compatible with "be holy as God is holy", yes?

Consequently, I conclude that God's name is hallowed - i.e. considered holy, if God freely forgives.

What I particularly loved about Sunday's sermon was that it finally nailed a nagging question - why does God require unconditional forgiveness of us when He can only forgive the penitent? - and of course the answer is that God can - and does - forgive anyone, whether they accept that forgiveness or not.

Requiring a penalty makes that problem worse - God not only does not forgive the impenitent, but He can't even forgive the penitent without someone getting squished. God is made even less like we are required to be ourselves.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
The 'moral balance of the universe' is a bit pedantic I know. Trying to express that he contains an integrity within himself on which creation depends. Don't give me any breaks. If you can crack the consistency of my theology I'll change it.

I'm with you (and Numpty, though I confess I don't fully understand his last post) as to God being the moral balance of the universe, and that the nature of creation is inherent therin. What I dont understand, or cannot accept, is your view of the nature of that balance. To me, responding to sin with forgiveness is moral. In fact, it is the only moral response to sin. Even if you find it counter intuitive (which, clearly, you do, though I do not), surely Jesus insistance on it should make you question that intuition. Mercy, love, forgiveness, these are the moral foundations upon which creation is laid, and they come straight from the heart of God. The fact that creation has been corrupted, and we see around us judgementalism, indifference and retribution should make us turn back to see "it should not be so", rather than, "this is how it is, go deal".

To me, the life of Jesus precludes any notion that any solution to the problem of sin based on punishment is, in any way, righteous or just. Clearly, we see righteousness and justice very differently.

x-posted with Karl, who made the same point much more eloquently.

[ 19. June 2007, 10:15: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
God is the 'moral balanace of the universe'. It's not that he is subject to something he must obey; but God has stated that his primary desire is for his name to be hallowed. Anything less would make him an idolater.

Probably being a bit thick here, but what was the process whereby you got to the last sentence from the first two?

Not that I'm disagreeing necesasarily, I am just not understanding.

Also, whilst I agree that God's desire is for His Name to be hallowed, why is that His primary desire. It sounds like something John Piper might say.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
I confess that it is precisely what John Piper says. I think that the ultimate motivation for God must be God. God, unlike creation, has no transcendent 'other' to look to: only himself. Of course, the way that God the Father does this self-regarding is by beholding himself in God the Son, who is the exact representation of his being.

As I understand it, the prayer of Christ in John's gospel was that he would be glorified and that we would participate in that glorification for all eternity. Now that is a very Christocentric (and therefore theocentric) prayer, is it not?

I suppose what I'm saying is that we often think that the primary motivation of God is anthropocentirc love. This, IMO, is not ultimately the case. God's love is ultimately and primarily a theocentric but infinitely hospitable love. In other words he invites us into his love for himself. God cannot love something more than himself because if the object of his love is anything less than himself he is an idolater.

This is why God wants his name to be hallowed. Holiness is the full entrance of our will into God's will. Or, rather, holiness is the entrance of God's will to be the death of our will.

Jesus prayed that he might be glorified by full entrance into the eternal will of God. I undertsand the glory that Christ desires to be the holiness (total sinlessness ) of God made manifest to us in him whereby we are invited into the eternal self-love of the Trinity.

God and his glory are not merely the blazing centre of our universe; God and his glory are the blazing centre of all things.

[ 19. June 2007, 11:07: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I am well aware that CV treats sin seriously but I'm thinking of the impact on the man / woman on the street. CV sometimes comes across to me a bit like this - "there was a deadly posionous snake outside your house, but its okay, Jesus killed it for you!" To which the reply from most people is, "Whatever! [Razz] I wasn't aware of the danger beforehand and now you're telling me that the danger is gone now anyway!"

Now, I'm sure that I've caricatured your handling of CV but I'd love you to explain how CV stops being a 'drama enacted in front of me the spectator' and something that catches me up into God's wonderful salvation plan.

Then maybe a better way of putting it is that Christ gave us the weapons so that we can get rid of the snake ourselves. So His message to us is "Don't worry about the snake. Here is all you need to do to get rid of him."

But I think a better comparison would be that there is a whole army of snakes, which we couldn't possibly deal with. Christ rescued us from the snakes, and showed us how to deal with any snakes that might show up in the future.

Another comparison would be with a band of robbers or rebels who invade a kingdom or a city. They set fire to the houses in it, loot the inhabitants' goods, divide their booty between them and enjoy themselves boasting of their prowess. The act of redemption then can be compared to a king who attacks them with his army, takes away their booty and returns it to his subjects, and afterwards imposes order on his kingdom, making it safe from any similar attack.

Another comparison might be with packs of wolves or prides of lions breaking out from the forests and attacking flocks and herds, and people too. No one dares to leave the walls of their town to till the ground. The fields are bare and the townsmen likely to die of famine. Redemption can be compared with the killing and putting to flight of the wolves and lions, and the protection of fields and countryside from any further such attack.

Another comparison might be with a swarm of locusts eating all the vegetation, and with measures taken to block their further progress. Likewise with caterpillars in early summer which strip trees of their leaves, and thus of their fruit too, so that they stand all bare as at midwinter. Redemption is some means of killing them off, so that gardens are restored to their flowering and fruitful condition.

The danger from all of these things are real, as is the need for some powerful means of overcoming the danger. But we are not reduced to spectators, we're part of the plan. Christ gives us the tools to play our part, and the power to play it.

These are the kinds of issues that people all over the world deal with all the time. Christus Victor is in harmony with the way that things really work in the world, and with the ordinary means that people employ to deal with problems. It just needs to be understood that Christ's work was on a higher, spiritual level, and that the enemies are invisible ones, but nonetheless real ones.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
God is the 'moral balanace of the universe'. It's not that he is subject to something he must obey; but God has stated that his primary desire is for his name to be hallowed. Anything less would make him an idolater.

But what does "His name to be hallowed" mean? And why is a God who demands a penalty more hallowed than one who freely forgives?

<snip>

Requiring a penalty makes that problem worse - God not only does not forgive the impenitent, but He can't even forgive the penitent without someone getting squished. God is made even less like we are required to be ourselves.

I think Is 48.8-11 goes some way to explaining the link between the holiness of God's 'name' and God's glory.

The point I think is that God's primary motivation is for 'his own name's sake'. He wants creation to find its joy, satisfaction, and fulfilment in nothing less than himself. This is because God knows that nothing less than himself will satisfy. And, like it or not, that truth applies to God of God himself. Only God's glory can satisfy God's glory.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Thanks for the helpful explanation, Numpty. I thought I descried Piper in there somewhere [Big Grin]

I'm quite happy with the idea that the Trinity is a pre-existing and pre-eminent community of love into which He calls us to participate.

Your link to Isaiah 48 does puzzle me though. It seems to me to be saying, "If it weren't for my holy nature, I would destroy you" - which seems rather to back up Karl's point that God perceives His holiness, his honour, if you like, as being most clearly revealed in mercy, and, by extension, in forgiveness. Far from His burning holiness leading Him (compelling Him?) to punish sin, it seems to lead Him to forgive it (at least according to those verses). Which is what Karl was saying, and with which I agree. And it sort of makes sense, if you believe, as I do, that the only way we can be truely released from sin and the sin cycle is by being forgiven. Punishment just doesn't work.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
I agree, it does suggest that. However, one of the misreprentations of PSA, I think, is the idea that the OT God is a smiting God and the NT God is a loving God because he's all punished out. That isn't the case, God has always been a God of restraint.

However, the passage actually says that God's anger is 'deferred' and 'restrained'. It doesn't say that it doesn't exist; it suggests that God's anger has a time delay on it.

What is does say, however, is that the deferment of God's anger is directly related to his passion for his name. As I said earlier I understand 'name' here to mean God's desire to be the central, indeed only, object of satisfaction, joy and fulfilment for his creatures and indeed for himself.

So, according to Isaiah, God was (or perhaps still is according to your perspective) deferring his anger because his ultimate desire is for all creation to be satifisfied and fulfilled in him and him alone. For this is how his name will be hallowed.

But, the passage also makes a direct link between God's anger and the possibility of being 'cut off'; God's anger is something that has the potential to cause separation from him.

Furthermore, the passage does make a direct link between the need for holiness (refining in verse 10) and the hallowing of his name (not being profaned in verse 11). It says that God refines his people in order that his name (see definition above) will not be profaned (made unholy). God's desire to have all creation united with him is in tension with the fact of its unholiness. There is a tension between God's name (his desire for union with creation) and our unholiness (our need to be cut off).

Verse 10 also says that 'affliction' is the means by which God refines. So, with that theological presupposition in place, it is possible, IMO, to move towards PSA in Christ on the cross as the point in history when God's anger ceased in its deferment. In Christ, on the cross, both the means of refinement (i.e. affliction) and the reason for the afflication (sin) meet. He became sin for us; he was afflicted for us. The affliction was being cut off from the Father.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
We don't have to get all of Christian theology, Christology, soteriology and atonement theory into one sound-bite.

[Big Grin] [Big Grin] [Big Grin]

Why do we keep getting caught in these false dichotomies?

I have never tried to make PSA an exhaustive summary of the gospel. The fact is that I've got tired of putting that clarification in and so had assumed it on this occasion.

You have made the point, rightly, on many occasions that our view of the atonement will impact our behaviour and practice. I was merely trying to say that our models (NB plural [Biased] ) will naturally impact our own theology and our mission. How you get from that point to me walking up to someone in the street and using concepts like 'penal' 'substitution', or 'atonement' is beyond me...? [Confused]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Wow, Numpty, what a densely (in the best sense of the word) argued post.

If I could just respond to the second part first ('cause I'm awkward that way [Biased] :
quote:
Furthermore, the passage does make a direct link between the need for holiness (refining in verse 10) and the hallowing of his name (not being profaned in verse 11). It says that God refines his people in order that his name (see definition above) will not be profaned (made unholy). God's desire to have all creation united with him is in tension with the fact of its unholiness. There is a tension between God's name (his desire for union with creation) and our unholiness (our need to be cut off).

Verse 10 also says that 'affliction' is the means by which God refines. So, with that theological presupposition in place, it is possible, IMO, to move towards PSA in Christ on the cross as the point in history when God's anger ceased in its deferment. In Christ, on the cross, both the means of refinement (i.e. affliction) and the reason for the afflication (sin) meet. He became sin for us; he was afflicted for us. The affliction was being cut off from the Father.

Firstly, I don't have any problem with God refining us (so to speak, except when it applies to me [Ultra confused] )so we can probably let that point rest as agreed.

Secondly, I'm not sure that we can argue back from God saying, "If I were not as I Am, I would destroy you" (summarised) to "a possibility of being cut off", rather, is not the natural sense, "because I am what I am, you will not be cut off." Why use such language - because it is important for us that we realise that our salvation is purely by gift.

Furthermore, I don't think that you have shown (from this passage, anyway) that our unholiness is a threat to (if you want to put it like that - I'm struggling for good words - compromises, that will do) His Holiness. Alison defines sin as "that which can be forgiven. I like that. Thus it is the very fact that we are in a state of needing forgiveness that gives God the opportunity to display before the nations His mighty worth. The sense is that dealing with sin in a punitive way would make God less than He is. Hence the "deferred wrath". The wrath is deferred because He wants to show a better way, revealed most completely in Christ. Before the Incarnation, the "nations" would be able with justification to point at God and say "You are no better than us: You don't have an answer to sin either." (I'm speaking figureatively, of course)
But the incarnation reveals, pace Romans 3:26, the true nature of Divine justice - the restorative justice of the resurrection.

As for whether or not Christ was separated from the Father on the Cross, I would say "yes, but the Father was not separated from Him". Jesus was separated, not because the Father could not look on sin, but because He shared, in that moment, our alienation from the Father. The barrier is all on our side.

Don't know if that's coherent enough to make any sensae to you?

Returning to the first half of your post:
quote:
I agree, it does suggest that. However, one of the misreprentations of PSA, I think, is the idea that the OT God is a smiting God and the NT God is a loving God because he's all punished out. That isn't the case, God has always been a God of restraint.

However, the passage actually says that God's anger is 'deferred' and 'restrained'. It doesn't say that it doesn't exist; it suggests that God's anger has a time delay on it.

What is does say, however, is that the deferment of God's anger is directly related to his passion for his name. As I said earlier I understand 'name' here to mean God's desire to be the central, indeed only, object of satisfaction, joy and fulfilment for his creatures and indeed for himself.

So, according to Isaiah, God was (or perhaps still is according to your perspective) deferring his anger because his ultimate desire is for all creation to be satifisfied and fulfilled in him and him alone. For this is how his name will be hallowed.

But, the passage also makes a direct link between God's anger and the possibility of being 'cut off'; God's anger is something that has the potential to cause separation from him.

By and large, I agree (even strongly agree) with what you are saying here, with the caveat about the possibility of seperation which I have already noted. I don't have a problem with the idea that God has an anger against sin, though whether that is reflected in an anger towards sinners may, I guess, be a bone of contention between us. I would hold that this anger results in forgiveness, since, even apart from its inherent positive nature, even pragmatically forgiveness is the only way of truely dealing with sin.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You have made the point, rightly, on many occasions that our view of the atonement will impact our behaviour and practice. I was merely trying to say that our models (NB plural [Biased] ) will naturally impact our own theology and our mission. How you get from that point to me walking up to someone in the street and using concepts like 'penal' 'substitution', or 'atonement' is beyond me...? [Confused]

Sorry, but I don't actually know what you're saying here.

As I understand it, regarding CV, you said that if you tell the average person on the street that Jesus defeated sin, death and the power of Satan their response will be 'Whatever.'

I'm saying that if you tell the average person on the street that Jesus died to pay the penalty of their sins, IMO they will also say 'Whatever'.

I'm saying that even though my view of atonement (roughly CV plus moral example) doesnt put 'the price of sin' front and centre in the theory, I think I'm still capable of communicating the Gospel to someone who doesn't think they are a sinner. I will admit that probably my gifts lie more with 'category a' people, but it doesn't mean I'm going to look the other way when people sin because I'm afraid to say 'that's wrong in the eyes of God'.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:

As I understand it, regarding CV, you said that if you tell the average person on the street that Jesus defeated sin, death and the power of Satan their response will be 'Whatever.'

I'm saying that if you tell the average person on the street that Jesus died to pay the penalty of their sins, IMO they will also say 'Whatever'.

I was assuming that the way we communicate with others will be influenced by our view of the atonement, but I was not assuming that we would necessarily use the language of CV or PSA.

At the risk of starting a thread on Catherine Tate there are two sorts of 'whatever!' The first is one of dismissal due to lack of relevance, the second is rejection because of perceived lack of relevance. I think we need to carefully distinguish between the two.

As I said before I've never heard any 'popularist' presentations of CV so I was only thinking out loud. But the bottom line (for any atonement model) is that it shouldn't be rejected just because some people communicate it poorly.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
At the risk of starting a thread on Catherine Tate there are two sorts of 'whatever!' The first is one of dismissal due to lack of relevance, the second is rejection because of perceived lack of relevance. I think we need to carefully distinguish between the two.

I think that the unchurched person on the street would say 'Whatever' to 'Jesus died to pay the penalty of your sins' because they wouldn't understand what you're talking about.

This might be yet another thread as I don't think that the 'Whatever' would be a rejection of either model so much as not understanding any of the 'Christian story' that goes behind it.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As I said before I've never heard any 'popularist' presentations of CV so I was only thinking out loud. But the bottom line (for any atonement model) is that it shouldn't be rejected just because some people communicate it poorly.

My 'sound bite' (and it's not necessarily CV - and is one I 'stole' from someone else) is 'God forgives you, therefore you are free to repent.' But that's more of a 'popularist sound-bite for Christians', I think.

I doubt that sound-bites work as witnessing tools anymore. They worked when the entire culture was steeped in Christian tradition.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:


[QUOTE] Originally posted by Seeker963:
....God demands the price of a perfect human life before he will even think of forgiving us.

Are you suggesting I think this?
What God demands is a means by which he can reach his suffering creation. Christ did live a perfect life in that he lived by Moses' rule though not by the pharisaic detail derived from it. The issue though, is that because he was God incarnate, that he enabled God's justice and mercy to operate simultaneously. A perfect human life in itself wouldn't have done the trick. God's wrath if you like was turned from humanity onto himself yet paradoxically since Christ was in human form, he (God) was able to deem humanity punished. Every NT reference to Jesus' blood states or implies this as a fundamental mechanism that operates to enable restoration of fellowship between Man and God. The forgiveness is contingent not upon repentance though that is important since it is the basis on which we accept the offer of it; but really, forgiveness can't be separated from the application of the cross to our lives. If you accept that what we are forgiven is the evil we have committed but which God sees as borne by Christ. That we have a loving God is not in dispute, it is just that the expression of his love, in forgiveness,also maintains the integrity of his holiness.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
God's wrath if you like was turned from humanity onto himself yet paradoxically since Christ was in human form, he (God) was able to deem humanity punished.

Paradoxically indeed. Did Jesus ever make a statement to this effect, other than an oblique reference to "ransom"? Is this based on anything more than a particular view of Isaiah 53?

Fundamentally, what kind of God would behave this way? What does a punishment like this really accomplish?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Every NT reference to Jesus' blood states or implies this as a fundamental mechanism that operates to enable restoration of fellowship between Man and God.

I don't think that this is true. There are very many references to Jesus' blood and most of them imply nothing of of the kind. We are to drink His blood. We are to wash our robes in it. How is that about blood payment?
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Jolly Jape, sorry for taking so long to reply. Life is busy. However, I do want to carry on with this debate. I hope it hasn't gone too cold. It is a very enjoyable exchange...

Jolly Jape said:

quote:
I don't think that you have shown (from this passage, anyway) that our unholiness is a threat to (if you want to put it like that - I'm struggling for good words - compromises, that will do) His Holiness.
Yes, I don’t think ‘threat’ really captures what I’m saying either. I wasn’t focussing directly on question of how the unholiness of humanity is reconciled to God’s holiness: although the conversation will move in that direction in all likelihood.

I was approaching the issue indirectly by raising the idea that God’s desire for creation to be satisfied in him above all things (for his name to be hallowed) is in tension with the fact that the people that God desires to satisfy do not want, by nature, to be satisfied in him: they are unholy. Holiness is not something we do, and then approach God saying, 'Look God! I'm holy, just like you said!' No, holiness is the result of God hallowing his name in us by the power of the Holy Spirit.

So, I see it like this: God wants his creatures to glorify him by being satisfied in him alone (to be holy) but the creatures that he desires to satisfy are wilfully unholy and fundamentally opposed to the idea of being satisfied in him. This fundamental resistance to being satisfied in God is the root of all sin because the essence of sin is seeking pleasure and satisfaction in anything other than God to the exclusion of God.

I hold to the view God’s desire for his creatures to be satisfied in him alone always takes priority over his desire for the satisfaction of his wrath. However, I also believe that God’s desire for the eternal satisfaction of his creatures does not logically cancel out his commitment to penal justice. So, God’s willingness, even his burning desire, to overlook sin in his creatures without punishing them lays him open to a charge of inconsistency with his own nature.

In other words, God might be legitimately accused of breaking his own numerous promises to exact penal vengeance for sin. An accuser might conceivably point out that the deferment of God’s wrath means that the sins of humanity are essentially brushed under the carpet of the universe. God, in effect, has become complicit in a massive cover up by fulfilling only half of what he has promised. Yes, he has justified the unrighteous, but at the expense of justice.

quote:
The wrath is deferred because He wants to show a better way, revealed most completely in Christ.
I think saying that you've found ‘a better way’ in the sense of 'morally superior way' by abolishing God's wrath is sailing close to making an anthropomorphic value judgement against God's self revelation in Scripture: God is described as wrathful in Scripture, surely we cannot simply deny it or dilute it because it makes us uncomfortable?

quote:
I don't have a problem with the idea that God has an anger against sin, though whether that is reflected in an anger towards sinners may, I guess, be a bone of contention between us. I would hold that this anger results in forgiveness, since, even apart from its inherent positive nature, even pragmatically forgiveness is the only way of truly dealing with sin.
If the same logic were applied to obedience to God’s commands is would impossible to associate a person with their works. Why are we prepared to disassociate people from moral culpability for their sin, but unwilling to disassociate a person from their strivings after righteousness? Using this thinking it would be impossible for God to be pleased or displeased with a person but only with a person’s deeds, righteous or unrighteous. And that, JJ, is what I would call skating on very legalistic ice. God loves his children, not just their deeds: this is the essence of the the gospel of grace is it not? This thinking is, ISTM, anti-relational. And by the same token, is it not fair to say that God can be angry with, and indeed joyous over, people and not just their deeds? Surely the gospel is about the amazing disconnect between how God feels about us (love and wrath) and how God ultimately reconciles himself to us.

IMHO, a lot of the problems that arise concerning PSA comes from an overly man-centred conception of the gospel. God is the gospel, in all his love and wrath. The gospel is not ultimately about humanity; it is about God. God is the one who most desires our presence with him, and likewise God is the one who has promised us justice, and I believe that Scripture points to that justice as a penal justice.

Therefore the issue regarding justice is an issue of God's self-revelation and his total commitment to being the one who is just and the one who justifies.

This, to me, offers the only explanation of Romans 3:25-26 that works:
quote:
25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he 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.


[ 22. June 2007, 14:40: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Wow, Numpty. My head hurts! I, too, am very much enjoying this debate. It's difficult to know exactly where the lines of difference run between us, as I'm in agreement with much of what you say. But then there are other bits.... Anyway, my good lady is at choir tonight, so I'll try to respond more fully then.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
OK, here goes:

quote:
I was approaching the issue indirectly by raising the idea that God’s desire for creation to be satisfied in him above all things (for his name to be hallowed) is in tension with the fact that the people that God desires to satisfy do not want, by nature, to be satisfied in him: they are unholy. Holiness is not something we do, and then approach God saying, 'Look God! I'm holy, just like you said!' No, holiness is the result of God hallowing his name in us by the power of the Holy Spirit.
So, I see it like this: God wants his creatures to glorify him by being satisfied in him alone (to be holy) but the creatures that he desires to satisfy are wilfully unholy and fundamentally opposed to the idea of being satisfied in him. This fundamental resistance to being satisfied in God is the root of all sin because the essence of sin is seeking pleasure and satisfaction in anything other than God to the exclusion of God.

I think I could assent, more or less, to all of that. Some of the phraseology would not be quite my bag, but the essence of the argument, certainly, particularly the sentence to which I have added my emphasis. My only quibble is that I'm not sure that our unholiness is quite so wilful as you seem to assume. Whilst this may be true for Christians, I think that, for the bulk of humanity, that explanation assumes too much detail in the understanding of God. But, however you view it, we are basically in agreement here.

quote:
I ... believe that God’s desire for the eternal satisfaction of his creatures does not logically cancel out his commitment to penal justice. So, God’s willingness, even his burning desire, to overlook sin in his creatures without punishing them lays him open to a charge of inconsistency with his own nature.
Here we must part company. I see no inconsistency between a committment to restorative justice and His desire for His Name to be hallowed. Why do you think that this desire is compromised without a penal element? This is the bit that I understand least about PSA - why is "restorative justice" less just than "retributive justice". If we have the first (and I believe that, in the paschal event, including the resurrection, we do) then why do we need the second?

After all, when we see someone refusing to take a retriubutive action which would, by any account, be quite justified , but rather forgiving, we laud them for their Christ-like-ness, rather than berate them for the injustice of their position.

quote:
In other words, God might be legitimately accused of breaking his own numerous promises to exact penal vengeance for sin. An accuser might conceivably point out that the deferment of God’s wrath means that the sins of humanity are essentially brushed under the carpet of the universe. God, in effect, has become complicit in a massive cover up by fulfilling only half of what he has promised. Yes, he has justified the unrighteous, but at the expense of justice.

The same point, to me, applies. Of course, I would perhaps allow for more of a progressive approach to revelation than would you, so I probably feel I have more latitude to interpret OT passages about penal retribution, but the difference is one of degree only. I see the apprehension (ie what they saw) of the OT saints in viewing retributive aspects of the divine as being a shadowed version of what we see in fuller measure in Jesus. Hence the deferring of God's wrath - it is deferred to the time when the fulness of God's plan for dealing with sin is revealed in Jesus. After this revelation of divine restorative justice, how could anyone accuse God of not being both utterly loving and utterly committed to dealing with the problem of both individual sin and the marred nature which, left unchecked, leads to death.

Anyway, I have to go now, I'll respond to the rest of your post a bit later.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Jolly Jape said:
quote:
After all, when we see someone refusing to take a retriubutive action which would, by any account, be quite justified , but rather forgiving, we laud them for their Christ-like-ness, rather than berate them for the injustice of their position.
I think it's because we discern obedience to the command of God when a person leaves retribution to him alone; only God is without sin and therefore only God able to dispense penal justce without hypocrisy. In a sense it is like this: a person's sins will be punished in one of two possible ways. The locus of the first is in Christ on the cross; the locus of the second is in hell for eternity.

The point is this: if the offending party were to receive the deserts of their actions now, they would immediately be thrown into hell. But they aren't. This means that God's wrath towards that particular individual is either deferred until judgement or has already been atoned for on the cross. Either way, for us to take vengeance would create a situation of double jeopardy. Therefore, I think that the refusal to take retributive action is not Christlike in its essence; it is Christlike in the sense that it mirror's Christ's submission to the Father's authority as the only Judge. It is a display of patient submission, not emulation.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
Numpty, I want to again ask the question that I asked some weeks ago; it may have been on another thread.

This all sounds really good from one perspective. But what I want to know is whether, when all these people are put in hell for not being Christians, I'm allowed to weep for them? Will God weep for them?

Or will God say to me, 'You're not allowed to weep in heaven because they got their just desserts.'

This is not a theoreticial question for me. My father is an atheist. He gave up on the idea of there being a God when he got drafted to Korea and was put in a company consisting of African-, Polish- and Italian-Americans (for transparency, he is Italian-American). Their job was to dismantle land-mines by hand and he saw many of his buddies killed instantly. They were TOLD that they were in this company because their lives were expendible. (Yep, 'cannon-fodder people' even existed in the late 20th century.)

So, anyway. He's an atheist. Whilst appreciating and totally agreeing with the Christian theology that we are all sinners who deserve God's wrath, my Father is a good man. Old and frail and ill now, but he's led a pretty good life. He has made my mother happy, he's been good to us as children and he's been a good citizen, volunteering for a number of charities.

So, he's going to hell because, like all of us he's a sinner and he's not acknowledged Jesus Christ as his Lord. Doesn't even believe in God. But, at least 'justice' will be done and he'll get what's coming to him.

I hope that God will allow me to weep in heaven. I hope God will weep.

I want to know how this all fits in with a God of Just Wrath. I want to know why my father has to go to hell in order for the world to know right from wrong?

Mostly, I want to know why I'm supposed to be happy to be in heaven with a God like this, assuming that God is as you say? Why on earth would I trust a God like this?

Your theory works great with Hitler. It doesn't work so good as a theory with my dad.

If anyone thinks that this post is overly emotive: (a) I will not get angry if you say my father is going to hell, but I do know all the arguements; (b) I think the question of 'Where has my dead loved one gone?' really is one of the most important questions of our faith.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
[quote] Numpty, I want to again ask the question that I asked some weeks ago; it may have been on another thread.

This all sounds really good from one perspective. But what I want to know is whether, when all these people are put in hell for not being Christians, I'm allowed to weep for them?

You will participate fully in God, and I suspect that the greater the pain is the greater the comfort will be. The affections that move the heart of God will be the affections that move your heart. You will experience perfect union with him and will experience the heart of Father. No pain and no joy that you have yet experienced, or anticipated, will compare with the joy and pain that you will experience in, and through, him. If God is prepared to share himself with you, why do you balk at sharing his grief?

quote:
Will God weep for them?
I don't know for sure, but if he does, and I suspect that he will, you will experience his heart and will share in his grief. This will be an experience which will at once be painful and joyful. We worship a crucified God; we've freely chosen participate in his heart. The pain is part of the deal. The question is this: is God sufficient for these things?

quote:
Or will God say to me, 'You're not allowed to weep in heaven because they got their just desserts.'
Heaven is union with God. There are no rules of conduct; only the glory of God. If grief is part of God's heart, then grief will be part of ours.

quote:
This is not a theoreticial question for me. My father is an atheist. He gave up on the idea of there being a God when he got drafted to Korea and was put in a company consisting of African-, Polish- and Italian-Americans (for transparency, he is Italian-American). Their job was to dismantle land-mines by hand and he saw many of his buddies killed instantly. They were TOLD that they were in this company because their lives were expendible. (Yep, 'cannon-fodder people' even existed in the late 20th century.)
I cannot assess the reasons why your Father does not believe; that's between him and God. However, I do know that God is just and will judge accordingly.

quote:
So, anyway. He's an atheist. Whilst appreciating and totally agreeing with the Christian theology that we are all sinners who deserve God's wrath, my Father is a good man. Old and frail and ill now, but he's led a pretty good life. He has made my mother happy, he's been good to us as children and he's been a good citizen, volunteering for a number of charities.
I can say comparable things about my own mother. However, I will not try to make God dance to my tune. If the tune chosen by God is to be melancholy, then so be it.

quote:
So, he's going to hell because, like all of us he's a sinner and he's not acknowledged Jesus Christ as his Lord. Doesn't even believe in God. But, at least 'justice' will be done and he'll get what's coming to him.[/qb
]Jesus is the one who talks about hell so much. If he hadn;t talked about it so much, I wouldn't be inclined to believe it myself. However, Jesus did actually say lots about it, so I am bound to accept what he says as true.

quote:
[qb]I hope that God will allow me to weep in heaven. I hope God will weep.

God will every tear from our eyes (Rev 21); this suggests to me that there will be tears in heaven but that God is able to console to the uttermost.

quote:
I want to know how this all fits in with a God of Just Wrath. I want to know why my father has to go to hell in order for the world to know right from wrong?
I do not know if your father has heard the gospel preached in power or not, so I'm not free to judge. However, each of us does have a responsibilty to lead our loved ones to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

quote:
Mostly, I want to know why I'm supposed to be happy to be in heaven with a God like this, assuming that God is as you say? Why on earth would I trust a God like this?
Your assumption (mistaken I think) is that heaven is primarily about your happiness. This is not the case. Yes, heaven is about eternal and complete satisfaction in God, but God is control of the terms not you. Are you prepare to lay aside your conception of 'happiness' in order that God can work greater joy in you that you could possibly ask for or imagine?

quote:
Your theory works great with Hitler. It doesn't work so good as a theory with my dad. ]If anyone thinks that this post is overly emotive: (a) I will not get angry if you say my father is going to hell, but I do know all the arguements; (b) I think the question of 'Where has my dead loved one gone?' really is one of the most important questions of our faith.
Our task is to trust in God. He is good and the oucome will be just. No tears will flow in heaven that God does not cry with, and indeed for, the bereaved. We will be in union with him. Or do we want God to sad while we play in the feilds?

[ 22. June 2007, 22:20: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Jolly Jape said:
quote:
After all, when we see someone refusing to take a retriubutive action which would, by any account, be quite justified , but rather forgiving, we laud them for their Christ-like-ness, rather than berate them for the injustice of their position.
I think it's because we discern obedience to the command of God when a person leaves retribution to him alone; only God is without sin and therefore only God able to dispense penal justce without hypocrisy. In a sense it is like this: a person's sins will be punished in one of two possible ways. The locus of the first is in Christ on the cross; the locus of the second is in hell for eternity.

The point is this: if the offending party were to receive the deserts of their actions now, they would immediately be thrown into hell. But they aren't. This means that God's wrath towards that particular individual is either deferred until judgement or has already been atoned for on the cross. Either way, for us to take vengeance would create a situation of double jeopardy. Therefore, I think that the refusal to take retributive action is not Christlike in its essence; it is Christlike in the sense that it mirror's Christ's submission to the Father's authority as the only Judge. It is a display of patient submission, not emulation.

Yes, but why do you not think it is Christ-like in essence? What do you think is so great about retributive justice, that can't be obtained by restorative justice, because, as far as I can see, restorative justice trumps it every time. The reasons you give are good ones as to why we should not seek retributive justice, but they say nothing about why you think that God should.

And, of course, I am wholly unconvinced that a moral good when appled to humanity is something quite different (even the opposite) when said of God.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I don't think you are being emotive Seeker, it is a very fair question. What kind of faith cannot address the hard questions?

However, I'm not sure it is on thread - hell may or may not be an issue irrespective of PSA.

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
But what I want to know is whether, when all these people are put in hell for not being Christians, I'm allowed to weep for them? Will God weep for them?

Or will God say to me, 'You're not allowed to weep in heaven because they got their just desserts.'

This is not a theoreticial question for me. My father is an atheist.

I'm not trying to be funny here - but what is it exactly that you want to weep over? The sense of loss or the sense of injustice? (Or most likely - both)

I ask that question because you seem to be saying that it is unfair that a good man like him be sent to hell.

If so then this has little to do with PSA but a lot to do with theodicy - how/why does God allow suffering, particularly innocent suffering? Any theology that does not even attempt to give 'answers' to these questions is merely sticking its head in the sand. I don't say this as an attack of Christian theology, quite the opposite, even atheism has to attempt some kind of answer. Life is not fair. Bad stuff happens to good people, our very being cries out for an 'answer' to this. I'm not being flippant when I say that I put 'hell' in along with these issues - i.e. it is not a qualitatively different question.

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
If anyone thinks that this post is overly emotive: (a) I will not get angry if you say my father is going to hell, but I do know all the arguements; (b) I think the question of 'Where has my dead loved one gone?' really is one of the most important questions of our faith.

I know I still haven't answered your question but I'm wondering what it means to ask whether you will be able to cry in heaven? How can we speculate how we will respond to issues such as this emotionally in our resurrection bodies? I can see why it would be such an important question for you, but am not sure how anyone could really suggest an answer with any degree of conviction.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Back to the fray:

quote:
quote:

The wrath is deferred because He wants to show a better way, revealed most completely in Christ.

I think saying that you've found ‘a better way’ in the sense of 'morally superior way' by abolishing God's wrath is sailing close to making an anthropomorphic value judgement against God's self revelation in Scripture: God is described as wrathful in Scripture, surely we cannot simply deny it or dilute it because it makes us uncomfortable?

Well, I don't think that I said I'd found a better (and, yes, morally superior) way, but rather that this is what Jesus reveals. The deferred punishment is deferred until the fuller picture of Jesus' life, death and resurrection shows what God's plan for dealing with sin is - that is, He forgives (which He always has) whilst at the same time He initiates, in the Resurrection, a new Creation in which sin is "unmade". I don't believe that this is a matter of an antropomorphic value judgement. To me it seems to be there quite plainly in Scripture.

quote:
quote:

I don't have a problem with the idea that God has an anger against sin, though whether that is reflected in an anger towards sinners may, I guess, be a bone of contention between us. I would hold that this anger results in forgiveness, since, even apart from its inherent positive nature, even pragmatically forgiveness is the only way of truly dealing with sin.

If the same logic were applied to obedience to God’s commands is would impossible to associate a person with their works. Why are we prepared to disassociate people from moral culpability for their sin, but unwilling to disassociate a person from their strivings after righteousness? Using this thinking it would be impossible for God to be pleased or displeased with a person but only with a person’s deeds, righteous or unrighteous. And that, JJ, is what I would call skating on very legalistic ice. God loves his children, not just their deeds: this is the essence of the the gospel of grace is it not? This thinking is, ISTM, anti-relational. And by the same token, is it not fair to say that God can be angry with, and indeed joyous over, people and not just their deeds? Surely the gospel is about the amazing disconnect between how God feels about us (love and wrath) and how God ultimately reconciles himself to us.

But I precisely do feel that the same principle can be applied for our strivings towards righteousness. I do believe that our sins cannot make God angry towards us just as I believe that doing His will cannot make Him love us more. Of course, our sins grieve Him. Of course, our faithful obedience makes Him rejoice. But His disposition towards us does not change. His wrath He reserves, I believe, for the sin itself, and what it does, not to Him, for sin cannot affect Him, but to us. This seems, to me, to make for relational, rather than anti-relational thinking.

I have italicised the sentences above, because this is the precise argument that I would use to reject, not affirm legalism. I can see you objecting to it because you think it is close to antinomianism, but not because it approaches legalism. Or maybe I just haven't grasped your point.

And, of course, I don't believe God needs to reconcile Himself to us. The need for reconciliation is wholly on our side.

quote:
IMHO, a lot of the problems that arise concerning PSA comes from an overly man-centred conception of the gospel. God is the gospel, in all his love and wrath. The gospel is not ultimately about humanity; it is about God. God is the one who most desires our presence with him, and likewise God is the one who has promised us justice, and I believe that Scripture points to that justice as a penal justice
Well that may be true of some, but I honestly don't think that's where the people here are coming from. Far from it - if I had to look for the single defining feature of PSA that I object to most, it would be that ISTM a doctrine which builds God in our own image, incapable of distinguishing what we are from what we do. Put frankly, I think it is insulting to Him, since it has Him behaving in a way that, at our best, humans are capable of surpassing. PSA seems, to me, the anthropomorphic doctrine.

And so, to bed! [Snore] [Snore]

[ 22. June 2007, 23:07: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
Numpty, I heard your answer. Thanks. I'm afraid that I can't 'do' a lot with it. I don't mean this in a nasty way, but it sounds like platitudes to me.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, I'm not sure it is on thread - hell may or may not be an issue irrespective of PSA....

I was waiting for someone to say that. I think it has a lot to with 'theories of atonement'. And I think that theodicy has a lot to do with 'theories of atonement'.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm not trying to be funny here - but what is it exactly that you want to weep over? The sense of loss or the sense of injustice? (Or most likely - both)

Um, I want to weep over my father's eternal damnation. I would have thought that was obvious.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I ask that question because you seem to be saying that it is unfair that a good man like him be sent to hell.

I first want to remind you that I'm talking about the idea that 'there is no justice without retribution' which Numpty brought up again.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about in some senses.

As I understand it, PSA says 'Christ died to pay the price for the sins of individuals'. Salvation by grace in this scenario, comes from believing that this payment was necessary and made by Jesus. But there is no grace or mercy beyond that. Someone who was subjected to the horrendous human evil of war, and who consequently does not believe in God, will 'pay' for the destruction that that war caused by going to hell. And, in that way, we will know that God cares about justice.

Whilst the person who pronounced him to have an expendible life - provided he is a Christian - will NOT go to hell. And we will say that Christ paid the price of his sins. And, in that way, we will know that God cares about justice.

So, I'm supposed to go to heaven and rejoice in being with a God who sent my father to hell and who withdrew all possibility of mercy or grace when my Father died? And thus we all know that God cares about justice in eternity more than he cares about mercy or grace for those who were traumatised in this life. But what makes it all topsy-turvy is that some of the perpetrators of evil on earth will be in heaven and some of the victims of evil on earth will be in hell.

As I keep trying to point out. Raw, legal, justice devoid of compassion 'wins' in the PSA scenario - especially the PSA-only scenario. Mercy and grace cease to exist in eternity.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Life is not fair. Bad stuff happens to good people, our very being cries out for an 'answer' to this. I'm not being flippant when I say that I put 'hell' in along with these issues - i.e. it is not a qualitatively different question.

Can you expand that? Do you mean that it's 'hell' for a person to be subjected to evil at the hands of human beings? If so, we may be in agreement on this.

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I know I still haven't answered your question but I'm wondering what it means to ask whether you will be able to cry in heaven?

Well, I think the picture of God that has been presented in this discussion is a picture of a being who cares more about abstract concepts than in living human beings. It's the picture of a God who doesn't particularly care that a man went through hell in wartime and consequently rejected God. The 'rules' for who is saved and who isn't saved must be obeyed or justice won't be served. So, to hell with him, mercy and grace being attitudes that no longer exist in eternity.

Whereas, I think the biblical God weeped and cared about human beings.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Seeker963 said:
quote:
Numpty, I heard your answer. Thanks. I'm afraid that I can't 'do' a lot with it. I don't mean this in a nasty way, but it sounds like platitudes to me.
OK. Although I'd be happy to expand on what I've said if it would help. However, it seems to me that you are currently looking for something to rail against, rather than seeking to understand a theologocal position that with which you have very real and very vaild objections. However, I think it would also be fair to say that you are railing against a faulty understanding of PSA and will not find the answers you are looking for without revisiting the presuppositions you have made about PSA. You see, your objections are not theological purely theological objections against PSA, they are moral objections against a picture of God that you find offensive.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
OK. Although I'd be happy to expand on what I've said if it would help.

Well, if you feel that you have anything to add that might be helpful, feel free.

Only, I don't find you using the word 'railing' terribly helpful. I really don't much like it when people tell me what I'm thinking or what my motivations are. I could equally attribute bad motivations to those who do not agree with my views.

I do apologise if I've said anything that you have found offensive. I does happen when people of different views speak together. However, I do think that I've learned a lot in my discussions over the last many weeks with people.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
You see, your objections are not theological purely theological objections against PSA, they are moral objections against a picture of God that you find offensive.

I wouldn't like to speak for Seeker, but is it not possible that this "offensive" picture of God is the consequence demanded by an honest attachment to PSA. This is the point I am getting at by saying that PSA must be "read back" into the scriptures. Because someone holds to PSA, that may well colour how we read the scriptures relating to God's nature. If we were to imagine making the step into a world where PSA had never been thought of, would the picture of God we hold be substantially different. I believe that it is at least possible that it would.

Of course, I guess we all make a judgement based on what we perceive to be the whole message of scripture, and then check back into the detail to see where the agreements and where are the conflicts. This is as true for me as for, I guess, you. I ditched PSA (the model I was taught) because I found it out of sync with the scriptures, and especially with the Gospels, so I agree that what we believe about God is highly likely to impact on our understanding of the Atonement. That seems, to me, to be right and proper.

[ 23. June 2007, 19:05: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I ditched PSA (the model I was taught) because I found it out of sync with the scriptures, and especially with the Gospels, so I agree that what we believe about God is highly likely to impact on our understanding of the Atonement. That seems, to me, to be right and proper.

This is also my point of view. PSA ignores most of what Jesus says about salvation and the purpose of His coming, dwelling almost entirely on Paul's comparisons of Jesus' role to the OT sacrifices.

Christus Victor, by contrast, is illustrated on every page. Or so say I. [Biased]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I ditched PSA (the model I was taught) because I found it out of sync with the scriptures, and especially with the Gospels, so I agree that what we believe about God is highly likely to impact on our understanding of the Atonement. That seems, to me, to be right and proper.

This is also my point of view. PSA ignores most of what Jesus says about salvation and the purpose of His coming, dwelling almost entirely on Paul's comparisons of Jesus' role to the OT sacrifices.

Christus Victor, by contrast, is illustrated on every page. Or so say I. [Biased]

Yep.

The conversation goes round and round, doesn't it? I guess I could say that those who insist on retributive justice are railing against the clear and plain teaching of Jesus on the matter of forgiveness. [Devil]

Anyway....none of this really advances the conversation.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Anyway....none of this really advances the conversation.

Sure it does. [Two face]

Not that the assertions by themselves do much. Sometimes, though, we ask each other to back up what we are saying, and get interesting results.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I was waiting for someone to say that. I think it has a lot to with 'theories of atonement'. And I think that theodicy has a lot to do with 'theories of atonement'.

I think it was JJ who insisted that hell was not relevant to the atonement debate. I was the one who originally wondered if it was relevant - interested to see that you agree.


quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
As I understand it, PSA says 'Christ died to pay the price for the sins of individuals'. Salvation by grace in this scenario, comes from believing that this payment was necessary and made by Jesus. But there is no grace or mercy beyond that.

Thanks Seeker I think that strikes at the heart of the matter. And I can see now why you want to insist that forgiveness does not 'need' anything - for me 'there is no grace or mercy beyond that' caught my eye. You may not be saying this but it comes across as if Christ's death wasn't really necessary. If Christ's death wasn't absolutely necessary then why did he bother? Whether Christ died to allow forgiveness or defeat sin either way there can be no 'heaven' without his death and resurrection. I'm sure you don't mean it this way but to me to speak of grace and mercy outside of the work of Christ devalues that work.


quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Can you expand that? Do you mean that it's 'hell' for a person to be subjected to evil at the hands of human beings? If so, we may be in agreement on this.

It starts there but it includes 'death after life' too. I think that if you define hell in terms of this life only then your question of 'how can God send good people to hell' still remains ... exactly.


quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Well, I think the picture of God that has been presented in this discussion is a picture of a being who cares more about abstract concepts than in living human beings. It's the picture of a God who doesn't particularly care that a man went through hell in wartime and consequently rejected God. The 'rules' for who is saved and who isn't saved must be obeyed or justice won't be served. So, to hell with him, mercy and grace being attitudes that no longer exist in eternity.

I don't see it as rules. God offers us the free gift of his love and forgiveness. If we choose to reject him, what else is he supposed to do? Is it possible to talk of coerced grace and mercy?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
I think it was JJ who insisted that hell was not relevant to the atonement debate. I was the one who originally wondered if it was relevant - interested to see that you agree.

Well, that's not quite what I think I said. What I actually said was that I was disinclined to bring the idea of universalism into the thread. In my experience, to do so would result in the thread being derailed. I think I would stand by that. It's no secret that I'm a "weak universalist" (ie, I accept the possibility of a "hell", but believe that it is, and will always be, empty). But, were I not, I would still believe that PSA is unscriptural and insulting to God. If I had to take a guess, I would bet that most universalists embrace some sort of CV understanding, but I don't think that it is invariably so.

quote:
And I can see now why you want to insist that forgiveness does not 'need' anything - for me 'there is no grace or mercy beyond that' caught my eye. You may not be saying this but it comes across as if Christ's death wasn't really necessary. If Christ's death wasn't absolutely necessary then why did he bother? Whether Christ died to allow forgiveness or defeat sin either way there can be no 'heaven' without his death and resurrection. I'm sure you don't mean it this way but to me to speak of grace and mercy outside of the work of Christ devalues that work.

I'm sure you're fed up of hearing me say this by now, but Christ's death and resurrection, it seems to me, is about fixing the consequences of sin, our ontological slavery to the decay of the law of sin and death. Did Christ need to die for us to be forgiven? No! Did He have to die in order that we could have eternal life? An emphatic yes!

quote:
quote:

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Well, I think the picture of God that has been presented in this discussion is a picture of a being who cares more about abstract concepts than in living human beings. It's the picture of a God who doesn't particularly care that a man went through hell in wartime and consequently rejected God. The 'rules' for who is saved and who isn't saved must be obeyed or justice won't be served. So, to hell with him, mercy and grace being attitudes that no longer exist in eternity.

I don't see it as rules. God offers us the free gift of his love and forgiveness. If we choose to reject him, what else is he supposed to do? Is it possible to talk of coerced grace and mercy?
It might not be possible to talk about coerced grace and mercy, but the assumption runs through this argument that we are free now to choose to accept or reject Him. Whilst I can accept this as a theoretical possibility, I suspect that it breaks down invariably on the particulars. How free is our "free will". Is mine, yours, Seeker's father's? I'm not so confident that we are "free" to that extent. We all are subject to our sinful nature, and, to a degree, to the sinful nature of others around us. Certainly, we have a choice to accept or reject Him. How "free" that choice is is, IMV, debateable.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You may not be saying this but it comes across as if Christ's death wasn't really necessary. If Christ's death wasn't absolutely necessary then why did he bother? Whether Christ died to allow forgiveness or defeat sin either way there can be no 'heaven' without his death and resurrection. I'm sure you don't mean it this way but to me to speak of grace and mercy outside of the work of Christ devalues that work.

(Jumping in with my own two cents but looking forward to Seeker's response as well...)
Why is any death necessary? I think death, in general, is a necessary result-- perhaps a price, even--of life as defined in this universe. Those are the rules: we play the game.

The death of Jesus was absolutely necessary in the context in which he incarnated--a specific time, a specific place, a Jerusalem that kills the prophets and stones those sent to help it. He knew that his beliefs, actions, and example would get him killed. Those were the rules: he played the game. God, in Christ, loved us enough to still play the game.

To me, PSA sullies His name when it says those were God's rules.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Jolly Jape said:
quote:
His wrath He reserves, I believe, for the sin itself, and what it does, not to Him, for sin cannot affect Him, but to us. This seems, to me, to make for relational, rather than anti-relational thinking.
Are you really saying that God does not feel grief and anger at our sinfulness? Not just our sins, but the condition of heart out of which that sin emerges? Or are you using the word 'affect' in a different way than I understand it? Are you saying that sin and sins do not influence the way God feels? Do you really mean that God is not affected by sin? I know you can't be saying that because you also said this:
quote:
Of course, our sins grieve Him. Of course, our faithful obedience makes Him rejoice. But His disposition towards us does not change.
OK. So, you're saying that God's disposition (presumably love) does not change according to our sinfulness and our degree of actual sin. I agree, at least partially. However, I disagree with you if you're suggesting that its is only the works (either good or bad) with which God is pleased: what kind of Father is pleased with his child's work without being pleased who his child is? Likewise, what kind of father is wounded by his child's evil, without being wounded by who the child has become?

I do not think it is possible to make such a strict ontological separation between a person and their actions. A person who sins is a sinner: we are all sinners who sin. If it were we would not need to be saved from our sin. Also, I think that your model of the atonement focusses rather too heavily on sins, and not enough upon sin as a condition of the soul.

I also disagree with the notion that God cannot love a creature and be angry with that creature at the same time. I also disagree with the notion that God's love trumps his justice to the degree that he will impeach himself by offering the divine equivalent of indulgences. Is it not possible that God's judgement always causes him to suffer? Either on the cross in his Son, in his wrath at judgement? I don't think that PSA ever says that God enjoys the dispensation of his wrath; it simply asserts that God's wrath is coming.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S: I think it was JJ who insisted that hell was not relevant to the atonement debate. I was the one who originally wondered if it was relevant - interested to see that you agree.
I don’t always have to agree with JJ. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S: Thanks Seeker I think that strikes at the heart of the matter. And I can see now why you want to insist that forgiveness does not 'need' anything - for me 'there is no grace or mercy beyond that' caught my eye. You may not be saying this but it comes across as if Christ's death wasn't really necessary. If Christ's death wasn't absolutely necessary then why did he bother? Whether Christ died to allow forgiveness or defeat sin either way there can be no 'heaven' without his death and resurrection. I'm sure you don't mean it this way but to me to speak of grace and mercy outside of the work of Christ devalues that work.
I have to confess that I don’t actually understand all that you’ve said above. And if it’s at the heart of the matter, then I would like to try to understand. I could – yet again – elaborate why I think Jesus had to die, but I’ll leave that out for now.

What I’d like to know is whether you are saying that there is no mercy or grace in God apart from the temporal act of crucifixion? It sounds to me as if you are saying that the crucifixion was God’s one-time act of grace and mercy, never to be repeated? Whereas to me, the crucifixion arises from the character of God. Do you disagree that ‘God’s nature is always and everywhere to have mercy?’ (Book of Common Prayer)

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S: It starts there but it includes 'death after life' too. I think that if you define hell in terms of this life only then your question of 'how can God send good people to hell' still remains ... exactly. .
Actually, I can agree with your last phrase! It’s just that ‘hell’ normally implies eternal, unbearable torture far worse than even the worst imaginable thing that could happen on earth.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S: I don't see it as rules. God offers us the free gift of his love and forgiveness. If we choose to reject him, what else is he supposed to do?
I hope we’ve established a good enough relationship for me to say that that sounds to me like a shrug of the shoulder which sounds pretty cold. My original question was ‘Does God weep?’ and the answer seems to be *shoulder shrug* ‘What for?’

Because compassion is important? Or maybe not?


quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S: Is it possible to talk of coerced grace and mercy?
I have no idea what you mean by that? It’s possible to try to incorporate grace and mercy as feelings rather than as a legal act (crucifixion) into our theories of atonement and of God. It’s a struggle and a conundrum balancing mercy and grace and justice. But PSA seems pretty eager to make sure that justice is what is achieved and it says that in it’s opening gambit: ‘God must be just, so solve the problem of atonement for justice.’ Maybe I’m doing the same with grace and mercy but, to my mind, I try to incorporate a justice that actually seems meaningful whereas I see PSA having a dry, cerebral, legalistic view of grace and mercy.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
What I’d like to know is whether you are saying that there is no mercy or grace in God apart from the temporal act of crucifixion? It sounds to me as if you are saying that the crucifixion was God’s one-time act of grace and mercy, never to be repeated? Whereas to me, the crucifixion arises from the character of God. Do you disagree that ‘God’s nature is always and everywhere to have mercy?’ (Book of Common Prayer)

Great question, Seeker. It seems like a crucial one to me. God, I think, is always merciful.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You may not be saying this but it comes across as if Christ's death wasn't really necessary. If Christ's death wasn't absolutely necessary then why did he bother? Whether Christ died to allow forgiveness or defeat sin either way there can be no 'heaven' without his death and resurrection. I'm sure you don't mean it this way but to me to speak of grace and mercy outside of the work of Christ devalues that work.

(Jumping in with my own two cents but looking forward to Seeker's response as well...)
Why is any death necessary? I think death, in general, is a necessary result-- perhaps a price, even--of life as defined in this universe. Those are the rules: we play the game.

The death of Jesus was absolutely necessary in the context in which he incarnated--a specific time, a specific place, a Jerusalem that kills the prophets and stones those sent to help it. He knew that his beliefs, actions, and example would get him killed. Those were the rules: he played the game. God, in Christ, loved us enough to still play the game.

To me, PSA sullies His name when it says those were God's rules.

Your last sentence is an interesting angle and I've never thought of it quite like that before.

I think I'd say he played 'the world's game' by 'God's rules'.

God's rules being that the Messiah was to be the Prince of Peace not the Messiah of violent retribution - which was what Jesus was tempted to be in the wilderness. 'Look Jesus, God's ways may be fine, but they are impractical. If you want to win, you have to play the world's game by the world's rules. Think about how you could bring about God's kingdom by just crushing these Roman invaders under your rule. Then everyone could be fed. Give up this nonesense about forgiveness and non-violence. That will only get you killed.' And it did.

Jesus had to die because he had to: a) be raised and b) set us an example of what God wanted from his discilples. In his resurrection we have evidence that Jesus conquered death and the sin and power of evil which killed him. Jesus death and resurrection ontologically changed creation (Don't think temporally, think John 1).
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm sure you're fed up of hearing me say this by now, but Christ's death and resurrection, it seems to me, is about fixing the consequences of sin, our ontological slavery to the decay of the law of sin and death. Did Christ need to die for us to be forgiven? No! Did He have to die in order that we could have eternal life? An emphatic yes!

You only picked up on half my sentence - I was trying to use a shorthand for 'any objective view of the atonement'. My point was that I think Christ's death was objectively necessary (which you seem to agree with). We return, I fear, to my question about CV as being a 'play which we watch but can't join in', IMHO. If we claim that Christ's death and resurrection was objectively necessary then I don't see what 'cash value' it has for those who do not believe that it was objectively necessary. I realise that the context is different but I do take seriously the warning from Hebrews 10: 29 - "How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?"


quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
What I’d like to know is whether you are saying that there is no mercy or grace in God apart from the temporal act of crucifixion? It sounds to me as if you are saying that the crucifixion was God’s one-time act of grace and mercy, never to be repeated? Whereas to me, the crucifixion arises from the character of God. Do you disagree that ‘God’s nature is always and everywhere to have mercy?’ (Book of Common Prayer)

I agree that God's nature is always to have mercy, but that his ultimate expression of mercy is in the work of his Son. If we reject the ultimate expression of his mercy then we reject all his mercy. I do not view the death and resurrection of Christ as merely a temporal event, but as the defining point of history - Ephesians 1 encourages me to view all of God's dealings with humanity through the prism of Christ... and Ephesians 1 focuses particularly on what Christ's death and resurrection achieved.


quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I hope we’ve established a good enough relationship for me to say that that sounds to me like a shrug of the shoulder which sounds pretty cold. My original question was ‘Does God weep?’ and the answer seems to be *shoulder shrug* ‘What for?’

Because compassion is important? Or maybe not?

You misunderstood me. I was not removing the fact of God's tears for humanity. I do believe his heart breaks for us. However, as we engage in anthropomorphism, I was distinguishing between tears of helplessness and tears of compassion.


quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
It’s possible to try to incorporate grace and mercy as feelings rather than as a legal act (crucifixion) into our theories of atonement and of God. It’s a struggle and a conundrum balancing mercy and grace and justice. But PSA seems pretty eager to make sure that justice is what is achieved and it says that in it’s opening gambit: ‘God must be just, so solve the problem of atonement for justice.’ Maybe I’m doing the same with grace and mercy but, to my mind, I try to incorporate a justice that actually seems meaningful whereas I see PSA having a dry, cerebral, legalistic view of grace and mercy.

I know you disagree but I think most of this comes down to rhetoric. As our discussion over God weeping demonstrates there are aspects of God's character that we are keen to keep and emphasise. It often comes across as if we only want one without the other, but (IME) that is a perception and not a reality.
 
Posted by universalist (# 10318) on :
 
For many, the idea of "blood atonement" no longer works. It is the position that maintains that God cannot forgive sin without the shedding of blood. This is not a new idea; for many pagan religions have maintained the same stance.

To look at the possible other meanings of the Cross of Christ:

God forgives sin simply because it is in His nature to do so. And yet we are left with the fact of sin and all its ugly ramifications as we hurt and destroy one another.
On the Cross, Jesus shows that He does not merely intellectualize about sin and redemption, but enters our story by entering into His own on the Cross. In a gospel of "attraction" rather than "promotion", God puts his money where his mouth is. He sets the example that we all will eventually follow. To gain God, to love and enjoy Him forever, we too must "die to self" that our new, resurrected lives may live in loving relationship with Him, forever. The Cross is God's ultimate example for us--given without engendering shame and guilt; but rather, love.

Therefore, St. Paul said, "I die daily." In Paul's example we see what we as Christians should do: Lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters in daily sacrifice. By doing so, we automatically begin to live in loving relationship with God.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
An illustration I've heard used to explain why the shedding of blood and sin are so closely related in the economy of salvation goes like this:
That is PSA in all its bloody glory and I'm not ashamed to believe it.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:

Originally posted by Universalist:
On the Cross, Jesus shows that He does not merely intellectualize about sin and redemption, but enters our story by entering into His own on the Cross. In a gospel of "attraction" rather than "promotion", God puts his money where his mouth is. He sets the example that we all will eventually follow.

Nicely put, Universalist. I agree-I think I was trying to get at something similar with my post about the rules of the game.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
That is PSA in all its bloody glory and I'm not ashamed to believe it.

The violence-loving people are man enough to face the blood so, having accepted PSA, all the violence-loving people are declared to be on the way to heaven.

The wimpy namby-pamby girlies who are horrified by a God who would spew his Son's blood everywhere go to hell because in their arrogance they won't acknowledge the seriousness of their sin.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S: I agree that God's nature is always to have mercy, but that his ultimate expression of mercy is in the work of his Son. If we reject the ultimate expression of his mercy then we reject all his mercy. I do not view the death and resurrection of Christ as merely a temporal event, but as the defining point of history - Ephesians 1 encourages me to view all of God's dealings with humanity through the prism of Christ... and Ephesians 1 focuses particularly on what Christ's death and resurrection achieved.
I’m totally confused by this. Do you think I disagree with the above statement? Or are you saying that to disagree with PSA is to reject the ultimate expression of God’s mercy?

I still do not understand if you think the Christ event was the one and only time that God expresses mercy? I’m going to assume the answer is no, you do not think it’s the one and only time God expresses his mercy. If you object to my understanding, you can set me straight.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S: I know you disagree but I think most of this comes down to rhetoric. As our discussion over God weeping demonstrates there are aspects of God's character that we are keen to keep and emphasise. It often comes across as if we only want one without the other, but (IME) that is a perception and not a reality.
I do disagree that it’s only about rhetoric. Forgive me, but I think you’re being naïve. You, on the other hand, could say that my perceptions are exaggerated because I’ve been hurt. I still think that there are people out there who are PSA-only. I think they are pastors of churches who are writing blogs and pronouncing biblical anathemas on people who are not PSA-only. I think they are scholars who are writing books suggesting that those who don’t believe in PSA are, at the very best, leading others astray and at the worst possibly damned. And I think they are people in churches I’ve attended who believe this. I think they believe in God’s mercy and grace, but only for the elect.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by universalist:
On the Cross, Jesus shows that He does not merely intellectualize about sin and redemption, but enters our story by entering into His own on the Cross. In a gospel of "attraction" rather than "promotion", God puts his money where his mouth is. He sets the example that we all will eventually follow. To gain God, to love and enjoy Him forever, we too must "die to self" that our new, resurrected lives may live in loving relationship with Him, forever. The Cross is God's ultimate example for us--given without engendering shame and guilt; but rather, love.

The problem with this is it leaves me wondering how it works for me. I know Jesus conquered death for himself, because he rose again. What assurance do I have that I can follow the same way? (I've not met many other people who came back from the dead. [Biased] )
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I still think that there are people out there who are PSA-only. I think they are pastors of churches who are writing blogs and pronouncing biblical anathemas on people who are not PSA-only. I think they are scholars who are writing books suggesting that those who don’t believe in PSA are, at the very best, leading others astray and at the worst possibly damned. And I think they are people in churches I’ve attended who believe this. I think they believe in God’s mercy and grace, but only for the elect.

I'm sure there are people 'out there' just like that. I know that there are people writing books and preaching that PSA is a monstrous distortion of God and is a direct cause of evil. To point out either side doesn't help us get anywhere though, does it?
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
An illustration I've heard used to explain why the shedding of blood and sin are so closely related in the economy of salvation goes like this:
That is PSA in all its bloody glory and I'm not ashamed to believe it.
A concern I have about that is that it sides God with the disciples who ran away instead of the ones who stayed at the cross.

If God can't or won't see past the noxiousness of sin to find his own broken Son in the midst of it, I can absolutely believe that Seeker's dad is screwed. As is mine. As am I.

That's not the God I stand behind. Only time will sort us out, I guess.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by universalist:
On the Cross, Jesus shows that He does not merely intellectualize about sin and redemption, but enters our story by entering into His own on the Cross. In a gospel of "attraction" rather than "promotion", God puts his money where his mouth is. He sets the example that we all will eventually follow. To gain God, to love and enjoy Him forever, we too must "die to self" that our new, resurrected lives may live in loving relationship with Him, forever. The Cross is God's ultimate example for us--given without engendering shame and guilt; but rather, love.

The problem with this is it leaves me wondering how it works for me. I know Jesus conquered death for himself, because he rose again. What assurance do I have that I can follow the same way? (I've not met many other people who came back from the dead. [Biased] )
Ooh! I know this one! I have prooftext!
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I still think that there are people out there who are PSA-only. I think they are pastors of churches who are writing blogs and pronouncing biblical anathemas on people who are not PSA-only. I think they are scholars who are writing books suggesting that those who don’t believe in PSA are, at the very best, leading others astray and at the worst possibly damned. And I think they are people in churches I’ve attended who believe this. I think they believe in God’s mercy and grace, but only for the elect.

I'm sure there are people 'out there' just like that. I know that there are people writing books and preaching that PSA is a monstrous distortion of God and is a direct cause of evil. To point out either side doesn't help us get anywhere though, does it?
Actually, it helps me an awful lot if people put their cards on the table and say 'Yes, there are people who are de-churching those who don't agree with them.' Rather than saying that this is The One True Way Of Believing and everyone else is damned.

To me, it helps start a conversation. Because I can't have a conversation with someone who denies that there is any other way to think but their own.

I'm fairly certain that you'll think this self-justification and defensiveness, but I don't actually see - as random examples - Joel B. Green or Stephen Sykes or even Steve Chalke for that matter proclaiming that those who believe in PSA are not Christians and are damned. To me, that is a huge, huge, huge difference. Maybe people are so genuinely convinced that those of us who have problems with PSA really aren't Christians and that we really don't love the Lord that they don't think it's inflammatory to de-church us. That, to me, is a huge difference between the way the two sides behave.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I don't actually see - as random examples - Joel B. Green or Stephen Sykes or even Steve Chalke for that matter proclaiming that those who believe in PSA are not Christians and are damned. To me, that is a huge, huge, huge difference. Maybe people are so genuinely convinced that those of us who have problems with PSA really aren't Christians and that we really don't love the Lord that they don't think it's inflammatory to de-church us. That, to me, is a huge difference between the way the two sides behave.

But that is the point - I don't think there is a difference.

Bearing in mind the theological framework that both 'camps' have I don't see what difference there is between saying someone's atonement view is sub-Christian or non-Christian. I am well aware of the semantics but in practice I think both sides feel that the other side has made the worst possible accusation... that is what they 'hear' being hurled at them.

It comes across to me as if we can make any kind of accusation at all (e.g. God as cosmic child abuser) but as long as we don't question someone's salvation it is okay. Who made up that rule? The language is different but I think both sides level the worst possible accusations at each other.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Which is worse...

To accuse God of being a cosmic child abuser, or to accuse a disagreeing Christian of heresy or apostasy?

I'm inclined to say the latter. I've seen relationships get absolutely wrecked by this kind of petty theological disagreement.

And FWIW, I've never seen anyone who didn't believe in PSA declare anyone to be a "Bad Christian" for believing in PSA. I don't think the CV crowd are going for theological exclusivity.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Jonny S

As far as I can see the difference is between attacking the person (ad hominem) and attacking a belief. I thought it was commonly accepted that ad hominem attacks were considered the more extreme.

Luigi
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Jonny S

As far as I can see the difference is between attacking the person (ad hominem) and attacking a belief. I thought it was commonly accepted that ad hominem attacks were considered the more extreme.

Luigi

[Confused] That's exactly my point. When you take into account the theological framework of both positions then both sides come across as an ad hominem attack even if they think they are attacking beliefs.

Think about it:

1. 'PSA = cosmic child abuse':Considering the argument is that PSA is encouraging a violent reaction to wrong doing, this argument reads as ... you = a child abuser.

2. 'Non PSA = not a genuine Christian': Feels as if it a personal attack, but is not necessarily any different from 'your Islamic beliefs are incompatible with Christianity'.

I'm not saying that the above two options fully represent the arguments, they are just examples.

Talk of 'you are not allowed to say that someone isn't a Christian' is just a trick some folk use to make arguments about belief sound like ad hominem arguments.

BTW I'd like to remind you that I have never said that CVers etc. are not Christians. [Big Grin]

[ 24. June 2007, 21:39: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
That is PSA in all its bloody glory and I'm not ashamed to believe it.

The violence-loving people are man enough to face the blood so, having accepted PSA, all the violence-loving people are declared to be on the way to heaven.
I think that's a very unfair assessement of my point of view. In fact it seems to be a intentionally vitriolic misinterpretation of my point of view. Yes, the crucifixion was violent and it was also the will of the Father that it should happen. However, to say that people who believe in PSA are violence-loving is, I think, unfair.

quote:
The wimpy namby-pamby girlies who are horrified by a God who would spew his Son's blood everywhere go to hell because in their arrogance they won't acknowledge the seriousness of their sin.
Again, I feel that you're unfairly putting words in my mouth. Yes, I do think that PSA is a very robust model of the atonement that engages with - and explains - the cross in the light of God's wrath against sin (not just sins) in a way that is faithful to scripture. However, I have not made any personal comments that even approach what you've just said.

Would you, if at all possible, please refrain from assigning opinions to me that I haven't expressed? So far this thread has been an enjoyable exchange of theological opinion, but the tone of your posts is getting a bit shrill. Can we keep this theological please?

[ 24. June 2007, 21:54: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
1. 'PSA = cosmic child abuse':Considering the argument is that PSA is encouraging a violent reaction to wrong doing, this argument reads as ... you = a child abuser.

[Confused]

This accusation was made along the lines of 'This theory, stated in that way, makes God look like a child abuser, so therefore I believe the theory is wrong.'

I don't think Chalke even accused God of being a child abuser, but let's say, for argument's sake that he did, I certainly don't think that Chalke or anyone else thinks that people who believe in PSA are child abusers. How could 'Mr. G' requiring the death of his son make you a child abuser?

For the record, I don't think that anyone who believes in PSA approves of child abuse nor do I much less think that they are child abusers. I do, however, get sick of hearing all the 'I'm so strong I can deal with blood and guts and you can't' doggy-do-do.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Would you, if at all possible, please refrain from assigning opinions to me that I haven't expressed? So far this thread has been an enjoyable exchange of theological opinion, but the tone of your posts is getting a bit shrill. Can we keep this theological please?

I apologise.

It did look like one big gauntlet throw.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
I've never seen anyone harmed by non-PSA theology. I wish I could say the same for PSA theology.

Screaming at God is a totally different affair than screaming at people.

And as a Christian who has been told, many times, that he's "not a proper Christian for not toeing the line according to one interpretation of scriptures ABC/XYZ," I can assure you it stings.

[ETA the removal of some unnecessary invective]

[ 24. June 2007, 22:03: Message edited by: mirrizin ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
For the record, I don't think that anyone who believes in PSA approves of child abuse nor do I much less think that they are child abusers. I do, however, get sick of hearing all the 'I'm so strong I can deal with blood and guts and you can't' doggy-do-do.

Absolutely. Please try and empathise with us that supporters of PSA might also tire of hearing the mirror image of such comments. Few people mean their arguments to come across as ad hominem, but they often do.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
An illustration I've heard used to explain why the shedding of blood and sin are so closely related in the economy of salvation goes like this:
  • The sight of violently shed blood for most people is a profoundly disturbing and nauseating experience. There is something ghastly and repulsive about the spectacle of spilt blood. Anyone who has seen Kill it. Cook it. Eat it would most likely agree with this assertion.
  • The sight of human sinfulness for God is a profoundly nauseating and disturbing experience. There is something ghastly and repulsive about the spectacle of human depravity. Anyone who has any insight into the depravity of which humanity is capable would most likely agree with this assertion.
  • The shed blood of Christ at the crucifixion is therefore, at least in part, a visual demonstration - an acted parable if you wish - of how revolting, how utterly nauseating, sin is to God. The sin of the world is so nauseating that its presence in Christ (a presence that Christ endured willingly) made him utterly revolting in the sight of Almighty God. So much so that he was utterly forsaken until the death of sin was acheived in the death of Christ.
That is PSA in all its bloody glory and I'm not ashamed to believe it.
A concern I have about that is that it sides God with the disciples who ran away instead of the ones who stayed at the cross.
Not really. The disciples ran away because they didn't want to die for Jesus; God turned away because, in his Son, he wanted to die for us.

quote:
If God can't or won't see past the noxiousness of sin to find his own broken Son in the midst of it, I can absolutely believe that Seeker's dad is screwed. As is mine. As am I.
Of course God can see past sin, he wouldn't have died, in Christ, to reconcile the world to himself if couldn't see something beyond it. Scripture says that Jesus endured the cross because of the joy that he saw beyond it. That joy was you and me in holiness, satisfied in God, free from sin and God's wrath against sin.

[ 24. June 2007, 22:16: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
For the record, I don't think that anyone who believes in PSA approves of child abuse nor do I much less think that they are child abusers. I do, however, get sick of hearing all the 'I'm so strong I can deal with blood and guts and you can't' doggy-do-do.

Absolutely. Please try and empathise with us that supporters of PSA might also tire of hearing the mirror image of such comments. Few people mean their arguments to come across as ad hominem, but they often do.
At this point, I've reached the point I often reach which is thinking that these sorts of conversations are futile. The person who believes that they can be utterly certain that the other person is damned can only have integrity by telling the other person so. This, to me, is different from 'unintentional ad hominem'.

Fifty years' experience tells me that, at the end of the day, the result is simply frustration and lots of hurt.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
1. 'PSA = cosmic child abuse':Considering the argument is that PSA is encouraging a violent reaction to wrong doing, this argument reads as ... you = a child abuser.

This accusation was made along the lines of 'This theory, stated in that way, makes God look like a child abuser, so therefore I believe the theory is wrong.'
I agree, that is precisely why Steve Chalke rejects PSA. However, I think his objection is wrong for a number of reasons. Firstly, because it fails to recognise the self-substitutionary nature of what happened in Christ's sacrifice on the cross. In other words, as an objection, it is sub-Trinitarian, because it requires Jesus to be an unwilling victim. Secondly, it is faulty because it requires a falsely 'child-like' conception of Christ as that unwilling child. Conversely, PSA understands the cross to be an eternally mutual decision - made by co-equal persons - to embark on a specific pre-planned self-sacrificial act.

quote:
I don't think Chalke even accused God of being a child abuser, but let's say, for argument's sake that he did, I certainly don't think that Chalke or anyone else thinks that people who believe in PSA are child abusers.
I agree; the problem is that Chalke, as I've said, doesn't understand the immense significance of the Trinity in penal substitutionary atonement. His choice of metaphor, however, does contain the rhetorical suggestion that people who hold to PSA are intellectually complicit in a model of the atonement that approves of cosmic child-abuse. People who hold to PSA are not 'comfortable' with idea that God is a cosmic child abuser; we think it is a grotesque distortion of the truth of that particular doctrine.

quote:
How could 'Mr. G' requiring the death of his son make you a child abuser?
Again, the problem here is that you accuse God of requiring the death of his Son; he doesn't require the death of his Son. Salvation requires the death of death (sin) and God acheives the death of death in the death of his Son. Sin needed to die because death is the penalty for sin. Death needed to die; Christ volunteered for the mission. Christ became sin for us.

[ 24. June 2007, 22:51: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Jolly Jape said:
quote:
His wrath He reserves, I believe, for the sin itself, and what it does, not to Him, for sin cannot affect Him, but to us. This seems, to me, to make for relational, rather than anti-relational thinking.
Are you really saying that God does not feel grief and anger at our sinfulness? Not just our sins, but the condition of heart out of which that sin emerges? Or are you using the word 'affect' in a different way than I understand it? Are you saying that sin and sins do not influence the way God feels? Do you really mean that God is not affected by sin? I know you can't be saying that because you also said this:
quote:
Of course, our sins grieve Him. Of course, our faithful obedience makes Him rejoice. But His disposition towards us does not change.
OK. So, you're saying that God's disposition (presumably love) does not change according to our sinfulness and our degree of actual sin. I agree, at least partially. However, I disagree with you if you're suggesting that its is only the works (either good or bad) with which God is pleased: what kind of Father is pleased with his child's work without being pleased who his child is? Likewise, what kind of father is wounded by his child's evil, without being wounded by who the child has become?

I do not think it is possible to make such a strict ontological separation between a person and their actions. A person who sins is a sinner: we are all sinners who sin. If it were we would not need to be saved from our sin. Also, I think that your model of the atonement focusses rather too heavily on sins, and not enough upon sin as a condition of the soul.

I also disagree with the notion that God cannot love a creature and be angry with that creature at the same time. I also disagree with the notion that God's love trumps his justice to the degree that he will impeach himself by offering the divine equivalent of indulgences. Is it not possible that God's judgement always causes him to suffer? Either on the cross in his Son, in his wrath at judgement? I don't think that PSA ever says that God enjoys the dispensation of his wrath; it simply asserts that God's wrath is coming.

Obviously, I didn't make a very good job of explaining my position [Hot and Hormonal]

First, my statement that God is not affected by our sins. What I should probably have written was "God's attitude to us is not changed by our sins." The subtext to this was that I have often heard it said that "God cannot (apart from Christ) look upon you or draw near to you because of your sins/sinful nature". This seems to me completely wrong. If you mean (if we can talk of such a thing) that God's emotional state can be responsive to our behaviour, good or bad, then I suppose that is fair enough. I don't accept, however, that his fundamental disposition towards us is subject to such change.

I don't know whether or not you are a father yourself, Numpty. If you are, I suspect that you are occasionaly disappointed, even dismayed, at your children. On other occasions, you will, no doubt, feel so proud of them that you could burst. But whether they have let you down or done you proud, your disposition towards them will not change. You will still love them. You may be angry at what they do, but will you really be angry at them ? Well, possibly, we none of us are perfect. But it seems to me that anger directed at the child is not about them, but about us. It's the parent saying "why have you done this to me ! Why have you made me so unhappy". Even when we have to discipline our children (as I accept we have to do, just as I accept that God has to do), it should surely be to reflect their needs, not ours.

With regard to whether or not our works "condition" how God feels about us, I would say, again, that God's disposition towards us (you are right in saying that I regard that as love) is unaltered according to whether the things we do please or displease Him. That He feels disappointed with us to a greater or lesser extent I can accept. I have felt the same towards my own children from time to time. But anger is something else. Every time I feel anger at them (as people) I know it's time to hit my knees and repent, because I know that comes from me, from the flesh, not from my union with Christ. To be wounded by one's child is one thing, to respond to that wounding with anger is quite another.

In actual fact, though "hate the sin, love the sinner" is a dreadful cliche, there is a degree of truth in it, at least where God is concerned. The problem is that, when we apply it to ourselves, we don't have His discernment and we end up in hating both.

With regard to my model of the atonement as focussing too much on sins, I find that an extraordinary claim, as I don't really see the atonement as being about sin s at all, but rather about our sinful nature. Sins are dealt with by forgiveness; the ontological change necessary to transform our sinful nature, that is the work of the atonement. Either I haven't understoiod you here, or you haven't understood me.

With respect to whether God's justice causes Him to suffer, and whether that suffering has its apotheosis on the cross, I would say that, yes, it does. However, I suspect that the mechanism that I see at work in this is somewhat different to the mechanism that you see.

To me, God's justice consists of restoring the effects of sin. This is a costly process, and the cost is paid by God in Christ. But it isn't paid to God, and it has nothing to do with sin being punished, or even with judgement, in the sense in which you (I assume) mean the word.

God's judgement on sin is that its power is broken by the forgiveness and obedience of Jesus even to death on the cross. So Yes, sin is judged on the cross, or rather, the cross is the occasion for the announcement of the judgement that God has always had on sin (if you see what I mean). His chosen way of dealing with sin is revealed, rather than acheived, by the cross. But the real work of the cross is in, as Freddy put it, "fixing things", the institution of a new creation where all the offence, all the hurt, all the damage of sin can be unmade. And, as far as humanity is concerned, chief amongst those effects is the decay and bondage which it has wrought over us, the cancer of our slavery to the death principle, which would, unhealed, lead to our destruction. It is this restorative justice, where sin is undone rather than punished, which the cross reveals in Romans 3:25. It is perfectly compatible, ISTM with both love and holiness, and seems, to me, nothing like indulgences.

quote:
The sin of the world is so nauseating that its presence in Christ (a presence that Christ endured willingly) made him utterly revolting in the sight of Almighty God. So much so that he was utterly forsaken until the death of sin was acheived in the death of Christ.

I profoundly disagree with this argument that, in any sense, God turns away from Christ (and, by implication us) because of sin. It seems to me a thinking drawn from a popular theology perhaps best exemplified by Stuart Townsend's songs, rather than from the Scriptures. Where there is sin, there is Christ suffering with us in the midst of it. Of course, Christ shared our existential isolation, but it wasn't because God turned away from Him; far from it!
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
the problem is that Chalke, as I've said, doesn't understand the immense significance of the Trinity in penal substitutionary atonement. His choice of metaphor, however, does contain the rhetorical suggestion that people who hold to PSA are intellectually complicit in a model of the atonement that approves of cosmic child-abuse. People who hold to PSA are not 'comfortable' with idea that God is a cosmic child abuser; we think it is a grotesque distortion of the truth of that particular doctrine.
I don't like PSA. I do like Steve Chalke. I do think PSA is dangerous (though primarily because it gives a false image of God, rather than because it makes people violent, something that in nearly forty years as a Christian I have failed to find convincing specific (or even any)evidence for).*

I don't think the image was a wise one to choose.

Go figure.

*Some supporters of PSA are strident, aggressive and verbally violent, some opponents of PSA match them stripe for stripe.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Again, the problem here is that you accuse God of requiring the death of his Son; he doesn't require the death of his Son. Salvation requires the death of death (sin) and God acheives the death of death in the death of his Son. Sin needed to die because death is the penalty for sin. Death needed to die; Christ volunteered for the mission. Christ became sin for us.
I could almost, (and I mean very, very nearly) sign up to that expression of your thought. Replace the word "penalty" with "consequence", and amplify on the last sentence, and I'd be right there!
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Jolly Jape said:
quote:
I don't know whether or not you are a father yourself, Numpty. If you are, I suspect that you are occasionaly disappointed, even dismayed, at your children. On other occasions, you will, no doubt, feel so proud of them that you could burst. But whether they have let you down or done you proud, your disposition towards them will not change. You will still love them.
Yes, I will still love them.

quote:
You may be angry at what they do, but will you really be angry at them?
Think about the same argument the other way around for a moment.

According to your way of thinking, if my son does something that pleases me, it's OK for me to take pleasure in what he has done, but it's not OK to take pleasure in the person from whom that deed has proceeded.

Am I really to believe that the closest connection between he and me are his deeds? Do his deeds stand alone from his personhood? No. I take pleasure in who he is: I rejoice in the heart out of which those deeds have proceeded, not the deeds themselves.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Again, the problem here is that you accuse God of requiring the death of his Son; he doesn't require the death of his Son. Salvation requires the death of death (sin) and God acheives the death of death in the death of his Son. Sin needed to die because death is the penalty for sin. Death needed to die; Christ volunteered for the mission. Christ became sin for us.
I could almost, (and I mean very, very nearly) sign up to that expression of your thought. Replace the word "penalty" with "consequence", and amplify on the last sentence, and I'd be right there!
Can we compromise and settle for 'payment' or 'wages'? [Biased]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
According to your way of thinking, if my son does something that pleases me, it's OK for me to take pleasure in what he has done, but it's not OK to take pleasure in the person from whom that deed has proceeded.
I take pleasure in my sons because of who they are, not what they do. I rejoice in their triumphs, and and sad at their failures. Angry with them in the way PSA tells us God is angry with us? Never.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Can we compromise and settle for 'payment' or 'wages'?

You're on, as long as we don't think too deeply about who pays those wages [Biased]

Seriously, I don't have that much problem with transactional language as a metaphor for the atonement. I accept that it is biblical. I just think we take it too far, beyond the biblical mandate, if we start speculating on who are the parties to that transaction, and on the nature of the currency exchanged.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
According to your way of thinking, if my son does something that pleases me, it's OK for me to take pleasure in what he has done, but it's not OK to take pleasure in the person from whom that deed has proceeded.

Am I really to believe that the closest connection between he and me are his deeds? Do his deeds stand alone from his personhood? No. I take pleasure in who he is: I rejoice in the heart out of which those deeds have proceeded, not the deeds themselves.

Maybe it's just how we define the concept of anger, but I think that you haven't quite grasped my point. The fact is that I am totally committed to my children for who they are . This relational position is unchanged whether they please me or disappoint me. To me, to be wrathful at them would be a change in that relational position, and thus not a good thing! That really would be to make my love conditional on their behaviour. The concept of anything they do being sufficient for me to turn my back on them, which, when applied to the God/humankind relationship is what I think is a foundational basis of PSA, is utterly foreign to my thinking as a Father. There is a huge difference between being displeased and being angry. The one is about wanting the best for them, the other about my feelings, my pride, my inadequacy.

In other words, what Karl said.

[ 25. June 2007, 09:24: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[QUOTE] The fact is that I am totally committed to my children for who they are . This relational position is unchanged whether they please me or disappoint me. To me, to be wrathful at them would be a change in that relational position, and thus not a good thing! That really would be to make my love conditional on their behaviour. The concept of anything they do being sufficient for me to turn my back on them, which, when applied to the God/humankind relationship is what I think is a foundational basis of PSA, is utterly foreign to my thinking as a Father. There is a huge difference between being displeased and being angry. The one is about wanting the best for them, the other about my feelings, my pride, my inadequacy.

I'm struggling to understand how this view of relationship works out in practice. Are you saying that there is nothing your children can do to harm their relationship with you? Because you only have control over your side of the relationship! A relationship is a two-way dynamic, if it has broken down then whether the 'innocent' party is angry or sad (or both) won't restore the relationship.

I agree with your rejection of complete freewill JJ. God has to take the initiative and 'do' something. Perhaps if we replace words like 'angry' and 'sad' with something like 'the will to impose his moral authority on us' then maybe we might be getting somewhere?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
I'm struggling to understand how this view of relationship works out in practice. Are you saying that there is nothing your children can do to harm their relationship with you? Because you only have control over your side of the relationship! A relationship is a two-way dynamic, if it has broken down then whether the 'innocent' party is angry or sad (or both) won't restore the relationship.
Actually, John, I was very specific in saying that nothing they can do can harm my relationship with them. And I think that, by the grace of God, that is true. Of course, they can harm their relationship with me, because relationships, as you point out, are not of necessity reciprocal. And this seems to me an exact parallel of our relationship with God. Nothing we can do can separate us from the love of God, and yet our sins may make a separation between us and God. The point is that the barrier, the separation, is only on our side, not God's. And, of course, it is the "innocent party" who instigates the reconciliation. Perhaps the word relationship is too loaded, and I should go back to my previous use of "disposition", which seems a little too cold, but doesn't have the same reciprocal overtones as relationship.

quote:
I agree with your rejection of complete freewill JJ. God has to take the initiative and 'do' something. Perhaps if we replace words like 'angry' and 'sad' with something like 'the will to impose his moral authority on us' then maybe we might be getting somewhere?
I think I'd rather stick with angry and sad, as at least they are concepts I understand. I think that "the will to impose His moral authority on us" to me seems to make God nearer to a dictator than a Father. And, of course, I still don't think that anger, as I understand it, is a good way of describing how God feels when He is disappointed in us (to use probably unjustifiable anthropomorphic terminology).
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I agree, that is precisely why Steve Chalke rejects PSA. However, I think his objection is wrong for a number of reasons. Firstly, because it fails to recognise the self-substitutionary nature of what happened in Christ's sacrifice on the cross. In other words, as an objection, it is sub-Trinitarian, because it requires Jesus to be an unwilling victim. Secondly, it is faulty because it requires a falsely 'child-like' conception of Christ as that unwilling child. Conversely, PSA understands the cross to be an eternally mutual decision - made by co-equal persons - to embark on a specific pre-planned self-sacrificial act.

I really can't cope with double-quotations for some reason; I have code-dsylexia or something. So I've not included my remark which I wish to refer to first. My remark was that Steve Chalke was refering to his criticism of a theory rather than to the people who hold that theory.

Secondly, I read the book. I honestly don't think he was attacking academic PSA, although I appreciate that my perception is a matter of perspective. I think he was showing why people who have been put off by this kind of Sunday-school presentation of PSA and told that they aren't Christians if they don't accept it, can still be part of the Christian church.

Had such a book been available to me twenty years ago - simply opening up the possibility that I could be a Christian again - it might very well have got me back into the Christian church a lot earlier, so the book really resonated with me. It's so very clearly not an academic book.

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
People who hold to PSA are not 'comfortable' with idea that God is a cosmic child abuser; we think it is a grotesque distortion of the truth of that particular doctrine.

I never once thought that people who hold to PSA were comfortable with that metaphor.

What I emphatically do think is that the way PSA gets presented in churches between lay people at housegroups, Sunday School etc. is 'Jesus had to die because the Father required a penalty for your sin because He is just' (I can call to mind several specific incidents of being told this.) And I would say that the the logical conclusion of that statement is to make the Father look unable to be as merciful as some human beings are. I'll agree that 'cosmic child abuser' is inflammatory.

But it does actually reflect the level of the horror that I personally feel at the statement 'Jesus had to die because the Father required a penalty for your sin because He is just'.

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Again, the problem here is that you accuse God of requiring the death of his Son; he doesn't require the death of his Son Salvation requires the death of death (sin) and God acheives the death of death in the death of his Son. Sin needed to die because death is the penalty for sin. Death needed to die; Christ volunteered for the mission. Christ became sin for us.

Forgive me, but I think that Gandhi actually 'got' Jesus' teachings. He understood that Jesus taught us that we defeat sin by refusing to sin. That we make peace by being peaceable and refusing to be violent. What I find supremely inspiring about the story of Jesus is that he knowingly went to the cross when he could have called down legions of angels and destroyed Israel's enemies. He did this because he trusted in resurrection.

PSA seems to want to turn the whole Jesus story into one where peace has been achieved by the use of violence and the shedding of blood - the great myth that human beings are so willing to believe. 'If I only kill my enemies, there will be peace in the land.' You don't defeat sin by comitting a sin; you defeat sin by ceasing to sin.

To 'violently destroy sin' is, IMO, not possible. The only way to 'destroy sin' is to refuse to do it - pacific resistence.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[QUOTE]Actually, John, I was very specific in saying that nothing they can do can harm my relationship with them. And I think that, by the grace of God, that is true. Of course, they can harm their relationship with me, because relationships, as you point out, are not of necessity reciprocal. And this seems to me an exact parallel of our relationship with God. Nothing we can do can separate us from the love of God, and yet our sins may make a separation between us and God. The point is that the barrier, the separation, is only on our side, not God's. And, of course, it is the "innocent party" who instigates the reconciliation. Perhaps the word relationship is too loaded, and I should go back to my previous use of "disposition", which seems a little too cold, but doesn't have the same reciprocal overtones as relationship.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough - I was trying to say that (IMO) it is impossible to dissect a relationship into 'my relationship to you' and 'your relationship to me'. To use an analogy it is like my daughter building a wall between her and myself and then me claiming that the wall is only on her side!

Hence I can understand your unease at 'dictator like' language but I still think salvation has to involve some direct intervention by God.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Numpty can reply to your questions but I'd like to clarify something:

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
My remark was that Steve Chalke was refering to his criticism of a theory rather than to the people who hold that theory.

I think the difference is merely semantics. I don't think Steve Chalke's statements make him a non-Christian but I think you are making a false distinction between attacking a theory and attacking a person.

Bearing in mind that con-evos define Christians doctrinally then to deviate from their doctrine is to cast yourself outside of the Christian faith (according to them). IMHO both sides are attacking what the other side believes and on both sides it too often collapses into ad hominem arguments.

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Secondly, I read the book. I honestly don't think he was attacking academic PSA, although I appreciate that my perception is a matter of perspective. I think he was showing why people who have been put off by this kind of Sunday-school presentation of PSA and told that they aren't Christians if they don't accept it, can still be part of the Christian church.

I've read the book too. It is good in parts (at a popularist level) and the part on PSA is very small in it. You are right, Steve is no theologian, but precisely for that reason he should be more circumspect about what he puts in print. He has had plenty of time and opportunity to clarify in the way you suggest and had pointedly refused to do so.

Are you still so certain that the fight is entirely of the con-evos making?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough - I was trying to say that (IMO) it is impossible to dissect a relationship into 'my relationship to you' and 'your relationship to me'. To use an analogy it is like my daughter building a wall between her and myself and then me claiming that the wall is only on her side!

But that's a problem with using a physical analogy. In inter-personal relationships, it is very possible, even normal, that breakdowns are non-reciprocal.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
To be honest, the ruckus over the "cosmic child abuse" quote reminds me of nothing so much as the hoo-hah over David Jenkins' infamous "conjouring trick with bones" Easter message. For those of you who can't remember it, the then Bishop of Durham observed that, for certain groups, the resurrection seemed to be not about encountering the risen Christ, but accounting for the absense of bones in the tomb. His complaint was, thus, that some people reduced the resurrection to a "conjouring trick with bones". Of course, the headlines had "David Jenkins says the resurrection is just a conjouring trick with bones". It was, of course, the polar opposite of what he had really said.

Now the said DJ had somewhat of a track record in using pithy, provocative language, and I would be surprised if he hadn't some idea that there would be a certain amount of controversy. Nevertheless, I do think we should read what people actually say, rather than what we hear them saying. I think, regrettably, this shooting from the hip is not confined to the rabid right or the loony left. I very much fear that NT Wright's condemnation of the Jeffrey John lenten talk, issued before he had actually read or heard it, falls into much the same category.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
OK, here's the revised edition of a previous statement:

quote:
The problem here is that you accuse God of requiring the death of his Son; he doesn't require the death of his Son. Salvation from sin requires the death of death and God achieves the death of death in the death of his Son. Sin needed to die because death is the wages for sin. In the presence of sin, death is alive; in the absence of sin death is dead. Death needed to die; Christ volunteered for the mission: the mission to kill death in and through his death. Christ became sin for us and, in dying on the cross, he accepted the wages earned by the sin that he had become.
It's a work in progress... [Smile]

Could it be that the wrath of God is simply God letting someone die? Or must the wrath of God be the act of God positively killing someone...?

[ 25. June 2007, 14:19: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
OK, here's the revised edition of a previous statement:

quote:
The problem here is that you accuse God of requiring the death of his Son; he doesn't require the death of his Son. Salvation from sin requires the death of death and God achieves the death of death in the death of his Son. Sin needed to die because death is the wages for sin. In the presence of sin, death is alive; in the absence of sin death is dead. Death needed to die; Christ volunteered for the mission: the mission to kill death in and through his death. Christ became sin for us and, in dying on the cross, he accepted the wages earned by the sin that he had become.
It's a work in progress... [Smile]

Could it be that the wrath of God is simply God letting someone die? Or must the wrath of God be the act of God positively killing someone...?

I could live with that, Numpty. Just don't think it is really PSA.

Perhaps I could clarify things a bit here. I do think we view things slightly differently. I think that we could come up with a form of words which wouldn't press either your hot buttons or mine. I'm not sure that's agreement, but I can live with differences. If I were sharing my faith with someone, and you were passing, I wouldn't hesitate to call you accross and include you in the discussion, because we have enough common ground to work around our differences (and because I know you'd have something worthwhile to say, and I need all the help I can get [Biased] .)
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
What I'm getting at is this: Christ is the agent of death's death, because Christ became the locus of our sin. The wages of sin is death; the death of sin effects eternal life. Therefore, Christ's death kills sin and gives birth to eternal life. I'm thinking of 1 Cor 15.56 here, where death is likened to a scorpion, perhaps hidden in a shoe. The sting of death is sin. In other words, the means by which death administers its poison is through the sting of sin. However, the way that Christ kills death is by willingly getting stung by sin thereby draining death of its poison.

This I think is Christus Victor.

However, is it not possible to also concieve of the Father watching the Son die and, while having the power to save him, chooses to let him die because he knows that the Son's death is draining the sting of death thereby killing something that he hates, namely death. Is it not also possible to see the Father rejoicing in the Son's sacrifice, being satisfied that what he hates (the sin) is dying; and anticipating the victory of raising the Son to life?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Nevertheless, I do think we should read what people actually say, rather than what we hear them saying. I think, regrettably, this shooting from the hip is not confined to the rabid right or the loony left. I very much fear that NT Wright's condemnation of the Jeffrey John lenten talk, issued before he had actually read or heard it, falls into much the same category.

Too True.

Although, having read Jeffrey John's lenten talk myself, I would hope that NT Wright's condemnation would have been even stronger when he had read it closely... but we've already 'done' that debate on another thread. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think the difference [Seeker963: between attacking a theory and a person] is merely semantics. I don't think Steve Chalke's statements make him a non-Christian but I think you are making a false distinction between attacking a theory and attacking a person.

Bearing in mind that con-evos define Christians doctrinally then to deviate from their doctrine is to cast yourself outside of the Christian faith (according to them). IMHO both sides are attacking what the other side believes and on both sides it too often collapses into ad hominem arguments.



Well, we disagree again, because I think there is a huge difference between attacking a theory and attacking a person.

I will agree with you that both sides are attacking a theory and that this can deteoriate into ad hominem on both sides.

I'm well aware that people who think that there is one correct theology and that they have it (I'll refrain from putting any labels on that) believe that to deviate from their doctrine is to cast oneself outside of the Christian faith. This is why I ultimately find discussions with such people to be impossible and painful.

You were talking about 'who made those rules' earlier. By definition, to be certain that one holds the only way to salvation is to be entitled to call into question the character of those who disagree in order to retain one's intellectual integrity. From my side that looks like 'I get to attack Seeker963's character, but she only gets to attack my ideas.' In my world of 'who made that rule', I know it to be an impossible game. Because 'the equation' is set up as: 'Solve for I am correct.'

I mean the above paragraph as a cold, intellectual analysis. I hope it does not come across as hurtful or ad hominem. I do not see you or Numpty as people who are doing that.

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
You are right, Steve is no theologian, but precisely for that reason he should be more circumspect about what he puts in print.

I would agree with that. I think it was a bad choice of words.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
He has had plenty of time and opportunity to clarify in the way you suggest and had pointedly refused to do so.

OK, fair point.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Are you still so certain that the fight is entirely of the con-evos making?

I think that my point is that the con evos are attacking the character of those who disagree with them. As, by definition, they would do since they genuinely believe they know that they have the only way to salvation. I also think that this is part of a broader agenda that is not just restricted to theories of atonement.

I read Joel Green's book ages ago, so I'd have to look at it again, but I don't actually remember him attacking anyone. I remember him as just putting forward a non-PSA theory of atonement. Maybe my perception is wrong. (I mention him because someone cited his book as being the book that 'started the debate' on the liberal side in the US; I can't remember if it was you or someone else.)
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:


However, is it not possible to also concieve of the Father watching the Son die and, while having the power to save him, chooses to let him die because he knows that the Son's death is draining the sting of death thereby killing something that he hates, namely death. Is it not also possible to see the Father rejoicing in the Son's sacrifice, being satisfied that what he hates (the sin) is dying; and anticipating the victory of raising the Son to life?

That, I'd be almost comfortable with, once I wrapped my brain around the more complicated emotions behind "rejoicing". It seems more within the character of God than what I've always understood people to be talking about when they advocate PSA, which, to use this analogy, seems to involve God tossing the scorpion at the Son in the first place.

Which, IMHO, really doesn't line up with Jesus' own words about
scorpions and the Father.

(PS to Numpty: Thanks for your response to my previous post. Still digesting it.)

[ 25. June 2007, 18:00: Message edited by: infinite_monkey ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Thanks Seeker. As usual you help me to see things from your POV - sometimes it feels like we are speaking a different language, and you help me to spot some of my many presuppositions.

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I think that my point is that the con evos are attacking the character of those who disagree with them. As, by definition, they would do since they genuinely believe they know that they have the only way to salvation. I also think that this is part of a broader agenda that is not just restricted to theories of atonement.

I read Joel Green's book ages ago, so I'd have to look at it again, but I don't actually remember him attacking anyone. I remember him as just putting forward a non-PSA theory of atonement. Maybe my perception is wrong. (I mention him because someone cited his book as being the book that 'started the debate' on the liberal side in the US; I can't remember if it was you or someone else.)

Your last post helped me to understand a bit more, but I'd like to explore this issue a bit further.

What I was trying to say earlier was that while there is a difference between attacking ideas and attacking people, in practice the distinction is very hard to maintain. For example, if a conevo has an objective view of the atonement then not only their salvation but their very identity is caught up in Christ's work for them. Therefore to attack that understanding feels very personal indeed. I know this cuts both ways, but they feel they have so much more to lose!

I think you think ( [Big Grin] ) that I'm trying to score points with this argument. I'm not. I'm not trying to win you over to a more con position but to give you an insight into how the other side 'feels' about the debate. If you define the Christian faith doctrinally then any perceived attack on doctrine is, by definition, very personal. When you think you are discussing ideas you are (it appears to others) attacking them and their salvation. That is probably ridiculous to you, but it is my guess that is how many people feel.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
OK, here's the revised edition of a previous statement:

quote:
The problem here is that you accuse God of requiring the death of his Son; he doesn't require the death of his Son. Salvation from sin requires the death of death and God achieves the death of death in the death of his Son. Sin needed to die because death is the wages for sin. In the presence of sin, death is alive; in the absence of sin death is dead. Death needed to die; Christ volunteered for the mission: the mission to kill death in and through his death. Christ became sin for us and, in dying on the cross, he accepted the wages earned by the sin that he had become.
It's a work in progress... [Smile]

Could it be that the wrath of God is simply God letting someone die? Or must the wrath of God be the act of God positively killing someone...?

I agree with your revised statement, but it's possible that you might not like the reasons that I agree with it.

From where I sit, looking at atonement from my non-PSA perspective, I can happily read that statement without any hint that there must be violent retribution in order for there to be justice. To me the above statement ('taking the Trinity seriously') can accommodate my viewpoint of pacific resistence and justice as restoration rather than justice as retribution.

But, as I understand it, the PSA-only people don't want my view of pacific resistence and justice as restoration accommodated. (n.b. I do not see you as 'PSA-only')

So I believe that they would still want to ask each of us 'what do you mean when you say that'? An explanation about Jesus needing to violently crush sin will be accepted and an explanation of Jesus defeating violence through pacific resistence will be rebuked.

If my understanding of this is incorrect in your opinion, then I'd be interested to hear. But this is 'battle' (sic!) that I believe is being waged: 'Is it possible to be a Christian without seeing justice as requiring violent retribution?' Insofar as I answer 'yes', I believe I am anathama to some Christians.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
What I was trying to say earlier was that while there is a difference between attacking ideas and attacking people, in practice the distinction is very hard to maintain. For example, if a conevo has an objective view of the atonement then not only their salvation but their very identity is caught up in Christ's work for them. Therefore to attack that understanding feels very personal indeed. I know this cuts both ways, but they feel they have so much more to lose!

I do understand what you're saying. But it does make conversations difficult (I realise you know that.)

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think you think ( [Big Grin] ) that I'm trying to score points with this argument. I'm not. I'm not trying to win you over to a more con position but to give you an insight into how the other side 'feels' about the debate.

I don't actually think you're trying to 'score points.' I do appreciate that you're trying to give me an insight into how the other side feels and I readily admit that I don't understand it.

But also understand that I spent my entire life in this environment until 1999. And I constantly got messages that sounded to me like 'We're not going to listen to your point of view. We don't care what you think. Your point of view is wrong and bad.' A kind of theological version of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and going 'La! la! la!' very loudly. And I will readily admit that these were good people. Just don't talk about religion with them. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you define the Christian faith doctrinally then any perceived attack on doctrine is, by definition, very personal. When you think you are discussing ideas you are (it appears to others) attacking them and their salvation. That is probably ridiculous to you, but it is my guess that is how many people feel.

Basically, that sounds to me like you're saying 'Don't try to talk theology across 'the divide' (where-ever that may be!). Which I probably agree with.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Jonny S said:
quote:
I think you are making a false distinction between attacking a theory and attacking a person.
If a distinction between attacking what someone believes and attacking the person themselves cannot be made then ALL arguments are in fact ad hominem. As far as I can tell you have are claiming that the ad hominem distinction that is used to properly define most debate, is meaningless.

Is that what you believe?

Luigi
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
What I'm getting at is this: Christ is the agent of death's death, because Christ became the locus of our sin. The wages of sin is death; the death of sin effects eternal life. Therefore, Christ's death kills sin and gives birth to eternal life. I'm thinking of 1 Cor 15.56 here, where death is likened to a scorpion, perhaps hidden in a shoe. The sting of death is sin. In other words, the means by which death administers its poison is through the sting of sin. However, the way that Christ kills death is by willingly getting stung by sin thereby draining death of its poison.

This I think is Christus Victor.

However, is it not possible to also concieve of the Father watching the Son die and, while having the power to save him, chooses to let him die because he knows that the Son's death is draining the sting of death thereby killing something that he hates, namely death. Is it not also possible to see the Father rejoicing in the Son's sacrifice, being satisfied that what he hates (the sin) is dying; and anticipating the victory of raising the Son to life?

I think I could go along with that. In your terms, I would say that Christ is not just the locus of our sin, but of all sin on the cross, making the distinction between sin(s) and the sinful nature. I would certainly agree with the scorpion analogy, and I think that that reinforces the difference between sins, and the consequence of sin.

I have no difficulty at all with the concept of the Father and the Son willing together that the Son should die in order to defeat death. I also agree that Christ died at the hands of sinful men as a result of the power struggle with the human way of doing things (you acheive victory by destroying your opponent with your own superior force) and God's way (you acheive victory by refusing to use your superior force; by surrendering what is rightfully yours, in order to "draw the sting" of your enemy). I think these two strands can run quite happily together. Of course, God does, on the cross, "destroy his opponent", He "kills sin", as you so rightly say, but His way of doing so is by love and surrender, by "taking the sting" not by superior force (legions of angels, and all that).

I think that the justice of the Paschal event, (and I do think that there is a justice issue) is tied up with what happens at the resurrection. Jesus is not only demonstrating the power of love over sin, but also, pace 1 Corinthians 15, the initiation of the new creation, in which the effects of sin are reversed, and all things are made new. Thus, no-one can claim that God is not being just, because the offences which give rise to the perception of injustice are ultimately "unmade".

How are you with all that? As you say, a work in progress.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Jonny S said:If a distinction between attacking what someone believes and attacking the person themselves cannot be made then ALL arguments are in fact ad hominem. As far as I can tell you have are claiming that the ad hominem distinction that is used to properly define most debate, is meaningless.

Is that what you believe?

Luigi

No.


...


Oh, I expect you want me to explain that too? [Big Grin]

There is a distinction, but it is not always a very clear one. Sometimes, but not always, I think some people sail close to the wind in making it look as if all their arguments are not ad hominem, when most of them are.

ETA - I should add that I'm not talking about anyone of this thread!

[ 26. June 2007, 08:56: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
With regards to the sub-thread about con-evo perceptions (actually, a small subset of conevos, typically (in the UK) of the Reform stripe), like Seeker963 I am stuggling to understand how one can equate saying "I think your view of the atonement is sub-optimal" with "You have placed yourself outside the christian camp", or, worse imv, "what you are saying is the result of wishful thinking brought about by an unwillingness to accept the seriousness of sin".

To me the first seems clearly focussed on debatable matters, which can be backed up by discussion as to the meaning of texts, evidence of what earlier generations of Christians may or may not have believed, and incidences of personal testimony.

The second seems, equally clearly, to be ad hominem, not just because it is an accusation as to motive, but because it is impossible to defend oneself against such thinking. I really don't think that, whatever the vitriol poured out by others on the con-evo position (and I think it is greater in perception than in fact, but I would say that, wouldn't I [Big Grin] ) I don't think that much of it has involved the impugning of motives. Thus, con-evos are sometimes characterised (wrongly, imv) as shallow and naive, and detached from real life.

Now these are, no doubt, hurtful attacks, and on the borders of being ad hominem, but they aren't quite up there with calling your opponent a liar, which is the implication behind saying "you are only presenting what you consider to be an acceptable cover for your real beliefs, which remain unstated and denied".

If I had to pick out one thing which I believe is the source-problem with theological debate between Reform-type con-evos and others as regards the atonement, it is that they have an unhelpful amount of certainty.

Let me unpack that a little. I am not saying that to have certainty about one's own beliefs is a bad thing. I'm all for conviction theology, and I hold it myself. But what tends, IME, to be the case is that there is little room for the concept of the genuine, honest mistake. The argument goes "Because I feel so certain that my views are correct, they must self evidently be correct. Because they are obvious to me, they must be obvious to everyone else." There is little room for the idea that someone else might be honestly mistaken.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
There is a distinction, but it is not always a very clear one. Sometimes, but not always, I think some people sail close to the wind in making it look as if all their arguments are not ad hominem, when most of them are.

But are they really ad-hominem, or does it merely appear so? I really don't agree that it is all that difficult to discern between the two. The key issue is the motive that you assign towards your opponent.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Jolly Jape said:

quote:
I think I could go along with that. In your terms, I would say that Christ is not just the locus of our sin, but of all sin on the cross, making the distinction between sin(s) and the sinful nature. I would certainly agree with the scorpion analogy, and I think that that reinforces the difference between sins, and the consequence of sin.

I have no difficulty at all with the concept of the Father and the Son willing together that the Son should die in order to defeat death.

Great! Now here comes the but... But, how does this model of the atonement, which I accept as perfectly valid and doctrinally 'sound' account for the following verses:
quote:
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

Yes, I acknowledge that in this passage it is Christ's resurrection life that 'saves', but nonetheless it does say that it saves from God's wrath.

It is worth noting the parallelism in these verses. Justification is linked with blood; reconciliation is linked to death; enmity is linked with reconciliation; reconciliation is effected by death; salvation is from God's wrath and so on.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
With regards to the sub-thread about con-evo perceptions (actually, a small subset of conevos, typically (in the UK) of the Reform stripe), like Seeker963 I am stuggling to understand how one can equate saying "I think your view of the atonement is sub-optimal" with "You have placed yourself outside the christian camp", or, worse imv, "what you are saying is the result of wishful thinking brought about by an unwillingness to accept the seriousness of sin".

I think you are right in that the second is clearly an ad hominem attack, and thus I'm not trying to defend it. However, the first is not as clear cut as it first appears. Whether this is a primary or secondary matter is the moot point. If you are conevo and believe that a certain atonement mechanism is how you are saved then to attack that mechanism is (so it may feel) to attack one's very salvation. I know that you are not saying that but I'm trying to show what it can feel like to some. If I'm saved by (what I believe) the Apostles teach about the cross then if I'm wrong my entire salvation is undermined. Again, you have to enter the mindset of those whose definition of Christianity is 95% doctrine.

I am painfully aware of how Christians (especially Evangelicals) fall out over every little thing. However, if there was one thing that was central to our faith is it not the work of Christ in his death and resurrection? I have no desire to court disagreement but if there was one thing 'worth' falling out over wouldn't it be this?

As I read Church History I really struggle with the Reformation period. All these people killing themselves over doctrine, I can't understand it. [Disappointed] The question that keeps bugging me is this - is it that we have gained compassion or lost conviction? (For what it's worth my answer is both.)


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
If I had to pick out one thing which I believe is the source-problem with theological debate between Reform-type con-evos and others as regards the atonement, it is that they have an unhelpful amount of certainty.

Let me unpack that a little. I am not saying that to have certainty about one's own beliefs is a bad thing. I'm all for conviction theology, and I hold it myself. But what tends, IME, to be the case is that there is little room for the concept of the genuine, honest mistake. The argument goes "Because I feel so certain that my views are correct, they must self evidently be correct. Because they are obvious to me, they must be obvious to everyone else." There is little room for the idea that someone else might be honestly mistaken.

After my post above you may be surprised to hear that I entirely agree with you! There is little willingness to admit that we are often mistaken. My constant frustration is that those who claim to be heirs of the Reformation do not want to be reformed. An interesting question to ask someone who is 'reformed' is this: "If God is constantly speaking to you through his word, then when was the last time you changed your mind about anything?" [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
I am painfully aware of how Christians (especially Evangelicals) fall out over every little thing. However, if there was one thing that was central to our faith is it not the work of Christ in his death and resurrection? I have no desire to court disagreement but if there was one thing 'worth' falling out over wouldn't it be this?

Well, I sort of take your point, except that no-one on either side of the argument has suggested other than that we are saved by His death and resurrection. What is the subject of debate is the precise mechanism by which the Paschal event acheives that end result, basically, how it works. Often, it seems like the whole conversation is punctured repeatedly by the anti-PSAers having to refute unfounded claims that they don't believe in the salvific efficacy of the Cross and Resurrection. I'm not talking about these boards as such - a degree of repetition is essential because, on long threads like this, new people are constantly joining the debate. I'm thinking more about RL encounters.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
...except that no-one on either side of the argument has suggested other than that we are saved by His death and resurrection. What is the subject of debate is the precise mechanism by which the Paschal event acheives that end result, basically, how it works. Often, it seems like the whole conversation is punctured repeatedly by the anti-PSAers having to refute unfounded claims that they don't believe in the salvific efficacy of the Cross and Resurrection.

Precisely. Oh, I'm going to give in and: [Overused]

For me, the 'soundbite' of the gospel is 2 Corinthians 5:19: In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. (Before anyone tells me to check out the context, my comments apply also to the context.)

For me, the ultimate aim of atonement is reconciliation between God and humanity. If those of us who are reconciled with God cannot reconcile ourselves with others in the church, then what have we got? We say that reconciliation is at the heart of what we believe and then we turn the Gospel message into 'I'm reconciled and you're not.' Ironic in the extreme and also tragic.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Jonny said:
quote:

I think you are right in that the second is clearly an ad hominem attack, and thus I'm not trying to defend it. However, the first is not as clear cut as it first appears. Whether this is a primary or secondary matter is the moot point. If you are conevo and believe that a certain atonement mechanism is how you are saved then to attack that mechanism is (so it may feel) to attack one's very salvation. I know that you are not saying that but I'm trying to show what it can feel like to some. If I'm saved by (what I believe) the Apostles teach about the cross then if I'm wrong my entire salvation is undermined. Again, you have to enter the mindset of those whose definition of Christianity is 95% doctrine.

You seem to be explaining why it is almost impossible for anyone (whether atheist, non conevo Christian or agnostic) to debate rigorously with a conevo for a prolonged period of time. Apparently many / most feel that their very reassurance of salvation is being questioned. You seem to be describing a very brittle faith and explains a great deal. (It quite possibly explains why so many conevos are extremely defensive.) You almost seem to be doing Richard Dawkins job for him.

Speaking for myself a faith that can't ask difficult questions of itself is one that I can't hold to.

Luigi
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
You seem to be describing a very brittle faith and explains a great deal. (It quite possibly explains why so many conevos are extremely defensive.) You almost seem to be doing Richard Dawkins job for him.

Speaking for myself a faith that can't ask difficult questions of itself is one that I can't hold to.

Luigi

Now it is my turn to become frustrated! [Biased]

No one seems to be engaging with conevos as conevos. Some do have very brittle faith and therefore your comments are valid for them Luigi - but could equally apply to many across Christendom of all types.

I'll try again. [Confused]

If you define salvation in strict doctrinal terms (as opposed to the 'hand waving' of CV - I'm not trying to be disparaging here because I like a lot of CV but I'm struggling to find another way to put it [Big Grin] ) then any deviation from the definition is going to raise hackles. JJ may be right in some of his criticisms of conevos but it is hardly surprising that they are defensive when what they hold dear is felt to be under attack.

If you feel that, in and of itself, writes conevos off then so be it.

But before you dismiss them completely here is something to chew over from another angle:

Throughout the gospels and the NT there is a repeated warning about 'false teachers' and 'false prophets'. The common NT theme is that such false teachers are found within the church. I think there is a case for saying that it is one of the dominant themes of the NT.

Now, bearing that warning in mind, how do we put it into practice? I would argue that there are two extremes to avoid. The first is a kind of McCarthyism that attacks anyone 'not like us' as a liberal out to sell our faith down the river. However, the other (equal danger), is to (in the name of intellectual debate and discussion) refuse ever to denounce any teaching as 'false'.

I am certainly not saying that 'attacking PSA makes you a false teacher'. Again, I fully concede that conevos are far too ready to 'get out the matches'. I'd rather put the question the other way round - how do you put into practice the many, many NT warnings about false teachers within the church?

[ 26. June 2007, 20:27: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Jonny S said:
quote:
I'm not trying to be disparaging here because I like a lot of CV but I'm struggling to find another way to put it ) then any deviation from the definition is going to raise hackles. JJ may be right in some of his criticisms of conevos but it is hardly surprising that they are defensive when what they hold dear is felt to be under attack.

If you feel that, in and of itself, writes conevos off then so be it.

I think I am phrasing what I say a little more carefully than you are recognising.

IME almost all humans I've ever met don't like what they hold dear to be attacked.

However that doesn't mean that when most people I know have their beliefs strongly questioned, they complain that they are victims of an ad hominem attack. Put simply most people, IME, can distinguish between an ad homin and one where the beliefs they hold are strongly challenged.

You have stated that because of the way that conevos think / believe, when you attack what they believe you are attacking them personally. (Or at least they are likely to percieve you as attacking them personally.) This puts evocons in a very different position to most other people I know.

Finally your question about false teaching is an interesting one and one that I think has to start with the question of what false teaching is? If we cannot discern false teaching then how can we deal with it? If we cannot for the reasons you have already mentioned challenge vigorously an established way of thinking without it being dismissed as an ad hominem attack then how can we work out what false teaching is? Or do we just go along with the particular group we have fallen in with?

Luigi

[ 26. June 2007, 21:38: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I think I am phrasing what I say a little more carefully than you are recognising.

Quite possibly.

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
IME almost all humans I've ever met don't like what they hold dear to be attacked.

Sure.


quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
You have stated that because of the way that conevos think / believe, when you attack what they believe you are attacking them personally. (Or at least they are likely to percieve you as attacking them personally.)

If I did then I wasn't being clear. More like 'because of the way conevos think you are attacking something very personal to them, something they hold dearly.'

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Finally your question about false teaching is an interesting one and one that I think has to start with the question of what false teaching is? If we cannot discern false teaching then how can we deal with it? If we cannot for the reasons you have already mentioned challenge vigorously an established way of thinking without it being dismissed as an ad hominem attack then how can we work out what false teaching is? Or do we just go along with the particular group we have fallen in with?

Apologies if I wasn't clear. I think we've lost the context of the overall thread. I'm not asking for attacks on PSA to be dismissed as ad hominem - as you rightly say, how can we discern the truth other than through robust debate? I was merely trying to give a window into why many conevos react so strongly to attacks on PSA. The doctrine of the atonement is very dear to them... although I think I have realised that in so doing I've, in part, derailed the discussion!

Better we focus on CV and models of atonement, me thinks! [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
No one seems to be engaging with conevos as conevos.

I'm not sure what you'd consider 'engaging with conevos as conevos.'

I actually think saying 'Well, they are genuinely convinced that they are correct and they will see any expression of disagreement as an attack on them and their theology, so I can't engage with them' to BE 'engaging with conevos as conevos'.

I'd like to know what you think 'engaging with conevos as conevoes' looks like in the real world.

You're suggesting that there is some easy way to do this, that if we get the right Zen we'll have the right mind-set and everything will be easy. Speaking from experience, I don't actually think that there is any easy way to do it. You just bite your tongue, try not to explode into tears of anger or frustration and, whatever you do, you don't share your problems, hopes or dreams with anyone. And then one day you say something you actually think is perfectly innocent and you realise that you've just hurt everyone in the room. And that that's the day you decide that it's OK to leave rather than struggling to 'be where God has put you.'

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'd rather put the question the other way round - how do you put into practice the many, many NT warnings about false teachers within the church?

I just try to follow the teachings of Jesus as best I can. And I keep my eyes and ears open for theologies that sound an awful lot like what 'the world thinks.' One of those theologies is 'If all our enemies are destroyed, then peace will reign.' And I remember that Jesus said the wheat and the chaff will grow together and that it's very probable that sometimes I will be chaff, but sometimes I will be wheat. I remember that judgement belongs to God and that is is merciful and gracious as well as just. (Which is why I don't like a theology that nevers mentions mercy or grace even if it says it believes in them but just doesn't talk about them. And why I'm suspicious of people who are eager to jump in and talk about punishment anytime someone mentions grace.)
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I think we cross-posted here. So I'll just pick up on one thing. [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I just try to follow the teachings of Jesus as best I can... And I remember that Jesus said the wheat and the chaff will grow together and that it's very probable that sometimes I will be chaff, but sometimes I will be wheat...

I'd agree with you up to a point - Jesus, Paul, John and Peter all talked about people who were false teachers, not just ideas.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
I have engaged with conevos as conevos. It's one reason I am disturbed by PSA.

This, There's a fellow named Chick who makes comic books, apparently they're very popular. Lovely imagery.

"Accept MY interpretation of the blood of Christ or be punished for eternity!!!" is a more common message than you might think. I understand that you might not wish to be associated with con-evos of this ilk, but they're a pretty noisy bunch in the areas I've been.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
God's wrath if you like was turned from humanity onto himself yet paradoxically since Christ was in human form, he (God) was able to deem humanity punished.

Paradoxically indeed. Did Jesus ever make a statement to this effect, other than an oblique reference to "ransom"? Is this based on anything more than a particular view of Isaiah 53?

Fundamentally, what kind of God would behave this way? What does a punishment like this really accomplish?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Every NT reference to Jesus' blood states or implies this as a fundamental mechanism that operates to enable restoration of fellowship between Man and God.

I don't think that this is true. There are very many references to Jesus' blood and most of them imply nothing of of the kind. We are to drink His blood. We are to wash our robes in it. How is that about blood payment?

Sorry to differ Freddy but read Heb 9,10,11 without CV glasses. The blood is clearly a ransom, a payment, a price and yes, a penalty.
You could always talk to Paul when you get to heaven but I'd say that all NT writers from whom we get our systematic theology, Paul, Peter, and the Hebrews writer Took the ransom sacrifice aspect of Christ's death as one of the absolute fundamentals of the Gospel they preached. Heb 9:15 "A death has taken place for theredemption of transgressions that were comitted..."
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by Jamat:
Sorry to differ Freddy but read Heb 9,10,11 without CV glasses. The blood is clearly a ransom, a payment, a price and yes, a penalty.
You could always talk to Paul when you get to heaven but I'd say that all NT writers from whom we get our systematic theology, Paul, Peter, and the Hebrews writer Took the ransom sacrifice aspect of Christ's death as one of the absolute fundamentals of the Gospel they preached. Heb 9:15 "A death has taken place for theredemption of transgressions that were comitted..."

Or were they just trying to spin the crucifixion to fit the cultural context of a Hebrew audience so that they would understand it in their sacrificial culture?

Did Paul use the same language when he was preaching to the gentiles?

Speaking as a gentile by bloodline, I'm not sure why I should have to take part in this whole "blood sacrifice" thing.

Even the ancient Hebrews didn't expect the Gentiles to offer up sacrifices. Why should we have to accept them?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:
Originally Posted by Jamat:
Sorry to differ Freddy but read Heb 9,10,11 without CV glasses. The blood is clearly a ransom, a payment, a price and yes, a penalty.
You could always talk to Paul when you get to heaven but I'd say that all NT writers from whom we get our systematic theology, Paul, Peter, and the Hebrews writer Took the ransom sacrifice aspect of Christ's death as one of the absolute fundamentals of the Gospel they preached. Heb 9:15 "A death has taken place for theredemption of transgressions that were comitted..."

Or were they just trying to spin the crucifixion to fit the cultural context of a Hebrew audience so that they would understand it in their sacrificial culture?

Did Paul use the same language when he was preaching to the gentiles?

Speaking as a gentile by bloodline, I'm not sure why I should have to take part in this whole "blood sacrifice" thing.

Even the ancient Hebrews didn't expect the Gentiles to offer up sacrifices. Why should we have to accept them?

The Ephesians epistle is just as insistent on the sin substitution, ransom thing and that was to gentile audience Eph 2:13 "..in Christ jesus you... have been brought near by the blood of Christ ..."
The fundamental thinking of Paul was the reconciliation of the Jewish scriptures with the advent of the messiah and what was signified, as well as what it meant behaviour-wise. Essentially, it was the 'new creation' that became possible through the inner transformation of our motives which was his push. However, it is like describing the taste of chocolate cake without eating it if you haven't really experienced it. I know that Christ has changed me..still a work in progress of course but there have been fundamental motivational changes which can only be supernatural. I say this not to judge anyone else, but to account for my conviction about Christ, sin, the blood, the ransom and all that. To address your point, it is a change that transcends culture and the NT writers were not into cultural spin. They were bursting with the energy of a truth revealed through Christ's advent, death and resurrection.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
I don't think it's possible to write anything without some cultural spin. I would think that any contemporary pastor worth his or her salt would know a lot about communicating the bible through modern language and idiom. You can only speak to people from what they understand and hope to bring them to a new understanding.

That doesn't mean that the language used must be taken literally for all times and all places, IMO. We're not in a culture that practices animal sacrifice anymore, and most people see that as an improvement.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
The fundamental thinking of Paul was the reconciliation of the Jewish scriptures with the advent of the messiah and what was signified, as well as what it meant behaviour-wise. Essentially, it was the 'new creation' that became possible through the inner transformation of our motives which was his push. However, it is like describing the taste of chocolate cake without eating it if you haven't really experienced it. I know that Christ has changed me..still a work in progress of course but there have been fundamental motivational changes which can only be supernatural. I say this not to judge anyone else, but to account for my conviction about Christ, sin, the blood, the ransom and all that. To address your point, it is a change that transcends culture and the NT writers were not into cultural spin. They were bursting with the energy of a truth revealed through Christ's advent, death and resurrection.
But you see, Jamat, I could just have readily posted what you have just written. No, really. Without my fingers crossed. And so could Mirrizin, or John, or Seeker963, or Numpty or any other of the posters here (dunno, there may be a couple of atheist lurkers, but, hey..). We all have testimonies to the transforming power of Christ. We all bear witness to the truth and efficacy of the Paschal event. I could just as easily say that my experience of Christ is proof that Christus Victor (i.e. the belief that I hold dearly) is "the authentic Gospel ™". No-one is doubting your sincerity or your faith, but you must also realise that others have sincerity and faith too, but they have, prayerfully and sincerely, come to a different opinion on how the Atonement works; one which they think is a better match to the Biblical data, and which has much to offer to the church.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Jolly Jape said:

quote:
I think I could go along with that. In your terms, I would say that Christ is not just the locus of our sin, but of all sin on the cross, making the distinction between sin(s) and the sinful nature. I would certainly agree with the scorpion analogy, and I think that that reinforces the difference between sins, and the consequence of sin.

I have no difficulty at all with the concept of the Father and the Son willing together that the Son should die in order to defeat death.

Great! Now here comes the but... But, how does this model of the atonement, which I accept as perfectly valid and doctrinally 'sound' account for the following verses:
quote:
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

Yes, I acknowledge that in this passage it is Christ's resurrection life that 'saves', but nonetheless it does say that it saves from God's wrath.

It is worth noting the parallelism in these verses. Justification is linked with blood; reconciliation is linked to death; enmity is linked with reconciliation; reconciliation is effected by death; salvation is from God's wrath and so on.

OK, here goes:

Firstly, Romans 5:9 does not actually have the words "of God" in it at all. A better translation would be "how much more shall we be saved from wrath (or, from indignation) by Him". The "the ...of God" is actually an interpretation inserted by the translators. The meaning is clearly that Christ is saving them from something unpleasant, but whether that is the purposeful, deliberate punishment that would be inflicted by God were it not for Christ is not demonstrated by this verse.

Furthermore, verse 10 says we were God's enemies, rather than that God was our enemy. We are the antagonists, it is humanity that is angry with God (in that we want to pursue anger, resentment, bitterness, party spirit, strife, etc etc etc against the warp and weft of the kingdom of God. All this rather suggests a Girardian interpretation of the texts, especially as we know that self-destructiveness apart from Christ is a theme that is turning over in Pauls mind as he writes (cf Rom. 1:24)

But, be that as it may, the main point is that Paul has set up an argument that all are guilty before God, and he now goes on to show that God isn't going to exact retribution upon them, but rather that God's way of bringing justice is demonstrated by the restoring work of Christ (that Romans 3:26 again). To say that God would be justified (to human eyes) in exacting punitive justice upon humanity is hardly controversial. It does not necessarily follow from that that He has any intention of doing so.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think we cross-posted here. So I'll just pick up on one thing. [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I just try to follow the teachings of Jesus as best I can... And I remember that Jesus said the wheat and the chaff will grow together and that it's very probable that sometimes I will be chaff, but sometimes I will be wheat...

I'd agree with you up to a point - Jesus, Paul, John and Peter all talked about people who were false teachers, not just ideas.
From James Alison's The Joy of Being Wrong:
quote:
Being wrong can be forgiven: it is insisting on being right that confirms our being bound in original murderous sin.
in a similar vein from Cornelius Plantinga's Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be
quote:
The heart of sin is…the persistent refusal to tolerate a sense of sin, to take responsibility for one’s sin, to live with the sorrowful knowledge of it and to pursue the painful way of repentance.
These are not aspersions I'm casting on others. They are statements of truth about how I believe that I and all Christians must live. It's not the case that our deeds are forgivable but our intellectual ideas about God are unforgivable. It's not the case that we are going to be perfect all the time. Sometimes we just have to 'tolerate a sense of sin' whilst simultaneously disapproving of our own sin and praying for the grace to do better. (A tough middle-line to walk, I'll grant you.)

We are all wrong about things and the joy of being wrong is that God will forgive us. I believe he'll forgive us both when: 1) The truth is revealed to us and we repent and when 2) In sincerely seeking Christ and turning our lives over to him we continue to hold some Wrong Ideas™ about him. That goes for me and it goes for those who disagree with me. There I stand and I can do no other.

I still want to know what you think 'engaging with conevos as conevos' looks like in Real Life? You throw out these provocative statements and then don't follow up on them. Are you ready to answer this question?

===

Alison, James. 1998. The Joy of Being Wrong: original sin through Easter eyes. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, p. 195.

Plantinga, Cornelius. 1995. Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin. Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing Co, p. 99.

[ 27. June 2007, 10:52: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Seeker963:

I still want to know what you think 'engaging with conevos as conevos' looks like in Real Life? You throw out these provocative statements and then don't follow up on them. Are you ready to answer this question?

The natural meaning of the phrase is that he would like to engage with conevos on their own territory of biblical interpretation. I don't know if that's what John means though. The problem is, though, that biblical interpretation often means their biblical interpretation, which is somewhat circular with their beliefs.

Still not convinced that arguing with even a person's most dearly held beliefs is ad hominem, though.

[ 27. June 2007, 11:04: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The natural meaning of the phrase is that he would like to engage with conevos on their own territory of biblical interpretation. I don't know if that's what John means though. The problem is, though, that biblical interpretation often means their biblical interpretation, which is somewhat circular with their beliefs.

Riiiight. Let me try to record what I've heard. I've heard 'Conevos genuinely believe that to diagree with their view of atonement is to be a non-Christian, so it's natural for them to call you a non-Christian.' I agree.

Then I heard 'Since Conevos genuinely believe that there is one way to salvation and it's their understanding, any expression of a different idea will be seen not only as a different idea but also as a personal attack on them.' I actually agree that many conevos see it that way although I disagree with the statement myself.

So it appears to me that the only way to engage with a conevo on the conevo's grounds is to convert to their way of thinking or just try not to speak with them about theology. There is no other way of engaging them as far as I can see. [Confused]

How do you talk to someone who thinks that having a different idea is a personal attack. And doesn't condoning this attitude give an awful lot of credence to those who think that religion is dangerous?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:

So it appears to me that the only way to engage with a conevo on the conevo's grounds is to convert to their way of thinking or just try not to speak with them about theology. There is no other way of engaging them as far as I can see. [Confused]

It's true of a lot (but by no means all) conservative evangelicals in my experience.

The sad thing is, I've never cracked the conundrum of how one does actually engage. Still no idea.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
It's true of a lot (but by no means all) conservative evangelicals in my experience.

Agree. In the context of this conversation, I think we're talking about the people who I'm supposed to understand and be more sympathetic to. The ones who perceive different theological ideas as potentially being a personal attack.

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
The sad thing is, I've never cracked the conundrum of how one does actually engage. Still no idea.

Nor me. [Frown]
 
Posted by universalist (# 10318) on :
 
From Numpty:

"The sin of the world is so nauseating that its presence in Christ (a presence that Christ endured willingly) made him utterly revolting in the sight of Almighty God. So much so that he was utterly forsaken until the death of sin was acheived in the death of Christ.
That is PSA in all its bloody glory and I'm not ashamed to believe it."

Universalist:

As if God didn't make us to be sinners in need of God! You really think God is surprised and revolted at our destructive antics and moral failures? Jesus never seemed to be. Though He often spoke his mind about "sin", He always balanced this out with Hope, and a way out...Never did He leave a person hopeless and "revolted" at the thought of himself.

What is the "Good News" anyway? Karl Barth said the Gospel is "about God, God Himself and only God..." And yet we have made it all about US and our choices!

The fundamentalist part of the Church over the years has devised futile ways and doctrines by which it feels people can be motivated to God. These include: Terrorizing them with threats of "hell" and shaming them with guilt trips regarding their awfulness.

George MacDonald, on the other hand, posited a different kind of "good news":

"It is impossible for anyone to see God as He is, and not love him".

How much has the church attempted "Lift up Jesus" in such a way as to encourage people to fall in love with God? And how long must we insist that people can be threatened, brow beaten, scared and shamed into "accepting Jesus"?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by universalist:
George MacDonald, on the other hand, posited a different kind of "good news":

"It is impossible for anyone to see God as He is, and not love him".

Sounds right to me!
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I don't think it's possible to write anything without some cultural spin. I would think that any contemporary pastor worth his or her salt would know a lot about communicating the bible through modern language and idiom. You can only speak to people from what they understand and hope to bring them to a new understanding.

That doesn't mean that the language used must be taken literally for all times and all places, IMO. We're not in a culture that practices animal sacrifice anymore, and most people see that as an improvement.

You are right, of course. As someone said, there is no escape from contingency. Cultural contexts are indeed unavoidable. The truth of the Gospel has not in its essentials bowed to them over 2000 yrs nevertheless; would you agree?

Animal sacrifice is rendered unnecessary since Christ, the ultimate sacrifice died once and for all Heb 9:12"..he entered the holy place once, for all..." Nothing to do with culture, it is a point of logic derived from a PSA view of the atonement.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
The fundamental thinking of Paul was the reconciliation of the Jewish scriptures with the advent of the messiah and what was signified, as well as what it meant behaviour-wise. Essentially, it was the 'new creation' that became possible through the inner transformation of our motives which was his push. However, it is like describing the taste of chocolate cake without eating it if you haven't really experienced it. I know that Christ has changed me..still a work in progress of course but there have been fundamental motivational changes which can only be supernatural. I say this not to judge anyone else, but to account for my conviction about Christ, sin, the blood, the ransom and all that. To address your point, it is a change that transcends culture and the NT writers were not into cultural spin. They were bursting with the energy of a truth revealed through Christ's advent, death and resurrection.
But you see, Jamat, I could just have readily posted what you have just written. No, really. Without my fingers crossed. And so could Mirrizin, or John, or Seeker963, or Numpty or any other of the posters here (dunno, there may be a couple of atheist lurkers, but, hey..). We all have testimonies to the transforming power of Christ. We all bear witness to the truth and efficacy of the Paschal event. I could just as easily say that my experience of Christ is proof that Christus Victor (i.e. the belief that I hold dearly) is "the authentic Gospel ™". No-one is doubting your sincerity or your faith, but you must also realise that others have sincerity and faith too, but they have, prayerfully and sincerely, come to a different opinion on how the Atonement works; one which they think is a better match to the Biblical data, and which has much to offer to the church.
I do not doubt your sincerity. Doesn't mean I back your theology.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:
Originally Posted by Jamat:
Sorry to differ Freddy but read Heb 9,10,11 without CV glasses. The blood is clearly a ransom, a payment, a price and yes, a penalty.
You could always talk to Paul when you get to heaven but I'd say that all NT writers from whom we get our systematic theology, Paul, Peter, and the Hebrews writer Took the ransom sacrifice aspect of Christ's death as one of the absolute fundamentals of the Gospel they preached. Heb 9:15 "A death has taken place for the redemption of transgressions that were comitted..."

Or were they just trying to spin the crucifixion to fit the cultural context of a Hebrew audience so that they would understand it in their sacrificial culture?
That's the way I see it. Paul was using imagery that fit with the Hebrew scriptures. But for that matter, most cultures, even worldwide, understood sacrificial imagery.

A more relevant question is what the Old Testament means by "ransom" and "redemption." The prophecies of redemption usually portray it as something that takes place by force rather than payment:
quote:
Deuteronomy 7:8 The LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 9:26 Your people and Your inheritance whom You have redeemed through Your greatness, whom You have brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand.

Nehemiah 1:10 Now these are Your servants and Your people, whom You have redeemed by Your great power, and by Your strong hand.

Isaiah 50:2 Is My hand shortened at all that it cannot redeem? Or have I no power to deliver? Indeed with My rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness;

Jeremiah 32:21 You have brought Your people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs and wonders, with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, and with great terror;

Jeremiah 50.34 Their Redeemer is strong; The LORD of hosts is His name.
He will thoroughly plead their case,
That He may give rest to the land,
And disquiet the inhabitants of Babylon.
35 “ A sword is against the Chaldeans,” says the LORD,
“ Against the inhabitants of Babylon,

Joel 2:11 The LORD gives voice before His army, For His camp is very great; For strong is the One who executes His word. For the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; Who can endure it?

Isaiah 49.25 Thus says the LORD:
“ Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away,
And the prey of the terrible be delivered;
For I will contend with him who contends with you,
And I will save your children.
26 I will feed those who oppress you with their own flesh,
And they shall be drunk with their own blood as with sweet wine.
All flesh shall know
That I, the LORD, am your Savior,
And your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.”

Isaiah 59.16 He saw that there was no man,
And wondered that there was no intercessor;
Therefore His own arm brought salvation for Him;
And His own righteousness, it sustained Him.
17 For He put on righteousness as a breastplate,
And a helmet of salvation on His head;
He put on the garments of vengeance for clothing,
And was clad with zeal as a cloak.
18 According to their deeds, accordingly He will repay,
Fury to His adversaries,
Recompense to His enemies;
The coastlands He will fully repay.
19 So shall they fear
The name of the LORD from the west,
And His glory from the rising of the sun;
When the enemy comes in like a flood,
The Spirit of the LORD will lift up a standard against him.
20 “ The Redeemer will come to Zion,
And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,”

The imagery associated with the redemption of Israel is violent and military. The people who are liberated by force are then called "the ransomed":
quote:
Isaiah 35:4 Behold, your God will come with vengeance,
With the recompense of God;
He will come and save you.” ….
8 A highway shall be there, and a road,
And it shall be called the Highway of Holiness.
The unclean shall not pass over it….
But the redeemed shall walk there,
10 And the ransomed of the LORD shall return,
And come to Zion with singing,

They are ransomed in the sense that any liberated people is ransomed by the blood of the soldiers who gave their lives to free them.

It also could be said that the lives of the enemy are the ransom:
quote:
Isaiah 43:3 For I am the LORD your God, The Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I gave Egypt for your ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in your place.
So in one sense it is the evil-doers who will be made to pay. In another sense the ones who fight for righteousness pay for freedom with their blood.

So Jesus will ransom us from hell, and He will do it by His blood, but He will do it like a soldier who overcomes the enemy, who liberates us by His efforts and destroys the enemy:
quote:
Hosea 13:14 “ I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! Pity is hidden from My eyes.”
How is He ransoming us? By fighting for us.

This surely is paying a price, but the price is not payed to God or the devil. It is the price of effort and sacrifice for a noble cause.

This same imagery is carried forward in the gospels. God overcomes the evil one, and takes back what belongs to Him by force:
quote:
Matthew 12:29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

Luke 11:21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. But when a stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him all his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoils.

Matthew 21:41 “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
‘ The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the LORD’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?
43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

While the God of the New Testament is in no way violent, the imagery of the forceful destruction of evil is carried over from the Old Testament to the gospels.

I don't think that it is right to read Hebrews 9, 10 and 11 without keeping this imagery in mind. I wouldn't call this "CV glasses." The imagery is too pervasive and consistent throughout Scripture. PSA is more selective. So it ends up misconstruing the meaning of terms such as sacrifice, blood, ransom, redemption, deliverance, and even words like intercession, the concept of the bearing of sins, and penalties.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by universalist:
[quote]You really think God is surprised and revolted at our destructive antics and moral failures?

Surprised? No. Revolted? Yes.

quote:
Jesus never seemed to be.[/qb]
I don't agree. Jesus called the entire crowd evil on at least one occasion.

quote:
[b]Though He often spoke his mind about "sin", He always balanced this out with Hope, and a way out...
Agreed.

quote:
[b]Never did He leave a person hopeless and "revolted" at the thought of himself.

I disagree. The Gospels consistently portray those that are revolted at themselves as the ones who have hope. Peter is a great example of this. He was aware of his wickedness and felt uncomfortable in Jesus' presence. However, he also grew to love Christ and to realise that Christ loved him despite his depravity.

quote:
What is the "Good News" anyway? Karl Barth said the Gospel is "about God, God Himself and only God..." And yet we have made it all about US and our choices!
I couldn't agree more! I therefore refer you to my previous posts on this thread!

quote:
The fundamentalist part of the Church over the years has devised futile ways and doctrines by which it feels people can be motivated to God.
I don't think fundamentalists 'feel' very much at all. Emotions are far to 'subjective'. However, I disagree with what you are saying for one simple reason: you clearly don't understand how Calvinists understand conversion.

quote:
[b]These include: terrorizing them with threats of "hell" and shaming them with guilt trips regarding their awfulness.[b]
Hell is supposed to be scary and guilty people should feel guilty but it's not the whole picture by a long stretch.

quote:
[b]And how long must we insist that people can be threatened, brow beaten, scared and shamed into "accepting Jesus"?

I don't think 'accepting Jesus' is a remotely biblical way of talking about conversion, so I can't comment.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Damn
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Jolly Jape said:
quote:
OK, here goes:

Firstly, Romans 5:9 does not actually have the words "of God" in it at all. A better translation would be "how much more shall we be saved from wrath (or, from indignation) by Him". The "the ...of God" is actually an interpretation inserted by the translators. The meaning is clearly that Christ is saving them from something unpleasant, but whether that is the purposeful, deliberate punishment that would be inflicted by God were it not for Christ is not demonstrated by this verse.

John Stott rejects the conculsion that you draw concerning the absence of 'of God' in this, and other, verses. This is because the words 'of God' have also been added in order to make other verses in Scripture say, 'the grace of God' but no-one argues that grace isn't the purposeful and deliberate love of God. Sauce for the angry goose is sauce for the loving gander, surely?

One of the problems here, I think, is that critics of PSA bring the a priori view that love and wrath are polar opposites. Advocates of PSA do not make that contrast. For a critic of PSA there is an either/or distinction to be made. For me, as an advocate of PSA, it's much more a both/and engagement with the two attritutes in question.

Jolly Jape's argument is more subtle and, it has to be said, more compelling. However, it still, IMO, requires a little too much creative reinterpretation of the plain meaning of the word 'wrath' in the NT Scriptures. It smacks a little of 'explaining away' and 'getting around' texts, rather than being a discovery of biblical truth. However, I'm not silly enough to believe that my reading is the 'plain' reading of the text! So, I'll have to keep thinking about this one.

However, I do wonder if this sentence might help clarify the PSA position concerning the Father's 'pleasure' (see the BCP Eucharistic Prayer!) in the crucifixion. John Piper writes:
quote:
God's pleasure is not so much in the suffering of the Son, considered in and of itself, but in the great success of what the Son would accomplish in his suffering.
Yes, God the Father ordained the suffering; Gethsemane is proof enough of that. But the satisfaction that God derived in forsaking the Son was the anticipation of future victory not in the savouring of temporal pain.

[ 28. June 2007, 13:31: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
John Piper writes:
quote:
God's pleasure is not so much in the suffering of the Son, considered in and of itself, but in the great success of what the Son would accomplish in his suffering.
Yes, God the Father ordained the suffering; Gethsemane is proof enough of that. But the satisfaction that God derived in forsaking the Son was the anticipation of future victory not in the savouring of temporal pain.
But that still leaves us with the question: 'Why is the Father pleased?'

Isn't the whole point of PSA to give the answer: 'Because a price must be paid and the Father won't forgive until that price is paid?'

Piper's statement actually makes total sense in my model of atonement, which includes a moral example.

But PSA just comes back to the wrath of the Father, doesn't it?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, because that's genuinely how I understand it.
 
Posted by universalist (# 10318) on :
 
The term, "wrath of God" needs to be cleared up.

Objectively, there IS no wrath of God. The wrath of God exists only in the mind of the unbeliever, put there by Christians who do not understand the character of God. This has taken the form of "official" church doctrine and creed, sometimes in abusive sermons. "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" by JE comes to mind...

The objective of the true Gospel about God is to reveal Him to others, thus subverting this misconception of a wrathful God. Once unbelievers understand the goodness of God, His true character, and the reach of his salvation, the concept of an angry God simply dissipates and the problem is solved.

What could be better good news than to reveal to all that they are loved, forgiven and accepted by God already? This is done right always in a Spirit of reconciliation to which St. Paul referred. The "ministry of reconciliation" is driven by a spirit of reconciliation, not "wrath". God is already conciliated to sinners. The gospel is an invitation to then be REconciliated to Him. Paul understood this ministry to be such good news as to state, "God is no longer counting sin against anyone" (See 2 Cor. 5:19)

So any message that carries "wrath", "Hell" or "loss" is simply not true, but rather, abusive to its listeners.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by universalist:
The term, "wrath of God" needs to be cleared up.

Objectively, there IS no wrath of God. The wrath of God exists only in the mind of the unbeliever, put there by Christians who do not understand the character of God. This has taken the form of "official" church doctrine and creed, sometimes in abusive sermons. "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" by JE comes to mind...

Part of me wants to point out how long this thread is and how these issues have already been discussed. I don't know how fair it is to expect a new poster to read through a thread this long.

It seems that the people who have been discussing on both sides have agreed with each other that the focal point of PSA is the concept of 'taking sin seriously' which includes God's wrath and retributive justice.

I'm a lot closer to your point of view than to PSA, but it's not been our custom on this thread to make imperious absolute statements such as Objectively, there IS no wrath of God. The wrath of God exists only in the mind of the unbeliever..

I'm trying to understand the PSA point of view. I've already been told that I often sound like I'm ridiculing that point of view and I'm really trying to understand it. Making statements such as 'my point of view is objectively correct' would simply be engaging in the kind of conversation-stopping dialogue of which I've accused hard-core conevos.

I don't believe I can 'objectively' know about the mechanism of atonement this side of the Kingdom.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originaly posted by Jamat:
I do not doubt your sincerity. Doesn't mean I back your theology.

Nor I yours, but you have missed the point of my post. I am not complaining that you are doubting my sincerity. Rather, I am saying that, in order for the your testimony to be counted as supporting evidence for PSA,(a claim which your post seems to be making) then you would have to demonsrate that people who reject PSA could not have the same experience. This is demonstrably not so. The conclusion that one is forced to draw is that there isn't much of a correlation between believing in PSA and having a living and vibrant faith.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Numpty:
However, I do wonder if this sentence might help clarify the PSA position concerning the Father's 'pleasure' (see the BCP Eucharistic Prayer!) in the crucifixion. John Piper writes:
quote:


God's pleasure is not so much in the suffering of the Son, considered in and of itself, but in the great success of what the Son would accomplish in his suffering.

Yes, God the Father ordained the suffering; Gethsemane is proof enough of that. But the satisfaction that God derived in forsaking the Son was the anticipation of future victory not in the savouring of temporal pain.

I agree with Piper here, though, to be fair, I've never encountered anyone who interpreted these concepts otherwise.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
John Piper writes:
quote:
God's pleasure is not so much in the suffering of the Son, considered in and of itself, but in the great success of what the Son would accomplish in his suffering.
Yes, God the Father ordained the suffering; Gethsemane is proof enough of that. But the satisfaction that God derived in forsaking the Son was the anticipation of future victory not in the savouring of temporal pain.
But that still leaves us with the question: 'Why is the Father pleased?'
I think that the Father is pleased because, in and through his Son, what he hates is being killed. Therefore the Father chooses not to save the Son despite his infinite love for him. The Father forsakes the Son, allowing him to die, because his settled opposition and animosity towards sin (not the Son, but sin in the Son) is being satisfied. God is satisfied by the suffering of the Son in the sense that the Son's suffering is the means by which sin and death are destroyed thereby leaving no object for God's wrath.

quote:
Isn't the whole point of PSA to give the answer: 'Because a price must be paid and the Father won't forgive until that price is paid?'
No. The Father has already passed over sin (i.e. forgiven sin Ps 31.1 ) before the Son is crucified because his desire to forgive takes priority over his commitment to dispense justice. Therefore, the crucifixion does not 'release' the Father to forgive: rather, it justifies the Father's prior act of forgiveness.

quote:
Piper's statement actually makes total sense in my model of atonement, which includes a moral example.
In isolation yes, but not in the context of the wider article.

quote:
But PSA just comes back to the wrath of the Father, doesn't it?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, because that's genuinely how I understand it.

Yes, in the sense that Jesus voluntarily takes our sin into himself in order to kill it in his own death thereby expiating sin from humanity.

The Father, though capable of saving Jesus who is innocent of sin, does not save him because in and through the Son's death sin is being killed. The Father allows the Son to suffer because of the victorious joy that awaits the Son beyond that suffering: this is what pleases the Father in the death of the Son.

The death of sin in and through Christ can also be said to propitiate the wrath of the Father because the death of sin and death in and through Christ means that God's wrath no longer has an object. Once sin is dead there is nothing to be angry at.

[ 28. June 2007, 22:08: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[A more relevant question is what the Old Testament means by "ransom" and "redemption." The prophecies of redemption usually portray it as something that takes place by force rather than payment:
So Jesus will ransom us from hell, and He will do it by His blood, but He will do it like a soldier who overcomes the enemy, who liberates us by His efforts and destroys the enemy:
quote:
Hosea 13:14 “ I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! Pity is hidden from My eyes.”
How is He ransoming us? By fighting for us.

This surely is paying a price, but the price is not payed to God or the devil. It is the price of effort and sacrifice for a noble cause.

I don't think that it is right to read Hebrews 9, 10 and 11 without keeping this imagery in mind. I wouldn't call this "CV glasses." The imagery is too pervasive and consistent throughout Scripture. PSA is more selective. So it ends up misconstruing the meaning of terms such as sacrifice, blood, ransom, redemption, deliverance, and even words like intercession, the concept of the bearing of sins, and penalties. [/QB]

But you have already decided what your bottom line is Freddy and you are trying to rationalise it from the scriptures.

To me your discussion of redmption only serve to show you have to reinterpret a basic bible word to make it mean something that harmonises with your CV premise.
In fact the word means to buy back from pawn as you know. It does not mean to take by force. The blood is a price paid for our spiritual lives and you must not beg the question about who it is paid to. A cost is owed to God for our sin, Christ paid it thereby redeeming us, end of story. Unless of course you object so stronglyto the'wrath' side of God that you have to gloss it completely out of your theology as it seems a few do.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
I kind of hate to jump in here after so many people have been discussing this in such an admirably Purgatorial fashion--I feel like an intruder--but...I don't read anything at all in scripture that would suggest that Jesus was killed by God, which seems to me to be the implication of PSA. He was killed by the anti-God forces (the Romans and their collaborators). Is anyone actually suggesting that the legionnaires who put him on the cross were God's executioners inflicting the punishment that was due to all humanity? I really can't get my mind around that one.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Sorry, Numpty: just realised the point you were making with the Piper quote. Must have been being particularly thick last night. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
But you have already decided what your bottom line is Freddy and you are trying to rationalise it from the scriptures.

And you are not doing the same thing in what way? I repeat, your understanding of the scriptures is not the only one out there. This is precisely the sort of implication of bad faith that makes these discussions so frustrating for many people.

quote:
In fact the word means to buy back from pawn as you know. It does not mean to take by force.
Well the English word "redeem" does indeed mean "to buy back". I don't know what the Hebrew word translated as "redeem" is, but Freddy has clearly shown, from the scriptures, that it was commonly used to cover all events where something that is rightfully yours is recovered, regardless of whether that is by force or by transaction. Your insistance that this is not so sounds remakably like that of which you are trying to accuse Freddy, viz, reading in the scriptures that which you want to find there.

quote:
The blood is a price paid for our spiritual lives and you must not beg the question about who it is paid to. A cost is owed to God for our sin, Christ paid it thereby redeeming us, end of story.
No, it is not "end of story". That we are now into the fourteenth page of this discussion is proof that it is not "end of story". You have yet to produce any supporting evidence that blood atonement has anything whatever to do with "paying the price" in the sense in which you mean it. There are scriptures which refer to God paying the price for our redemption, but everyone in this argument so far has accepted that it was costly for God to redeem us, and that that cost was the willing sacrifice of Jesus. I accept it myself. What I reject is that this is in any way penal. If you want to argue that it is, then do what Numpty and John have done, and produce supporting evidence. Bald assertions are not conducive to reasoned debate, and produce only heat, not light.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The Father forsakes the Son, allowing him to die, because his settled opposition and animosity towards sin (not the Son, but sin in the Son) is being satisfied. God is satisfied by the suffering of the Son in the sense that the Son's suffering is the means by which sin and death are destroyed thereby leaving no object for God's wrath.

Could I just ask you to clarify what you mean here. Are you saying, as you seem to be, that the Father turning away from the Son is just another way of phrasing, "The Father allows the Son to proceed with His mission unto death (rather than rescuing Him), and that the "driver" as it were, is that sin is destroyed? If this is the case, I could certainly agree with you. However, it is an interpretation that I haven't heard before. More usually, IME, the Father is seen by PSAers as turning His back on the Son because he has "become Sin", and God cannot abide to look on sin, etc etc, that is, it is a moral, rather than a pragmatic imperative that leads God to "turn His back" on Jesus.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The Father forsakes the Son, allowing him to die, because his settled opposition and animosity towards sin (not the Son, but sin in the Son) is being satisfied. God is satisfied by the suffering of the Son in the sense that the Son's suffering is the means by which sin and death are destroyed thereby leaving no object for God's wrath.

Could I just ask you to clarify what you mean here. Are you saying, as you seem to be, that the Father turning away from the Son is just another way of phrasing, "The Father allows the Son to proceed with His mission unto death (rather than rescuing Him), and that the "driver" as it were, is that sin is destroyed?
Yes, I think I am, with the proviso that God's wrath (his settled animosity toward sin) is propitiated in and through its expiation. In this sense the expiation effected by Christ's death is the means by which God's wrath against sin is satisfied. Yes, Christ became sin and yet was sinless. Therefore God's wrath against the sin in Christ did not make the Father hate the Son, but it did necessitate the Father allowing the sinless Son he loved to die a substitutionary death.

quote:
If this is the case, I could certainly agree with you. However, it is an interpretation that I haven't heard before. More usually, IME, the Father is seen by PSAers as turning His back on the Son because he has "become Sin", and God cannot abide to look on sin, etc etc, that is, it is a moral, rather than a pragmatic imperative that leads God to "turn His back" on Jesus.
Pragmatic no; hedonistic, yes. God turned away because the temporary grief of separation from the Son would propitiate his wrath against the sin which the Son was voluntarily destroying. God's motive was future oriented in the sense that it anticipated future joy derived from the union of himself with sinners that he had already chosen from eternity to forgive.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In fact the word means to buy back from pawn as you know. It does not mean to take by force.

Well the English word "redeem" does indeed mean "to buy back". I don't know what the Hebrew word translated as "redeem" is, but Freddy has clearly shown, from the scriptures, that it was commonly used to cover all events where something that is rightfully yours is recovered, regardless of whether that is by force or by transaction. Your insistance that this is not so sounds remakably like that of which you are trying to accuse Freddy, viz, reading in the scriptures that which you want to find there.
Thank you JJ.

I understand where Jamat is coming from, and I don't want to be guilty of making the Bible conform to my preconceived notions.

That's the point of quoting actual passages. And not one but many. If I am misquoting, missing context, or misunderstanding the passages, then I'm sure someone can point this out. If more passages actually support what Jamat is saying, then it should not be hard to demonstrate this.

But, Jamat, you are not demonstrating anything.

The word "redeem" is a common one in the Bible, and it is often used in the sense of buying something back. But it is more frequently used in the sense of saving or rescuing someone through strong actions. "Ransom" is a less common word, but I think the quotes I provided show that it is used in the way that I have said.

Jamat, if you disagree why not show that I am wrong rather than accusing me of seeing the Bible through CV glasses. Are you sure that you are not just seeing it through PSA glasses? [Confused]

My opinion is that the Bible is remarkably consistent and rational when it comes to these types of issues. There is nothing hard about looking at word usages that it does and does not support.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I kind of hate to jump in here after so many people have been discussing this in such an admirably Purgatorial fashion--I feel like an intruder--but...I don't read anything at all in scripture that would suggest that Jesus was killed by God, which seems to me to be the implication of PSA.

Yes, but God (F,S,&HS) is sovereign and had planned the death of the Son from eternity.

quote:
He was killed by the anti-God forces (the Romans and their collaborators). Is anyone actually suggesting that the legionnaires who put him on the cross were God's executioners
In a sense yes, as Peter (recorded by Luke) in Acts 2.22-24, particularly verse 23, points out.

quote:
...inflicting the punishment that was due to all humanity? I really can't get my mind around that one.
Even the enemies of God become the lackies of God from the perspective of his eternal plan and purposes. Hard to grasp, yes, unbelievable, no. [Smile]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The Father forsakes the Son, allowing him to die, because his settled opposition and animosity towards sin (not the Son, but sin in the Son) is being satisfied. God is satisfied by the suffering of the Son in the sense that the Son's suffering is the means by which sin and death are destroyed thereby leaving no object for God's wrath.

Could I just ask you to clarify what you mean here. Are you saying, as you seem to be, that the Father turning away from the Son is just another way of phrasing, "The Father allows the Son to proceed with His mission unto death (rather than rescuing Him), and that the "driver" as it were, is that sin is destroyed?
Yes, I think I am, with the proviso that God's wrath (his settled animosity toward sin) is propitiated in and through its expiation. In this sense the expiation effected by Christ's death is the means by which God's wrath against sin is satisfied. Yes, Christ became sin and yet was sinless. Therefore God's wrath against the sin in Christ did not make the Father hate the Son, but it did necessitate the Father allowing the sinless Son he loved to die a substitutionary death.

quote:
If this is the case, I could certainly agree with you. However, it is an interpretation that I haven't heard before. More usually, IME, the Father is seen by PSAers as turning His back on the Son because he has "become Sin", and God cannot abide to look on sin, etc etc, that is, it is a moral, rather than a pragmatic imperative that leads God to "turn His back" on Jesus.
Pragmatic no; hedonistic, yes. God turned away because the temporary grief of separation from the Son would propitiate his wrath against the sin which the Son was voluntarily destroying. God's motive was future oriented in the sense that it anticipated future joy derived from the union of himself with sinners that he had already chosen from eternity to forgive.

Thanks for that clarification Numpty. As is usual with your posts, it is packed with original and comprehensive thinking, so I'll have to churn over a few grey cells. I do think I see what you are driving at, and I'm finding it really useful in discerning both where we agree, (maybe a surprisingly large area of thinking) as well as where we disagree (correspondingly small, it would seem).
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I kind of hate to jump in here after so many people have been discussing this in such an admirably Purgatorial fashion--I feel like an intruder--but...I don't read anything at all in scripture that would suggest that Jesus was killed by God, which seems to me to be the implication of PSA.

Yes, but God (F,S,&HS) is sovereign and had planned the death of the Son from eternity.

quote:
He was killed by the anti-God forces (the Romans and their collaborators). Is anyone actually suggesting that the legionnaires who put him on the cross were God's executioners
In a sense yes, as Peter (recorded by Luke) in Acts 2.22-24, particularly verse 23, points out.

quote:
...inflicting the punishment that was due to all humanity? I really can't get my mind around that one.
Even the enemies of God become the lackies of God from the perspective of his eternal plan and purposes. Hard to grasp, yes, unbelievable, no. [Smile]

On the narrow point of the Roman soldiers doing God's work, think of it this way, Timothy.

The nature of the fallen world is that it will always seek to "crucify" that which seeks to overturn the existing (dis)order of violence, greed, hatred etc. This is not just conscious (though, no doubt, vested interest plays its part). Rather it is an inbuilt disposition of humankind. If we want to call that our fallen nature, then we are using orthodox terminology, but really, even stripped of its theological descriptor, it is an observable truth.

Obviously, the life of Jesus is the most radical and powerful threat to this old order - deliberately so, for God intended that His work should be to destroy it. How could that not end up in some sort of cosmic power struggle. But the power of God is demonstrated most powerfully in self-sacrifice and submission. The cross was, in that sense, and if Jesus stayed true to His mission, inevitable. All this God knew, and, presumably, in light of this knowledge, the counter attack against evil was planned by all three persons of the Trinity in the mystery of Their union since before time (rather outside time).

Did God personally inspire Pilate and the Sanhedrin to plot Jesus' death? Did he take over the wills of the Roman soldiers to ensure they carried out their part? No, He didn't have to. It was inevitable, in that sense. The law of sin and death, personified in the structures of the Roman state moved inexorably on. It was the very sin(ful system) that God was seeking to defeat that drove them on, the relentlessness of their institutional hate the "guarantee" that the plan would succeed.

[ 29. June 2007, 11:16: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I think that the Father is pleased because, in and through his Son, what he hates is being killed. Therefore the Father chooses not to save the Son despite his infinite love for him. The Father forsakes the Son, allowing him to die, because his settled opposition and animosity towards sin (not the Son, but sin in the Son) is being satisfied. God is satisfied by the suffering of the Son in the sense that the Son's suffering is the means by which sin and death are destroyed thereby leaving no object for God's wrath.

I agree with all of the above.

I asked: Isn't the whole point of PSA to give the answer: 'Because a price must be paid and the Father won't forgive until that price is paid?'

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No. The Father has already passed over sin (i.e. forgiven sin Ps 31.1 ) before the Son is crucified because his desire to forgive takes priority over his commitment to dispense justice.

I'm going to have to go back to the books now, but, in your opinions is this 'standard PSA'? Or is this a more personal view? FWIW, I agree with the above as well.

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Therefore, the crucifixion does not 'release' the Father to forgive: rather, it justifies the Father's prior act of forgiveness.

I agree.

I'm trying to understand whether you're representing 'standard PSA' here. I think that most PSAers would say that the Father's prior act of forgiveness was done in the foreknowledge of the crucifixion having satisfied his wrath, not that the crucifixion justified a prior act.

I you are representing 'standard PSA', then I'm trying to understand what the differences might be between your theology and mine. At the moment, unlike JJ, I can't even see the small differences between what you believe and what I believe. Your citation of God's prior forgiveness in the Old Testament is exactly the sort of evidence I'd use for my view that 'God just forgives'; and it's a concept that most PSAers seem to disagree with vehemently.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Seeker963 said:
I'm trying to understand whether you're representing 'standard PSA' here. I think that most PSAers would say that the Father's prior act of forgiveness was done in the foreknowledge of the crucifixion having satisfied his wrath, not that the crucifixion justified a prior act.

My understanding of PSA (conservative evangelical) is this: the cross vindicates the scandal of God's forebearance. In other words, God willingly lays himself open to a charge of injustice and complicity with sin by forgiving sinners.

The Old Testament saints (e.g. the Patriarchs and King David etc.) were incrediblly sinful people, and yet God, for the most part appears to have 'overlooked' their sins and their sinfulness. This, of course, is because God is incredibly forgiving. He desires that his creatures should glorify him by enjoying him in his presence for all eternity. However, this desire is in tension with his commitment to take vengeance for sin.

The Psalm I quoted previously is the perfect example of God's prior forebearance regarding sin, but there are other equally authoritative texts that say that God's wrath against sin must be satisfied. So, I think that the crucifixion does indeed justify the prior act of God's forgiveness because it expiates that which he hates (sin) and it propitiates God's commitment to justice (his wrath). I believe that this view offers the best explanation of these verses:
quote:
For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
quote:
If you are representing 'standard PSA', then I'm trying to understand what the differences might be between your theology and mine.
I think the only difference is that I accept that God's wrath towards sinners was personal and that the cross the way in which that wrath was depersonalised but nonetheless propitiated.

quote:
At the moment, unlike JJ, I can't even see the small differences between what you believe and what I believe. Your citation of God's prior forgiveness in the Old Testament is exactly the sort of evidence I'd use for my view that 'God just forgives'; and it's a concept that most PSAers seem to disagree with vehemently.
That's where we differ. I think you have observed correctly reagrding God's forgiveness, but have concluded incorrectly regarding what PSA says about that prior forgievness. God most certainly could forgive prior to the cross; and the cross most certainly is not the means by which an unforgiving God becomes forgiving.

On the contrary, the cross is the means by which the Son vindicates the Father's prior forebearance by removing the offense (sin) and accepting the wage (death). He does this by taking that which the Father hates (sin) and killing it in and through his own death. This is what John Owen called, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. The cross can therefore be said to have cost the Father dearly (John 3.16) but at the same time to have satisfied his wrath against sin completely. This is because Christ on the cross was at once the object of God's absolute and unwavering love and the means by which God's wrath against sin was fully and completely satisfied and the wage (death) fully received..
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I think you have observed correctly reagrding God's forgiveness, but have concluded incorrectly regarding what PSA says about that prior forgievness. God most certainly could forgive prior to the cross; and the cross most certainly is not the means by which an unforgiving God becomes forgiving.

Unless I've misunderstood what you're saying, this is what I mean by God 'just forgiving': that God was capable of forgiveness prior to the crucifixion and did not have to hae foreknowledge of a payment before being willing to forgive.

I can't understand why my view is objectionable to PSAer. (I could understand if I insisted that 'just forgiving' means God overlooks and does not name sin, but I always qualify my statement by saying that I do believe God names sin and works for the end of sin; my view still appears unacceptable from a PSA point of view.)

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
On the contrary, the cross is the means by which the Son vindicates the Father's prior forebearance by removing the offense (sin) and accepting the wage (death). He does this by taking that which the Father hates (sin) and killing it in and through his own death. This is what John Owen called, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. The cross can therefore be said to have cost the Father dearly (John 3.16) but at the same time to have satisfied his wrath against sin completely. This is because Christ on the cross was at once the object of God's absolute and unwavering love and the means by which God's wrath against sin was fully and completely satisfied and the wage (death) fully received..

I'm not sure I disagree with any of that, either.

I'm not sure I'm going to get much further in my understanding. If this is PSA 'properly understood', then it still makes me think that 'PSA properly understood' means that PSA is not needed. At least, from my perspective.

From the point of view of a philosopher, PSA has the 'advantage' of including God's hatred of sin in the model. However, I think God's hatred of sin is present in Jewish and in Christian theology prior to the historic development of PSA such that it does not have to be incorporated into a model of atonement.

I think I shall simply remain perplexed and resigned to being de-churched by the vehement right.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Apologies for not replying to previous posts - I've been away for a few days.

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
From the point of view of a philosopher, PSA has the 'advantage' of including God's hatred of sin in the model. However, I think God's hatred of sin is present in Jewish and in Christian theology prior to the historic development of PSA such that it does not have to be incorporated into a model of atonement.

As I have said previously, I always thought the biggest 'advantage' of PSA was that it stressed personal responsibility for sin. (It is not just 'sin' that Jesus destroys, he dies for my sin.)

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I think I shall simply remain perplexed and resigned to being de-churched by the vehement right.

I came across a great US bumper sticker quoted in the press this week - "The Christian right is neither!" [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
My understanding of PSA (conservative evangelical) is this: the cross vindicates the scandal of God's forebearance. In other words, God willingly lays himself open to a charge of injustice and complicity with sin by forgiving sinners....

...the cross is the means by which the Son vindicates the Father's prior forebearance by removing the offense (sin) and accepting the wage (death). He does this by taking that which the Father hates (sin) and killing it in and through his own death. This is what John Owen called, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. The cross can therefore be said to have cost the Father dearly (John 3.16) but at the same time to have satisfied his wrath against sin completely. This is because Christ on the cross was at once the object of God's absolute and unwavering love and the means by which God's wrath against sin was fully and completely satisfied and the wage (death) fully received..

Thank you, Numpty. That is a logical and concise explanation.

The PSA argument has a simplicity and clean logic to it that is hard to fault, if you can accept its premises.

Two of the premises that, in my opinion, don't hold up to scrutiny are:
While the Bible, especially the Old Testament, amply bears out the idea that God punishes sin, I think that a better understanding of this is that sin punishes itself. A slow deer is not punished by being fed to the wolves, it just can't escape them. A sinful society is not punished by God, it simply can't function successfully. But since this truth is not obvious to people, and since it is important for people to see God as in charge, the Bible speaks of God's anger and punishment.
Again, while this is definitely stated and demonstrated in the Bible, PSA badly misconstrues it. The idea that God's wrath can be satisfied by death is as primitive as the idea that He is pleased by the smell of burnt offerings. A better understanding is simply that sin is self-destructive. Its death is neither a payment to God nor a punishment from Him, but simply the consequence of its own self-extinguishing conatus. This is why God warns us away from it, not because it upsets Him.

Without these two premises PSA does not make sense.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
2. Death, or blood, is the price of sin.
Again, while this is definitely stated and demonstrated in the Bible, PSA badly misconstrues it. The idea that God's wrath can be satisfied by death is as primitive as the idea that He is pleased by the smell of burnt offerings. A better understanding is simply that sin is self-destructive. Its death is neither a payment to God nor a punishment from Him, but simply the consequence of its own self-extinguishing conatus. This is why God warns us away from it, not because it upsets Him.

I think what I'm hearing from Numpty is a more nuanced view of God's wrath against sin. Correct me if I'm wrong, Numpty, but what you seem to be saying that "God's wrath against sin" is merely a shorthand for "His implacable opposition to sin, and His desire that it be brought to an end, coupled by His dynamic ability to bring about that end", or something like that. Thus, we tend to say "God's desire is that sin be punished", but Numpty might well stand that on its head and say, "God's desire (which, therefore implies God's action) is that sin be destroyed, and we can define that destruction by the word punishment.

I may, of course, be totally misrepresenting Numpty's argument, since it is a subtle and sophisticated one, but it does seem to be where it is leading, at least to me.

There does seem a persuasive logic to it, since so often we invest words with meaning that they don't automatically carry, especially when translated.

Am I anywhere near the mark (to use a scriptural term) here?
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As I have said previously, I always thought the biggest 'advantage' of PSA was that it stressed personal responsibility for sin. (It is not just 'sin' that Jesus destroys, he dies for my sin.)

I don't really understand what you mean by that.

I 100% agree with the theology of 'Jesus died for my sins'. But it was used as such a big club to beat people up with, that it took an awful lot of time and healing for me to be able to come into agreement with that theology.

If one wants to use that concept to assure someone of God's love for them, fine. If one wants to use it to make another person feel bad, then one should take care s/he is not trying to make a person feel bad who already feels sorry for her sins.

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I came across a great US bumper sticker quoted in the press this week - "The Christian right is neither!" [Big Grin]

Well, I can agree with that. [Two face]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Thank you, Freddy,

The weakness of your hermeneutic is that it requires the imposition of an extra-biblical theology (in the proper sense of the word) that is based on little more than moral objections to God's self-revelation in Scripture.

Consequently, Scripture itself, because it cannot be reconciled to what, IMO, is an overly anthropomorphic moral theology, is laid open to revision and censorship on the basis of a extra-scriptural intellectual-theological meta-narrative.

Essentially, your moral presuppositions concerning the nature of God disallow a conclusion that can be supported by Scripture in favour of a conclusion that requires an extensive revision of conceptual categories.

[ 30. June 2007, 19:23: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Jolly Jape said:

quote:
...Numpty, but what you seem to be saying that "God's wrath against sin" is merely a shorthand for "His implacable opposition to sin, and His desire that it be brought to an end, coupled by His dynamic ability to bring about that end", or something like that.
Yes, I think that the wrath that was satisfied on the cross was precisely the sort of wrath that you are talking about. God's wrath is his settled animosity toward sin; when sin and death die in Christ's death there ceases to be an object for God's settled animosity and thus God's wrath is satisfied. However, I also think that Christ's having become the locus of our sin does not mean that he, in his personshood, becomes the object of God's wrath.

This is because IMO, there is still no vital link between Christ's sinless nature and the sin that he willingly bears on the cross. Christ remains sinless in essence but becomes the sin-bearer by way of imputaion (yes, I know Karl objects to this!). God's wrath against the sin in Christ does not become God's wrath against Christ: the wrath of God is still directed toward the one's who sinned those sins (namely sinful humanity). The question is this: If the wage for my sin was still directed at me as Christ died where am I? The answer of course is that I was in Christ.

Therefore, it can be said that Christ doesn't just bear our sins on the cross, he takes us to the cross so that we can die to sin with him. We, by virtue of our union with Christ, die to sin with him and we, by virtue of our presence in him, suffer a painless death (the wage of sin).

God turns away from us in him, again not because he hates us or him, but because he knows that our sin is being expiated and his wrath towards it, now depersonalised by virtue of it being bourne by a sinless man is being satisfied through him.

However, for those who are not united with Christ in his death the wrath of God does remain personal. And this is because, unlike with Christ, there is a vital link between the sins that are commited and the sinful nature (the flesh) of the sinner. In other words those not in Christ will bear personal responsibilty for their sin. But those in Christ benefit from his unique sinless sacrifice because it unites them to his death (and ultimately, of course, his resurrection!). The death of Christ unites me to the consequences of my sin.

quote:
Thus, we tend to say "God's desire is that sin be punished", but Numpty might well stand that on its head and say, "God's desire (which, therefore implies God's action) is that sin be destroyed, and we can define that destruction by the word punishment.
Yes, by being in Christ our sin is destroyed and we die a painless death. Out of Christ our sin remains alive and we die a painful death.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
If one wants to use that concept to assure someone of God's love for them, fine. If one wants to use it to make another person feel bad, then one should take care s/he is not trying to make a person feel bad who already feels sorry for her sins.

[Confused] That is the case whatever view of the atonement you have.

I meet plenty of people who don't need anyone to tell them how bad they are, but I meet just as many who simply cannot see themselves as sinners. Isn't it great that the gospel speaks directly into all our lives? [Smile]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
If one wants to use that concept to assure someone of God's love for them, fine. If one wants to use it to make another person feel bad, then one should take care s/he is not trying to make a person feel bad who already feels sorry for her sins.

[Confused] That is the case whatever view of the atonement you have.
Yes, of course it would be the case whatever view of atonement that you have. However, as you have said, the point of PSA is to emphasise personal responsibility for sin, not personal salvation.

My experience was of being made to feel personally guilty, not personally saved.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I meet plenty of people who don't need anyone to tell them how bad they are, but I meet just as many who simply cannot see themselves as sinners. Isn't it great that the gospel speaks directly into all our lives? [Smile]

I can share your joy at 'the Gospel'. I still feel sad (I hope not bitter) that I came pretty darn near to not being a Christian at all because I thought The Bad News of Jesus Christ was that God loved the elect and hated me.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
However, as you have said, the point of PSA is to emphasise personal responsibility for sin, not personal salvation.

That's not what I said. The 'extra' PSA brings may include that but it doesn't 'work' if it does not emphasise both sin AND salvation.


quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I still feel sad (I hope not bitter) that I came pretty darn near to not being a Christian at all because I thought The Bad News of Jesus Christ was that God loved the elect and hated me.

What is the connection with PSA?

BTW - how did you know (for certain) that you weren't one of the elect? [Biased]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The weakness of your hermeneutic is that it requires the imposition of an extra-biblical theology (in the proper sense of the word) that is based on little more than moral objections to God's self-revelation in Scripture.

I see what you mean. However I don't think that you are correct here. I am in no way making moral objections to God's self-revelation in Scripture.

While I said that the ideas that "God must punish sin" and that "death, or blood, is the price of sin" are indeed found in the Bible, I don't mean that you have to rely on extra-biblical reasoning to see how foolish PSA's take on these things is. The Bible itself explains it.

The Bible is the source of the idea that God loves everyone and that retribution is wrong:
quote:
Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
Our Father in heaven loves every person. Sin is what punishes us, not God:
quote:
John 10:10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

John 8.34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.

Sin is what enslaves and destroys life, not God's punishments. Obedience to God protects us from sin, whereas disobedience exposes us to its ravages.

The idea that death, or blood, is the price of sin is taught in the Bible, but the meaning is that sin kills. If you get involved with sin the result is that you die spiritually - not as the price exacted by God but as the toll exacted by sin. The foolishness of thinking that God is somehow satisfied by sacrifices is clearly taught even in the Old Testament:
quote:
Micah 6.7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
Ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

Hosea 6.6 For I desire mercy and not sacrifice,
And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

The same concept is repeated in the gospels;
quote:
Matthew 9:13 "But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

Matthew 12:7 "But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless."

The whole point is to get people to change their ways, not to have a sacrifice that will satisfy God. Jesus is repudiating the need for satisfaction of this type.

So from Jesus' lips neither God's requirement of punishment, nor the requirement of blood for sin, hold up. This is not an extra-biblical theology.

These things are spoken of throughout the Bible as imagery, for the sake of comparison and understanding, not as literal explanations of how God works.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Essentially, your moral presuppositions concerning the nature of God disallow a conclusion that can be supported by Scripture in favour of a conclusion that requires an extensive revision of conceptual categories.

I feel as though I have somehow gotten through the looking-glass. [Ultra confused]

PSA, in my opinion, does exactly what you are saying by denying something that is taught everywhere in Scripture - that people can change their ways and be obedient to God.

It replaces this clear and universal concept with a tortured system of wrath, retribution, payment and imputation. The result of which is that people somehow do not need to change their ways and be obedient to God - these things are expected to happen after the person is saved.

The moral presuppositions I am talking about are biblical. The problem with PSA is that it contradicts the Bible as a whole in favor of a few scattered statements.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Consequently, Scripture itself, because it cannot be reconciled to what, IMO, is an overly anthropomorphic moral theology, is laid open to revision and censorship on the basis of a extra-scriptural intellectual-theological meta-narrative.

Sorry, but this is such a great statement that it deserves comment. [Angel]

Scripture can absolutely be reconciled to what you are calling an overly anthropomorphic moral theology. The God of Scripture can absolutely be reconciled as just, fair, and merciful, not to mention omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

In my view, however, nothing is more anthropomorphic than picturing God as a divine ruler who is upset with the human race and wants to punish them, yet who is somehow satisfied by an alternative plan.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I still feel sad (I hope not bitter) that I came pretty darn near to not being a Christian at all because I thought The Bad News of Jesus Christ was that God loved the elect and hated me.

What is the connection with PSA?
The connection with PSA is that PSA makes the idea that 'everyone is responsible for their own sin' front and centre.

If someone really values the moral example theory of atonement, they will forever be banging on about the Jesus' moral example in going to the cross and what it teaches us about our values and how we are to behave. (Which happens a lot in Methodism!)

If one thinks that 'personal responsibility for sin' is really important, one will forever be banging on about it.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
BTW - how did you know (for certain) that you weren't one of the elect?

Well, you know you're not the elect, don't you, because you have some questions about theology. The only questions are supposed to be 'What is the right answer to this question?' Beyond that, 'Why?' or 'I don't see how that works' are questions that signify that you aren't really converted.

I know you meant the winky kindly, but one certainly KNOWS when others in the congregation think one is not one of the elect! For one thing, they keep trying to get you to convert. And certain activities are reserved for 'real believers'. This is what makes trying to live inside such a congregation so painful if one isn't in total agreement with the others.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
But why do such innovative re-interpretations of Scripture always apply to the bits that make us uncomfortable? No-one is suggesting that God's love, for example, should be demoted to a general but wholly impersonal benevolence towards that which he has created. Why do the same with an attribute, namely the wrath, of God because is less philosophically 'appealing'?

Also, it bears repeating that I also think that PSA tends to engage with each attribute of God as revealed in Scripture without attempting to artificially place them in antithetical opposition to each other. So for example, your hermeneutic is based on the idea that love is the antithesis of penal justice. I'm not sure that is is.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
The connection with PSA is that PSA makes the idea that 'everyone is responsible for their own sin' front and centre.

[Confused] But we are all responsible for our own sin - I thought we had all agreed on that?

If you are saying that the cross emphasises other things as well then we are right back to (what I also thought we were all agreed on) the fact that we need to have a balance of all atonement models.

BTW -
I had a flick through the book 'Pierced for our transgressions' last week (didn't buy it since I can guess what it will say [Big Grin] ) and went straight to their bit on 'only PSA'. There was a paragraph which was 100% clear (I didn't write it down in case I was arrested for shoplifting [Two face] ) that the writers do not want only PSA, but PSA alongside other models. This PSA only thing seems to be an urban myth... ummh ... interesting.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[Confused] But we are all responsible for our own sin - I thought we had all agreed on that?

I'm saying that people preach what they think is important. I'm feeling like Alice in Wonderland here.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
BTW - I had a flick through the book 'Pierced for our transgressions' last week (didn't buy it since I can guess what it will say [Big Grin] ) and went straight to their bit on 'only PSA'. There was a paragraph which was 100% clear (I didn't write it down in case I was arrested for shoplifting [Two face] ) that the writers do not want only PSA, but PSA alongside other models.

Well, good. I'm glad to hear that.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This PSA only thing seems to be an urban myth... ummh ... interesting.

Right, Johnny. I left a congregation for an urban myth. I did not experience what I experienced and I did not have the conversations I had. Whatever. [brick wall] [brick wall]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
I came here with a two-fold purpose.

Firstly, to try to understand more about PSA, which I think I have done. I will continue my reading with a more nuanced eye, if nothing else.

Secondly, I came here in the hope that those who hold PSA dearly would acknowlege that some pretty horrific messages are being put forward at the popular in the name of both PSA and the name of salvation. It's my hope that clergy and educated laity could at least be persuaded to educate people.

In my second objective, I think I've failed because clearly there is a denial about what is going on. The mantra seems to be 'What the scholars believe about PSA, so too do all the people in the pews believe about PSA.'

For myself personally, I don't really know what more mileage there is to be had from this conversation. I don't want to huff or or take the last word and then disapper. I thank everyone for their good-natured discussion and I will try to be available if anyone thinks they need further communication for me to end well. For the moment, though, I think I need to retire from this thread.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
OK, I realise that our conversation has only tended to intersect at points on this thread, and I am aware that I haven't had the time to address some of the more emotive and testimonial objections that you have concerning the popular presentation of PSA, but I would still like to thank you for making this thread so interesting.

It would be dishonest of me to say that I haven't been challenged, and indeed I hope that I will continue to be challenged by you and the other contributors to this thread. I also think that I understand my own position concerning PSA more clearly for having participated in it. If you would like to discuss your objections further I would be happy to take part in thread that you start at some point in the future. Hope that helps.

[ 01. July 2007, 20:23: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
In my second objective, I think I've failed because clearly there is a denial about what is going on. The mantra seems to be 'What the scholars believe about PSA, so too do all the people in the pews believe about PSA.'

I'm sorry you feel like that, but I don't see how else this could proceed. I'm sure that there are some bizarre things said in the name of PSA but how can we possibly discuss it at the level of personal experience? (That would just be ... my experience is X ... your experience is Y ... end of conversation ... nothing learned.) I'm equally convinced that none of us want to tar the whole of Islam with the brush of terrorism.

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
For myself personally, I don't really know what more mileage there is to be had from this conversation. I don't want to huff or or take the last word and then disapper. I thank everyone for their good-natured discussion and I will try to be available if anyone thinks they need further communication for me to end well. For the moment, though, I think I need to retire from this thread.

Likewise, thanks for your POV - it has been challenging to hear some of your negative experiences in PSA churches.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Maybe it's time to take stock and summarise where the agreements and disagreements between the various positions are. I'll work on that, and hope to get back to y'all later.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
Thanks, Johnny and Numpty. I shall continue my readings about PSA with a more careful and nuanced approach and try - however impossible that might seem to me - to see it from your perspective. I think I've made few tiny baby-steps in that direction, anyway.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
But why do such innovative re-interpretations of Scripture always apply to the bits that make us uncomfortable?

Because we innately understand that God's character ought to be self-consistent, even allowing for the fact that He is beyond our comprehension.

The parts that make us uncomfortable may do so because they are inconsistent with more general truths about God as He reveals Himself in Scripture.

Or they may make us uncomfortable because of our own inadequate ability to understand and believe.
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No-one is suggesting that God's love, for example, should be demoted to a general but wholly impersonal benevolence towards that which he has created. Why do the same with an attribute, namely the wrath, of God because is less philosophically 'appealing'?

Because while it is perfectly consistent with Jesus' sayings to view the divine love as intimate and personal, the attribute of "wrath", and especially retribution, is inconsistent with what Jesus says.
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Also, it bears repeating that I also think that PSA tends to engage with each attribute of God as revealed in Scripture without attempting to artificially place them in antithetical opposition to each other. So for example, your hermeneutic is based on the idea that love is the antithesis of penal justice. I'm not sure that is is.

I agree. Love is not the antithesis of penal justice. God allows punishment to happen because of the use that it performs in correcting people's behavior, thoughts and desires. Everything that God permits to happen is for the sake of His higher purposes, whether those things are completely of His will or not.

God's desires are always about imparting benefits, they are never about retribution. So punishments cannot have their source in God, but they are nevertheless permitted by Him for the sake of the good that can result.

This does not make penal justice the antithesis of God's love. Penalties happen when people come into disorder, and are essentially caused by the disorder itself, not God.

For example, if a person launches himself from a high building, without benefit of wings or a parachute, he falls and hits the ground. One way of looking at this is to say that God hates this kind of behavior and responds with vengeance by hurling the person to the ground and breaking their bones. An exceedingly stupid person might actually see it that way and be puzzled at God's cruelty. But most of us would realize that in exposing ourselves to the forces of gravity we are not being punished or hated by anyone. It's just that we need constant protection from gravity, by having something under us, or we are doomed.

Sin works in the same way. It exposes us to perfectly normal processes that can destroy us if we are not protected. Every one of our physical desires, if unchained, has the capacity, like gravity, to ruin our life. Happily, it doesn't seem that way, just as we don't usually think about the threat posed by gravity.

PSA, however, takes literally descriptions that are designed to explain God in simple terms. The system that results is horrific - and unnecessarily so, because Jesus made numerous statements that should make us understand that retribution, not to mention the desire for blood, is not a part of the divine character. Jesus made it perfectly clear, I think, that God forgives those who repent. The point is to correct people's hearts, minds and actions. In PSA the point is not to correct humanity but to molify the punisher - completely missing the real purpose of the whole plan.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Maybe it's time to take stock and summarise where the agreements and disagreements between the various positions are. I'll work on that, and hope to get back to y'all later.

I would appreciate that, JJ.

I can't help but think that Christus Victor is being misunderstood, or not fully explained, on this thread.

We seem to be drawn relentlessly into discussion of PSA instead. [Frown]
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
I'm travelling at the moment and unlikely to be able to contribute much, but I wanted to thank you all for an enlightening discussion--it's helped me a lot in terms of clarifying my own beliefs and reasons for "not-belief".
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The weakness of your hermeneutic is that it requires the imposition of an extra-biblical theology (in the proper sense of the word) that is based on little more than moral objections to God's self-revelation in Scripture.

I see what you mean. However I don't think that you are correct here. I am in no way making moral objections to God's self-revelation in Scripture.

While I said that the ideas that "God must punish sin" and that "death, or blood, is the price of sin" are indeed found in the Bible, I don't mean that you have to rely on extra-biblical reasoning to see how foolish PSA's take on these things is. The Bible itself explains it.

The Bible is the source of the idea that God loves everyone and that retribution is wrong:
quote:
Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
Our Father in heaven loves every person. Sin is what punishes us, not God:
quote:
John 10:10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

John 8.34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.

Sin is what enslaves and destroys life, not God's punishments. Obedience to God protects us from sin, whereas disobedience exposes us to its ravages.

The idea that death, or blood, is the price of sin is taught in the Bible, but the meaning is that sin kills. If you get involved with sin the result is that you die spiritually - not as the price exacted by God but as the toll exacted by sin. The foolishness of thinking that God is somehow satisfied by sacrifices is clearly taught even in the Old Testament:
quote:
Micah 6.7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
Ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

Hosea 6.6 For I desire mercy and not sacrifice,
And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

The same concept is repeated in the gospels;
quote:
Matthew 9:13 "But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

Matthew 12:7 "But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless."

The whole point is to get people to change their ways, not to have a sacrifice that will satisfy God. Jesus is repudiating the need for satisfaction of this type.

So from Jesus' lips neither God's requirement of punishment, nor the requirement of blood for sin, hold up. This is not an extra-biblical theology.

These things are spoken of throughout the Bible as imagery, for the sake of comparison and understanding, not as literal explanations of how God works.

But what he is saying is what I did. You have a premise that is xtra scriptural, viz that God is loving only, there is no place for his 'wrath' if you like. My point has always been that scripture speaks clearly itself. It doesn't need the gloss of our preconception. If you simply read scripture literally you let God say what he means and mean what he says. If you see metaphor where the context doesn't allow it your tits get majorly tangled. Regarding JJ's assertion that I am doing the same thing I accuse you guys of, I acknowledge I have a literal hermeneutic but to me that is simply accepting truth as written and scripture as God's revelation. If you do this you let the word change your thinking rather than insist on bending it out of shape to mean what you want it to. I am aware of the naive,absurdities that can result from unskilled exegesis. However, as I said way back I challenge anyone to show Paul was not a PSA man to the core. I simply think you CV guys have a huge axe to grind. I'd accept CV if I thought for a moment it made sense of the atonement. In my mind it doesn't. It excuses us for our sin and makes a circuit round the mechanism of salvation that the scripture clearly teaches. It does this by saying that Christ defeated evil by love but stops short of explaining any mechanism by which this could affect us personally. In CV terms there is no conversion really, only a mental assent to a perfect life that we should all emulate. In PSA, WE are on the cross too, our sin is crucified, judged, we are redeemed, renewed and recreated in a likeness of the divine. There is a judgement of the old and a rebirth of the divine nature. In John when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus he asserted that the only way in was radical recreation. In CV, to my mind there IS no radical recreation. There is only an admiration of perfection from a distance. All of the comments Jesus made about forgiveness make no sense without PSA. I can only forgive as I am forgiven and I can only be forgiven because my King died in my place, took the judgement due to me. Not one of you have effectively refuted PSA. You have just asserted a construct that strokes the scripture to make it acceptable to your fallen humanity. (and mine). And if someone has the temerity to disagree they are judgemental and intolerant! The issue to my mind here is the burden of proof. You are taking a line with CV that sidesteps God's judgement of sin and sinfulness. Scripture clearly does not take this line if read consistently and literally. Refute this if you can Gal 3:13 "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law having become a curse for us.."
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
OK, haven't managed to get round to my summary yet, but I'm afraid I can't let this one go.
quote:
But what he is saying is what I did. You have a premise that is xtra scriptural, viz that God is loving only, there is no place for his 'wrath' if you like. My point has always been that scripture speaks clearly itself. It doesn't need the gloss of our preconception.

Well, for one thing, we are reading scripture, most of us, by translation. Furthermore, translation based on ancient texts. I think the discussion on the meaning of "redemption" is illustrative. If we have only the modern meaning of the English word, we would be forced to conclude that the process was inevitably transactional. But Freddy has clearly shown that, as used by the people of the time , there was not necessarily such a transactional understanding.

The other point is that we all read the scripture according to the metanarrative which we perceive in the whole of scripture. I do it, you do it. How else are we to interpret scripture, except by looking for that sort of pattern, interpreting the individual texts in the light of the whole. Isn't that sort of foundational to an evangelical understanding.

I actually agree with you that I think scripture speaks clearly. I just don't think that the things it is saying through that clarity are the same things that you think it is saying.

quote:
If you see metaphor where the context doesn't allow it your tits get majorly tangled.
I take it, then, that you see there is an interpretive problem that needs addressing. You are clearly stating that you are making a judgement as to whether a particular text, say, can be appropriately interpreted metaphorically or not. How, then, do you make that decision. You make it in the same way that we do, by examining context, the style of the writer, your own considered view of the whole counsel of scripture and so on. So, clearly, you don't necessarily use a literal hermaneutic. Why is this allowed for you, and not for me? And this besides the fact that there is a huge spoonful of metaphorical interpretation to be taken with every bowl of PSA.

quote:
If you do this you let the word change your thinking rather than insist on bending it out of shape to mean what you want it to.
Again, precisely the challenge that I would level at PSAers, that they are antropomorphising God, seeing Him behaving more like an offended human potentate than the Creator and Redeemer of the universe. I agree we need to let our minds be transformed by the Holy Spirit. I just find it curious that, if, as you imply, my thinking is purely worldly and extrabiblical, why does it see in Christ something so counter to the world's view of how things should be. I mean, that the strength of God (or anyone) is not in smiting, but in being smitten. How unworldly is that? I don't think I learned that from the world, in all honesty.

quote:
However, as I said way back I challenge anyone to show Paul was not a PSA man to the core.
Well, Paul is quite hot on blood sacrifice, but undoubtedly the dominant themes in his letters insofar as they relate to the atonement, is that of Christus Victor, and of union with Christ. Which is precisely why so many of the quotes on this thread are from his letters. You have yet to demonstrate that there is anything in Paul which can be said to plainly refer to PSA. If you'd like to post some texts, I'll respond to them, though it might take me a little while. I take it you don't deny that CV was in Paul's letters, so I dont need to quote Romans 8:20, or Colossians 1:20, to name but two supporting texts.
quote:
I simply think you CV guys have a huge axe to grind. I'd accept CV if I thought for a moment it made sense of the atonement. In my mind it doesn't. It excuses us for our sin and makes a circuit round the mechanism of salvation that the scripture clearly teaches. It does this by saying that Christ defeated evil by love but stops short of explaining any mechanism by which this could affect us personally.
Have you actually been reading this thread. I've lost count of the number of times that people have refuted this idea that in some way CV excuses our sin. I'll just repeat it one more time. In fact, it takes sin more seriously than does PSA, because it says that sin needs to be utterly destroyed. Only forgiveness has the power to do that. Punishment is not capable of bringing it about; if it were, our prisons would be empty rather than full. Humankind does punishment rather well. There's just one problem - it doesn't work.

Furthermore, the method by which it affects us personally, by which it effects change, is precisely the same as that which you would say is a benefit of PSA, that is, by uniting us by the Holy Spirit with the risen Jesus, so that we are born again into the new order of creation. Ontological change is at the heart of the CV interpretation of the Atonement.

quote:
In CV terms there is no conversion really, only a mental assent to a perfect life that we should all emulate.
You really haven't been reading this thread, have you? What you describe is Abelard's exemplar theory, not CV. It doesn't come even close to my position. How on earth can you say that I've denied the need for conversion?

quote:
In PSA, WE are on the cross too, our sin is crucified, judged, we are redeemed, renewed and recreated in a likeness of the divine. There is a judgement of the old and a rebirth of the divine nature. In John when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus he asserted that the only way in was radical recreation. In CV, to my mind there IS no radical recreation. There is only an admiration of perfection from a distance.
How is saying "God so loved the world...etc", or, "unless a person be born again..." in any way supportive of PSA? John 3 just isn't addressing that sort of point about the atonement. Jesus is stressing the need for divine transformation to take place in our lives. That is as true under CV as under PSA. How is being united with Christ in is resurrection in any sense an admiration of perfection from a distance? I really don't know where these assertions are coming from. Is it just possible that you haven't really understood the meaning of CV.

quote:
All of the comments Jesus made about forgiveness make no sense without PSA.
Shame that He didn't teach it, then.

quote:
I can only forgive as I am forgiven and I can only be forgiven because my King died in my place, took the judgement due to me. Not one of you have effectively refuted PSA.
There's that assertion again. Whether we have refuted PSA to your satisfaction or not, I, for my part, am fully convinced that, certainly as taught in the majority of churches, and as espoused by your good self, it is not a scriptural doctrine. Furthermore, to suggest that it is any less handwaving than CV seems just wierd. I can, probably, just about sign up to Numpty's interpretation of PSA, with some reservations about language, and certainly some outstanding problems with regards to the harmony which he sees between wrath and love, but I think that Numpty is probably somewhat to the "left" of even the most scholarly interpretations.

quote:
You have just asserted a construct that strokes the scripture to make it acceptable to your fallen humanity. (and mine). And if someone has the temerity to disagree they are judgemental and intolerant!
I can only repeat my argument. If it is as you say, how come that CV presents a picture of a God who is far more transcendant than the angry despot who needs appeasing of traditional PSA. Surely, the God of CV is less acceptable to our fallen natures, because He is so much more unlike us.

I take it that, despite the last sentence, you would not defend the sort of behaviour exhibited by the people of Seeker's formative years. In fairness, there are people on both sides of the debate who behave sub-optimally. That's because we are all sinners. Whether or not PSA (or CV) tends towards a certain type of behaviour is, in a sense, a separate discussion. I know lots of people who believe in PSA. Most of them are genuinely good and holy people, who would never knowingly do anything to cause anyone to stumble. I just think they've got it wrong.

quote:
The issue to my mind here is the burden of proof. You are taking a line with CV that sidesteps God's judgement of sin and sinfulness. Scripture clearly does not take this line if read consistently and literally. Refute this if you can Gal 3:13 "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law having become a curse for us.."

I agree, but I think that the burden of proof, from the scriptures, is heavily against PSA. I'm not sure why you think that Gal 3:13 is a killer verse for PSA. True, it talks of God in Christ redeeming us from the law, but Paul's argument is not that the law brings God's judgement per se, but rather the law is the force that is at work inside us, the flesh, if you like, bringing condemnation and bondage from within (Gal 3:23), and preventing us from receiving the grace that God wants to give us. This thinking is further developed in Romans 8:20-21. I think the language here is of liberation, the freeing of people from bondage. I don't see that as being the particular preserve of PSA.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
JJ [Overused]

I would just underline what you say about CV taking sin more seriously than PSA.

PSA says that you can't repent of your sins and change your ways in order to be forgiven. Instead Christ makes it possible for you to be forgiven because He has taken your punishment. After you are saved, then your ways are changed by Him - you are saved while you are still sinning.

This is not an approach that emphasizes repentance and ammendment of life.

CV, by contrast, says that because Christ overcame the power of sin He gives us the power, if we ask Him for it, to overcome sin in our own life, to repent, to change our ways, and to receive God's forgiveness - which is always there and always offered. The power is God's, not ours. We are not saved while we are still sinning. We are saved when we stop sinning - or rather, to be saved is to stop sinning.

This is an approach that emphasizes repentance and ammendment of life. It therefore takes sin more seriously than PSA.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
PSA says that you can't repent of your sins and change your ways in order to be forgiven...

This is not an approach that emphasizes repentance and ammendment of life.


[Confused] The whole point of PSA is that repentance is at its very heart. Every time I sin I am aware that Christ suffered for that sin because of his love for me. What greater motivation for repentance and a changed life is there?

I simply do not recognise your depiction of PSA Freddy. It's not even a caricature, it bears no resemblance at all.

I think we need JJ's summary to move this forward. Come on JJ, where is it?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
PSA says that you can't repent of your sins and change your ways in order to be forgiven...

This is not an approach that emphasizes repentance and ammendment of life.


[Confused] The whole point of PSA is that repentance is at its very heart. Every time I sin I am aware that Christ suffered for that sin because of his love for me. What greater motivation for repentance and a changed life is there?

I simply do not recognise your depiction of PSA Freddy. It's not even a caricature, it bears no resemblance at all.

I think we need JJ's summary to move this forward. Come on JJ, where is it?

Mea culpa. I'll try to get it organised. It's just that a) I'm very busy atm, and b) I don't want to misrepresent anyone's position, so there's quite a lot of cross-checking involved. I will get round to it, though - honest!
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
]Mea culpa. I'll try to get it organised. It's just that a) I'm very busy atm, and b) I don't want to misrepresent anyone's position, so there's quite a lot of cross-checking involved. I will get round to it, though - honest!

No hurry. I'm sure we can wait. I just meant that I'm not sure we're getting anywhere at the moment and the only way to move forward would be some kind of summary that we can take as a starting point.

However, I know what 'busy' is, so you take your time! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
OK, for the sake of brevity.

Everyone agrees that Jesus death and resurrection are key salvific events: without them we would not be able to have eternal life.













Any comments?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
JJ, nice summary. I do have some comments. But first I want to respond to Johnny's comment above.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
PSA says that you can't repent of your sins and change your ways in order to be forgiven...

This is not an approach that emphasizes repentance and amendment of life.

[Confused] The whole point of PSA is that repentance is at its very heart. Every time I sin I am aware that Christ suffered for that sin because of his love for me. What greater motivation for repentance and a changed life is there?

I simply do not recognise your depiction of PSA Freddy. It's not even a caricature, it bears no resemblance at all.

Sorry about that, Johnny. Maybe you will recognize it if I put it in slightly different language.

The following is from the 1999 "Call to Evangelical Unity", an agreement of Evangelical Church published in Christianity Today, also called "THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST:
AN EVANGELICAL CELEBRATION"

quote:
13. We affirm that the righteousness of Christ by which we are justified is properly his own, which he achieved apart from us, in and by his perfect obedience. This righteousness is counted, reckoned, or imputed to us by the forensic (that is, legal) declaration of God, as the sole ground of our justification.
We deny that any works we perform at any stage of our existence add to the merit of Christ or earn for us any merit that contributes in any way to the ground of our justification (Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8–9; Titus 3:5).

14. We affirm that, while all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and are in the process of being made holy and conformed to the image of Christ, those consequences of justification are not its ground. God declares us just, remits our sins, and adopts us as his children, by his grace alone, and through faith alone, because of Christ alone, while we are still sinners (Rom. 4:5).
We deny that believers must be inherently righteous by virtue of their cooperation with God’s life-transforming grace before God will declare them justified in Christ. We are justified while we are still sinners.

I'm thinking that you may be familiar with this declaration, or at least with this language.

These affirmation and denials say to me that repentance and change of life are not the basis for salvation, but rather faith alone, apart from any cooperation on our part with God's life transforming grace.

It seems to me that this is not an approach that emphasizes repentance and amendment of life. Salavation does not depend on repentance and change, but is rather the result of being saved. So the emphasis is on having faith rather than changing our ways. Or so it seems to me.

Am I still misconstruing this? Do you recognize it now?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Being an American thingy I've not come across this agreement before, but it seems pretty 'kosher' [Biased] to me.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
These affirmation and denials say to me that repentance and change of life are not the basis for salvation, but rather faith alone, apart from any cooperation on our part with God's life transforming grace.

Yep, agreed about the basis of salvation.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It seems to me that this is not an approach that emphasizes repentance and amendment of life.

Nope, lost me there. That it recognises that even repentance can sometimes become a 'work' in which we place our trust (instead of Christ) does not necessarily mean that it is not something that is emphasised. Of course how we define repentance becomes key, but it blows my mind (if you've ever had any contact with PSAers) how you could ever say that PSA downplays 'repentance'. Just a few months ago I heard of a PSAer leaving a church because 'it didn't preach repentance enough'.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
PSA says that you can't repent of your sins and change your ways in order to be forgiven.

It was this quote from you previously that I couldn't recognise. PSA states that it is not your repentance that saves you (but Christ's death and resurrection) but your above statement does not necessarily follow from that. Indeed I couldn't see anything in that 'agreement' that implied it either.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Thanks JJ. Really helpful in clarifying the discussion.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:



This is one area I would appreciate looking at further. Seeker and I did not see eye to eye on this because she referred to lots of bad experiences (as described above) but I wanted to discuss it at the level of literature etc. I concede that 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating' and thus the test of PSA must be how it appears at the popular level, however it seems grossly unfair to me to discuss a topic based on personal experience - how do we assess how uniform one person's experience is? A few people posting on a board is hardly representative!

IMHO we have to discuss a view from the level of Internationally recognised spokespeople / theologians / writers or we'll end up beating straw men / women / people.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:



I'd like to put these two issues together. IMO PSA 'takes sin seriously' in that it makes me personally and morally responsible for it.



quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:




Fair summary JJ. One key issue in this for me would be the best translation of 'hilasterion' in Paul and John.


There's lots more, but that'll do for now.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
John and Freddy I think that there is a language problem here. I have been aware that it has been present but unnoted. I'm not really sure about the substantive issue, but I've been in discussions with Freddy before, where my use of fairly standard (to me) evo language has drawn a strong reaction. In turn, Freddy's language has seemed to me close to a Pelagian position. And yet Freddy always stresses the vital importance of God's grace, and the standard evo position stresses the necessity of turning away from sin, so there is at least a sizeable dollop of semantics here.

It would be really interesting to investigate some of these differences (I think I'm probably more of a supernaturalist than Freddy, and thus, on this issue, closer to John). However, it would probably mean a new thread, and I'm not sure I could cope with another!
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Just one quick point:

quote:
I'd like to put these two issues together. IMO PSA 'takes sin seriously' in that it makes me personally and morally responsible for it.
As does CV. It's just that, under CV, that particular truth is peripheral to the actual nuts and bolts of how the Atonement works, and thus is implicit rather than explicit. But there is no shortage of other biblical text outside of the Atonement context where it is abundantly clear that we are so responsible. I can sort of see where you are coming from, John, but I would, as you know, argue that being the recipient of undeserved forgiveness, when we ourselves know how hard it can be to forgive, is a powerful motivator towards repentance. I don't see PSA as being in any way superior to this. And, of course, whilst under CV our sins didn't directly lead to the cross (since forgiveness is demonstrated and released, but not enabled, by the Atonement*), our sinful nature did.

(* should probably add here "in my understanding". I suspect that there may be some CVers who would beg to differ.)
 
Posted by Afghan (# 10478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Fair summary JJ. One key issue in this for me would be the best translation of 'hilasterion' in Paul and John.

That's easy enough...

As far as I know, hilasterion is only ever used in the Septuagint to refer to the covering of the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. So it can only refer to the sin offering offered on Yom Kippur. No other sacrifice was brought into the Holy of Holies. Nobody even entered the Holy of Holies at any other time.

The real question, I guess, is the purpose of this sacrifice? What does it signify? It seems to me slightly problematic for PSA that Christ is equated with the hilasterion and not with the scapegoat (except in the non-canonical Epistle of Barnabas).
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Thanks JJ. Really helpful in clarifying the discussion.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:


  • Most people believe that PSA is often not taught well in our churches, and PSAers are often keen to divide popular presentations of PSA from a truely biblical understanding of the doctrine. The degree to which PSA is a stumbling block in churches is hotly debated.

This is one area I would appreciate looking at further. Seeker and I did not see eye to eye on this because she referred to lots of bad experiences (as described above) but I wanted to discuss it at the level of literature etc. I concede that 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating' and thus the test of PSA must be how it appears at the popular level, however it seems grossly unfair to me to discuss a topic based on personal experience - how do we assess how uniform one person's experience is? A few people posting on a board is hardly representative!

IMHO we have to discuss a view from the level of Internationally recognised spokespeople / theologians / writers or we'll end up beating straw men / women / people.

Fair enough, but I would like to throw my anecdotal hat into the ring.

I was converted as a mid-teen in a vibrant conevo Methodist church (of some reknown, I might say. Unlike Seeker, I had no bad experiences as a result of a poor presentation of PSA, thogh I do agree that the presentation was nearer to the "God punished Jesus for my sins" approach than anything that you have posted here, John. I thought their whole handle on the atonement was, quite frankly, bonkers, and I really struggled to see how they could argue that it was straightforwardly there in the sciptures, but I can't say I lost too much sleep over it. They were, almost without exception, godly, good people, and I didn't feel particularly isolated by my "unconventional", and, at that time, ill-formed ideas. I was aware that at least one other member of the congo held views of the Atonement which, in retrospect, I recognise as being CV, but, apart from dim mutterings that he was "unsound", it didn't seem to lead to his isolation, as he was a prominent Boys Brigade leader.

Thus, I don't think it true that PSA inevitably leads to any particular distortion of church life.

It was many years later that I was first to encounter the negative side of PSA as characterised by Seeker's experience, and, on reflection, I'm not sure whether it is not that the problems are caused by doctrinal ridgidity, rather than PSA as such.

Let me explain.

I do think that PSA is a very doctrine-based doctrine, IYKWIM. It is heavily dependant on a very well defined meaning of a specific corpus of texts. The erosion of any of these texts is seen as threatening the whole. Thus, an attitude of nit-picking pedantry can build up around those who are committed to the model, and this can spill out into the rest of church life, as an obsession with behaviour codes, ever more bizarre "evo-speak" and a generally life-denying, rather than life affirming attitude. It's not so much that PSA is responsible for this, but, more probably, that it harmonised well with those who are already predisposed to that sort of thinking.

Now I'm not saying that doctrine is unimportant, but when we put it above people, I think we are close to becoming the sort of people so roundly condemned by Jesus. Pastorally, I think the biggest problem with PSA is that it tends to reinforce, rather than confront the very legalism that it makes claim to supplant.

But all this is a pragmatic argument. If PSA is "true", then we just have to live with thesae negative consequences. But, if it isn't "true", then we have a different situation.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Afghan:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Fair summary JJ. One key issue in this for me would be the best translation of 'hilasterion' in Paul and John.

That's easy enough...

As far as I know, hilasterion is only ever used in the Septuagint to refer to the covering of the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. So it can only refer to the sin offering offered on Yom Kippur. No other sacrifice was brought into the Holy of Holies. Nobody even entered the Holy of Holies at any other time.

The real question, I guess, is the purpose of this sacrifice? What does it signify? It seems to me slightly problematic for PSA that Christ is equated with the hilasterion and not with the scapegoat (except in the non-canonical Epistle of Barnabas).

How about "the place where mercy is appropriated"? Is it another of those words for which the English translation carries with it a subtext not present in the original language. Propitiation, ISTM, is commonly used as if its meaning was "placation".
 
Posted by Afghan (# 10478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
How about "the place where mercy is appropriated"? Is it another of those words for which the English translation carries with it a subtext not present in the original language. Propitiation, ISTM, is commonly used as if its meaning was "placation".

Difficult to say. Leviticus is much more concerned with the form of the ritual and rather takes for granted that everyone understands what it is all about.

Kippur - I think - is very much about the idea of placation. For instance, in the slightly different context of Jacob trying to make up with Esau, Genesis 32:20 has...

quote:
For he thought, "I will pacify him with these gifts I am sending on ahead; later, when I see him, perhaps he will receive me."

 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Pastorally, I think the biggest problem with PSA is that it tends to reinforce, rather than confront the very legalism that it makes claim to supplant.

Exactly. And I'm asking the conservative church to make sure this doesn't happen. And the answer is: 'Certainly, it doesn't happen, because that's a misunderstanding of PSA'. So my experience is invalid because it doesn't fit with theory. Yet Steve Chalke wrote a book addressing the needs of people like me even though I never met the man, we grew up in different countries and different denominations.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
PSA says that you can't repent of your sins and change your ways in order to be forgiven.

It was this quote from you previously that I couldn't recognise. PSA states that it is not your repentance that saves you (but Christ's death and resurrection) but your above statement does not necessarily follow from that. Indeed I couldn't see anything in that 'agreement' that implied it either.
The part that implies it is the statement that we are saved while we are still sinners. That is, we are saved before we repent.

I don't disagree that repentance is stressed in evangelical churches. The doctrine itself, however, does not make repentance a necessary pre-requisite for salvation.

I understand the reasoning for that, which is that we don't want to see repentance as a "work" that saves us rather than Christ. Nevertheless, it devalues the importance of repentance, since salvation does not hinge on it.

In Christus Victor, as I understand it, the whole point is to overcome evil in your life and change, by the power of Christ. Therefore, without repentance there is no salvation. Isn't this what Jesus says?
quote:
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."
As I see it, the purpose of Jesus' coming is to change people from merely saying "Lord, Lord" to people who actually do the will of the Father.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
John and Freddy I think that there is a language problem here. I have been aware that it has been present but unnoted. I'm not really sure about the substantive issue, but I've been in discussions with Freddy before, where my use of fairly standard (to me) evo language has drawn a strong reaction. In turn, Freddy's language has seemed to me close to a Pelagian position. And yet Freddy always stresses the vital importance of God's grace, and the standard evo position stresses the necessity of turning away from sin, so there is at least a sizeable dollop of semantics here.

Thanks, JJ, but I'm not so sure about that. I don't think that it is just language. It gets back to the whole question of how salvation works.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Afghan:

As far as I know, hilasterion is only ever used in the Septuagint to refer to the covering of the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. So it can only refer to the sin offering offered on Yom Kippur. No other sacrifice was brought into the Holy of Holies. Nobody even entered the Holy of Holies at any other time.

The real question, I guess, is the purpose of this sacrifice? What does it signify? It seems to me slightly problematic for PSA that Christ is equated with the hilasterion and not with the scapegoat (except in the non-canonical Epistle of Barnabas).

Why is this problematic for PSA? From my Hebrew (a little rusty admittedly) 'kpr' refers to a sacrifice offered in order to bring about forgiveness - i.e. the basis of forgiveness.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
And the answer is: 'Certainly, it doesn't happen, because that's a misunderstanding of PSA'. So my experience is invalid because it doesn't fit with theory.

I thought we'd been here before. [brick wall]

No one is denying that it happens - the question under discussion is whether it is due to PSA or not? Is it due to bad theology well applied or good theology applied badly?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

I don't disagree that repentance is stressed in evangelical churches. The doctrine itself, however, does not make repentance a necessary pre-requisite for salvation.

I understand the reasoning for that, which is that we don't want to see repentance as a "work" that saves us rather than Christ. Nevertheless, it devalues the importance of repentance, since salvation does not hinge on it.


It depends what you mean by a pre-requisite. (Hence JJ's comment about the language we use.) Is a willingness to receive it a prequisite of a free gift?

Yes / No. The offer of a free gift has no pre-requisite but I cannot gain it without 'receiving' it.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Sorry about the multiple posts - I'm not at my PC much at the moment.

A possible tangent so feel free to ignore: [Big Grin]

Reading the tangent about assertiveness made me think about the atonement (I'm starting to see it everywhere [Disappointed] )

Surely one key difference between being a doormat and 'refusing to repay violence with violence' is whether you actually have the power to or not? To me PSA demonstrates that God (in reality, not in theory) has the power to punish my sin but he chooses not to repay my violence with violence. PSA is able to display a 'non-retaliation ethic' at the same time as demonstrating that God was 'in control' of the whole thing.

[ 07. July 2007, 23:35: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
It depends what you mean by a pre-requisite. (Hence JJ's comment about the language we use.) Is a willingness to receive it a prequisite of a free gift?

Yes / No. The offer of a free gift has no pre-requisite but I cannot gain it without 'receiving' it.

Beautifully put. I agree with you there. A person does not gain an offered free gift unless they willingly receive it.

So if you are saying that God's free gift of salvation is not received apart from repentance, then I am happy. Assuming, of course, that by repentance you mean to turn away from sin.

This is what I take to be meant by the admonitions in the Gospel to:
quote:
Mark 1:15 "Repent, and believe in the gospel.”
Believing, here, goes along with repentance and the change of life that it entails. This is what comprises acceptance of God's free gift, which is forgiveness, and consequently salvation. So the disciples were sent out:
quote:
Luke 24:47 "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
Is this what you understand PSA to teach? I thought that PSA did not include our cooperation as a necessary pre-requisite to our reception of the freely offered gift of salvation. [Confused]
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
And the answer is: 'Certainly, it doesn't happen, because that's a misunderstanding of PSA'. So my experience is invalid because it doesn't fit with theory.

I thought we'd been here before. [brick wall]

No one is denying that it happens - the question under discussion is whether it is due to PSA or not? Is it due to bad theology well applied or good theology applied badly?

You'll be happy to know I'm going on holiday.

In terms of 'no one denying it happens', no one is admitting that it happens either. At least as far as I can see.

JJ put it quite well a few posts up.

I think that my problem is that, as far as I can see, the corpus of Christian thought and the previous views of atonement contain all theory that is sufficient to Christian discipleship, including personal responsibility for sin.

Perhaps it's not so much that PSA causes these abuses, but then I don't understand why PSAers keep harping on about 'personal responsibility for sin'? If I saw them seemingly take more personal responsibility for their own sins than other Christians, I might be more appreciative. The whole focus seems obsessive to me, particularly when orthodox Christian theology has always asserted personal responsibility for sin.

By the way, *I* never came to this thread to pin down the exact theory of PSA (which I suspect is probably impossible as people will probably disagree on jots and tittles).
 
Posted by craigb (# 11318) on :
 
I acknowledge that I have not read all of this thread and perhaps I am saying again what someone else has already said, and then again perhaps not.

I tend to go favor PSA theology more then any other - though with a bit of a different slant then is commonly proposed.

My take on the wrath of God towards Jesus is that the wages of sin is death which is what the story of the fall in Eden is all about. God saying if you disobey you will surely die.

Scripture also says that cursed are all who are hung on the cross and indeed we would have to agree that death by hanging on a cross is a cursed way to die indeed, and the Jews thought that any dying that way was indeed cursed by God to do so.

Therefore my understanding of it is that Christ suffered death - which is the wrath of God - or the punishment of God which stems from the beginning of time. Many read Isaiah

quote:
Isa 53:4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

Its interesting that this scripture shows the Jews and others of the day who condemned him -looking at Christ as if he was there because he was cursed by God happy in their act of crucifying this so called blasphemer.

However later on in Isaiah we read,

quote:
Isa 53:10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [3] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

Shows that it was indeed Gods will for Christ to go to the cross the way he did, not to inflict pain on him, instead so that through suffering death by the hands of men, in a most horrible way God himself paid the price for sin through being the once for all personal sacrifice as a sin offering.

Its interesting that God instituted the OT practice of sin offerings, yet no where does it suggest that God showered his wrath upon those sacrifices, rather again it shows that the wages of sin is death and it took the death of a innocent animal to apparently make good for their personal sins - which was proceeded by the owner laying hands on the animal with the intention of transferring their sins onto the beast.

So God did not perform some kind of cosmic child abuse and whip and abuse his child, rather Jesus being God himself chose to allow the sin ridden human race to lay hands on him, abusing him in the most terrible manner and fashion that could happen to him and in the process took upon himself the wages of sin which is death - though personally he never sinned and forgave us in the process instead of wiping out the whole human race in the process.

For myself this speaks more of Gods grace, love and action knowing that for us who believe and want to have a relationship with God we can do so, knowing that the price of sin has been paid for.

Blessings craig
 
Posted by Afghan (# 10478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Why is this problematic for PSA? From my Hebrew (a little rusty admittedly) 'kpr' refers to a sacrifice offered in order to bring about forgiveness - i.e. the basis of forgiveness.

Yeah, I think that's right. The best analogy I can think of for kpr is buying flowers for your wife when you're in the doghouse. But that's just the impression I get from looking at the different contexts it's used in. I'm a very amateur Hebraist!

The problem is not that it is that hard to fit the idea of the chataath to PSA. It is that the very same chapter - Leviticus 16 - offers a far better metaphor had Paul wanted to communicate that idea - the goat of Azazel. But he doesn't use it. Nobody uses it apart from the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas. The canonical texts all refer to Christ as the goat of chataath and not the goat of Azazel.

I certainly don't think it's a killer argument against PSA. But it seems a little awkward (to me) that Paul eschewed an obvious parallel and instead emphasised conciliation rather than scapegoating.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Afghan:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Why is this problematic for PSA? From my Hebrew (a little rusty admittedly) 'kpr' refers to a sacrifice offered in order to bring about forgiveness - i.e. the basis of forgiveness.

Yeah, I think that's right. The best analogy I can think of for kpr is buying flowers for your wife when you're in the doghouse. But that's just the impression I get from looking at the different contexts it's used in. I'm a very amateur Hebraist!

The problem is not that it is that hard to fit the idea of the chataath to PSA. It is that the very same chapter - Leviticus 16 - offers a far better metaphor had Paul wanted to communicate that idea - the goat of Azazel. But he doesn't use it. Nobody uses it apart from the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas. The canonical texts all refer to Christ as the goat of chataath and not the goat of Azazel.

I certainly don't think it's a killer argument against PSA. But it seems a little awkward (to me) that Paul eschewed an obvious parallel and instead emphasised conciliation rather than scapegoating.

On the contrary, scapegoating is an image of expiation (getting rid of without death), whereas the chataath is a picture of destruction in and through the death of a substitute. This is much more akin to PSA.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Is this what you understand PSA to teach? I thought that PSA did not include our cooperation as a necessary pre-requisite to our reception of the freely offered gift of salvation. [Confused]

As I said, it depends on how you use the word 'pre-requisite'. Our salvation is entirely based on the finished work of Jesus Christ, and not at all on our 'works', not even the 'work' of repentance. However, in order to receive the gift we have to admit that we need it in the first place. Repentance is our response to the gospel.

You shouldn't be so shocked by all this - it is classical reformed theology. After all what was Martin Luther's first thesis nailed to that famous door?

In case you've forgotten [Biased] :
quote:
When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
If you are claiming that classic PSA undermines repentance as a biblical priority then you are barking up the wrong tree.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As I said, it depends on how you use the word 'pre-requisite'.

Yes, I understand. Otherwise it looks like a works-based approach.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Our salvation is entirely based on the finished work of Jesus Christ, and not at all on our 'works', not even the 'work' of repentance. However, in order to receive the gift we have to admit that we need it in the first place. Repentance is our response to the gospel.

Is admitting that we need it something that we are able to do? Wouldn't that be cooperating, and therefore contributing to our own salvation? And if God can give us the power to do that, why can't He give us the power to keep the commandments?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You shouldn't be so shocked by all this - it is classical reformed theology. After all what was Martin Luther's first thesis nailed to that famous door?

In case you've forgotten [Biased] :
quote:
When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
If you are claiming that classic PSA undermines repentance as a biblical priority then you are barking up the wrong tree.
I'm aware that reformed Christianity from Martin Luther on down has spoken emphatically about repentance. But in adopting a salvific formula that relies on faith rather than on obedience to God it absolutely undermines it.

My point is that PSA does not take sin seriously, since you can be saved while remaining a sinner. Christus Victor, by contrast, equates salvation with overcoming evil in your life. The two are the same thing. You are only saved insofar as you refrain from sin.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Is admitting that we need it something that we are able to do? Wouldn't that be cooperating, and therefore contributing to our own salvation? And if God can give us the power to do that, why can't He give us the power to keep the commandments?

This is the classic debate over election and has little to do with atonement theories. Two millennia hasn't made much progress - I could equally ask, 'how would it be 'keeping' the commandments if God 'made' us do it?


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My point is that PSA does not take sin seriously, since you can be saved while remaining a sinner. Christus Victor, by contrast, equates salvation with overcoming evil in your life. The two are the same thing. You are only saved insofar as you refrain from sin.

I don't really know where to start with this!

Where on earth do you get 'you can be saved while remaining a sinner' from? If you mean 'carrying on in sin' then the PSA metaphor of dying with Christ to sin and rising with him to new life points to exactly the opposite. (PSAers take it objectively rather than subjectively - but they still adhere to it! [Biased] ) However, if you mean 'stop sinning altogether' then I think you're on your own with that one.

'You are only saved insofar as you refrain from sin' - likewise, where do you get this from? What about past sin? (Like the Thief on the Cross?) What about future sin? George Whitfield once exclaimed, "I even sin when I'm praying!" Romans 4: 8 is a great comfort to me - Clearly Freddy you must reach a level of sanctification that is way beyond us mere mortals. [Big Grin]

I think you are moving off topic from atonement models to a discussion of justification and sanctification. I would argue that they are different things but inextricably linked.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Hi Everyone, I'm the bloke who wrote the article referenced at the beginning of this thread Penal Substitution vs Christus Victor

I thought I might be able to clear up some of the confusion that seems to be going on. It seems that there is a kind of polarization being set up between PSA and CV (which is in part my fault for the title I chose). Here are some thoughts:

CV does not reject substitutionary atonement (SA). In fact SA is the major linchpin of CV.

SA is not the same thing as PSA. PSA offers one specific explanation of how SA works. Many people here on this thread have advocated SA and said they were advocating PSA, but actually their explanation did not fit with PSA. Again CV affirms SA. Just not the PSA version. Specifically, SA says Christ died vicariously and substitutionally, "for us" (CV says yes). PSA says that this was to satisfy wrath and justice through punishment.
(CV says no)

Finally, CV does not say that God simply forgives sin, or that we can simply stop. If that were the case then Jesus need not have died. What CV says is that from a legal standpoint (justice) God could have forgiven sin, but that our problem is deeper and requires healing (recreation), so Christ needed to die in the sense of liberating us from bondage and healing us from spiritual cancer.

I have a lot more to say, but I'll stop here for now.
 
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Hi Everyone, I'm the bloke who wrote the article referenced at the beginning of this thread Penal Substitution vs Christus Victor

Hmm. Looking at your article... I don't see the OT sacrifices as being about substitutionary anything, at least not originally. Animals were killed, because that is how you turn them into food. (Just like a field of wheat doesn't become bread unless you reap, crush and bake the grain.) These "violent" activities are not some kind of substitutionary punishment, but simply what you have to do if you are to prepare food, starting with living plants or animals.

Killing an animal is not startling if you are a hunter-gatherer or a farmer. It is only startling if you are a city-dweller and not used to seeing the slaughter of domesticated animals or hunted prey in your daily working life.

The sacrifices were feasts. The things brought to the "holy table" were foods made from animals or plants. We can see the same thing happening apart from formal sacrifices. The Prodigal Father killed a fatted calf for his penitent son - not as a substitutionary punishment, but because roast veal was a luxury, a great way to celebrate at the return of his missing son. So too Abraham killed a calf when the three "men" (angels) passed by, as an act of hospitality. He wanted to give them the best. It was to show them honour.

And the people of Israel brought food - from their domestic animals and plants - to honour God as their King. Just as you might hold a great banquet to honour a visiting monarch - even waiting like Abraham while the visitor ate, - so too the Israelites held great banquets for God, letting the savour of the food waft up to the heavens as they burnt all the best pieces, and sometimes all the pieces, for God (well He wasn't going to eat it as we do!) Sometimes they were allowed to share in the feast, sometimes it was for God alone, while the offerer waited by like Abraham waiting on his guests.

Any "substitutionary" aspect I see as added later, reading new (secondary) symbolism into an old action that was primarily practical, just a physical necessity for turning animals and plants into common food.

So first of all I see sacrifices as a feast to honour God, whether the food was wholly devoted to him (by fire), or was presented before God (wave or heave offering) and then shared by the offerers (or some combination of the two). Any substitutionary symbolism I see as "later" and secondary. That is not to say that it is unimportant, but we should not lose sight of the fact that sacrifices were fundamentally positive - celebrations, feasts to honour the King of Kings - not some kind of punitive or substitutionary killing.

You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. You cannot eat roast veal without killing calves. But the killing was just an act of preparation, the point was to present something luxurious to honour God - roast veal, roast beef, roast lamb. These were great luxuries in those days. A special treat.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My point is that PSA does not take sin seriously, since you can be saved while remaining a sinner.

Hi Freddy,

Maybe you need to unpack this more, but it sounds like you are saying that God (does not) saves us while we are yet sinners. This is the whole point of saving someone. You can't save a person from drowning after they have climbed out of the water. I am not a fan of PSA, but it does not claim that one can just go on sinning. What I think PSA is in contradiction with is not repentance, but forgiveness. Saying that God demands satisfaction before he will forgive is the opposite of saying God forgives.


quote:
Christus Victor, by contrast, equates salvation with overcoming evil in your life. The two are the same thing. You are only saved insofar as you refrain from sin.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you here too, but it sounds like you are saying that CV is about our overcoming evil. It is about God overcoming evil and liberating us out of its bondage. There is a big difference. What you are talking about sounds more like the debate between works and grace (tending towards Pelagianism).
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Hi Everyone, I'm the bloke who wrote the article referenced at the beginning of this thread Penal Substitution vs Christus Victor

Hmm. Looking at your article... I don't see the OT sacrifices as being about substitutionary anything,
Hi MSHB,

I do not see any sense of appeasement happening in the sacrifices, but it does seem clear that the writers of the NT did see a vicarious aspect in the sacrifices. In the NT the main motif used to understand Christ's death is Isa 53, which draws a comparison between the suffering servant who suffers "for us" unjustly and a guilt offering.

As an aside: temple sacrifice is not really central to CV (nor is it to PSA) so I'm not sure why you are focusing on it (it is in the NT and primitive church one of many issues, and probably a minor one at that).
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Hi there - thanks for your replies to Freddy ... perhaps he will see now that his comments about repentance are not directed at PSA ... maybe. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
What CV says is that from a legal standpoint (justice) God could have forgiven sin, but that our problem is deeper and requires healing (recreation), so Christ needed to die in the sense of liberating us from bondage and healing us from spiritual cancer.

Maybe this is just semantics but the above is not a million miles away from saying 'God could have forgiven sin, but our problem is deeper and requires justice' (as well as healing / recreation ... etc.)

How is 'God could have forgiven, but ...' significantly different from PSA?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Hi there - thanks for your replies to Freddy ... perhaps he will see now that his comments about repentance are not directed at PSA ... maybe. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
What CV says is that from a legal standpoint (justice) God could have forgiven sin, but that our problem is deeper and requires healing (recreation), so Christ needed to die in the sense of liberating us from bondage and healing us from spiritual cancer.

Maybe this is just semantics but the above is not a million miles away from saying 'God could have forgiven sin, but our problem is deeper and requires justice' (as well as healing / recreation ... etc.)

How is 'God could have forgiven, but ...' significantly different from PSA?

I agree that it is "not a million miles away".

PSA specifically does not say "God could have forgiven but...". It insists that justice demands satisfaction in punishment and that God cannot justly acquit us without paying that satisfaction. CV in contrast says "Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough" (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, ch 7). In other words, sin reflects not jsut what we do, but who we are, and so we need a change in identity, a new birth. So the difference is one of paradigm: PSA is a legal paradigm, while CV is more of a "physical" or medical paradigm. Does that make sense?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK, for the sake of brevity.


[*]Most people believe that PSA is often not taught well in our churches, and PSAers are often keen to divide popular presentations of PSA from a truely biblical understanding of the doctrine. The degree to which PSA is a stumbling block in churches is hotly debated.

This part has me confused. Is anyone really denying that some people have a very negative understanding of the cross that has damaged their trust in God's love based on a (possibly mistaken) understanding of PSA? This seems to me to be undeniable. The only question is whether this negative picture reflects a misunderstanding of PSA, or whether PSA itself is wrong.

Am I missing something here?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
PSA specifically does not say "God could have forgiven but...". It insists that justice demands satisfaction in punishment and that God cannot justly acquit us without paying that satisfaction. CV in contrast says "Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough" (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, ch 7). In other words, sin reflects not just what we do, but who we are, and so we need a change in identity, a new birth. So the difference is one of paradigm: PSA is a legal paradigm, while CV is more of a "physical" or medical paradigm. Does that make sense?

It makes sense, I'm not sure what the significant difference is.

ISTM both PSA and CV portray God as wanting to forgive, however they both have a 'but'.

Why could I not say, 'God could have forgiven, but sin is so serious that he had to do something about it'? - that seems to be expressing both CV & PSA (according to your post).

Of course they are different paradigms, but you won't find a PSAer denying that we need a new identity and the new birth. IME PSAers want all biblical atonement models.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
This part has me confused. Is anyone really denying that some people have a very negative understanding of the cross that has damaged their trust in God's love based on a (possibly mistaken) understanding of PSA? This seems to me to be undeniable. The only question is whether this negative picture reflects a misunderstanding of PSA, or whether PSA itself is wrong.

Am I missing something here?

Nope, I think you've got it bang on. No one is denying that there are some warped views of God's love around, and some might be influenced by teaching about PSA. As you say, the debate is (or should be [Big Grin] ) over whether that is down to PSA itself or a mistaken view of it.

IMHO a lot of the 'heat' comes from this issue. Undoubtedly some people have been hurt by conevo churches in the past. However, it is hard to remove the layers to see precisely what was at the cause. (Ogres are like onions [Biased] .)

I have frequently got confused about what it is that we are actually arguing about (now that is a picture of the church! [Disappointed] ). I have met quite a few people who are frustrated with the PSA Only position. However, I've not read or met anyone who in any way speaks for conevos who actually wants PSA Only - all I come across is a desire to include all biblical atonement models, and balance them with each other. OTOH I have met several who want CV to be supreme as an umbrella model which subsumes all the others and removes PSA altogether. Now, I may well be way off beam here and am quite willing to be corrected, but ISTM that this debate is really over CV Only rather than PSA Only.

Have I got this completely wrong?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
It makes sense, I'm not sure what the significant difference is.

The two paradigms end up having some profoundly different consequences actually.

quote:

Why could I not say, 'God could have forgiven, but sin is so serious that he had to do something about it'? - that seems to be expressing both CV & PSA (according to your post).

Yes, in the same way that a Christian and a Buddhist could both say they are "religious". But there is a lot more to it of course.

quote:

I have met several who want CV to be supreme as an umbrella model which subsumes all the others and removes PSA altogether. Now, I may well be way off beam here and am quite willing to be corrected, but ISTM that this debate is really over CV Only rather than PSA Only.

Have I got this completely wrong?

I think you are on to something. I would agree that CV should be seen as an umbrella concept, and that PSA should be removed. But I would want in that to include ALL biblical atonement models. The reason I would want to make CV central is that rather than having a hodgepodge of metaphors (some mutually contradictory), it gives a comprehensive and broad view that allows us to see how all work together with a lot more depth than the scattered approach does. Part of that model would include an understanding of substitutionary atonement as central to the whole picture which retains all of the biblical elements of substitution, and loses the nasty bits of PSA that you would likely not miss.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[qb] OK, for the sake of brevity.

<snip>

Am I missing something here?

Yes. A conversation that Jolly Jape and I (and others) had for the last 9 pages or so.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[qb] OK, for the sake of brevity.

<snip>

Am I missing something here?

Yes. A conversation that Jolly Jape and I (and others) had for the last 9 pages or so.
Numpty, I thought you made some good points in the earlier conversation, and agreed with a good deal of what you were saying. Would you care to elaborate what specifically you are referring to here?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Back to the fray!

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos

I think you are on to something. I would agree that CV should be seen as an umbrella concept, and that PSA should be removed. But I would want in that to include ALL biblical atonement models. The reason I would want to make CV central is that rather than having a hodgepodge of metaphors (some mutually contradictory), it gives a comprehensive and broad view that allows us to see how all work together with a lot more depth than the scattered approach does. Part of that model would include an understanding of substitutionary atonement as central to the whole picture which retains all of the biblical elements of substitution, and loses the nasty bits of PSA that you would likely not miss.

This is pretty much how I see it, too.

quote:
Originally posted by JohnnyS

ISTM both PSA and CV portray God as wanting to forgive, however they both have a 'but'.

Why could I not say, 'God could have forgiven, but sin is so serious that he had to do something about it'? - that seems to be expressing both CV & PSA (according to your post).

Actually I don't think that is what CV is saying. It is saying that God does, and has, forgiven our sin already, but that forgiveness is not enough to bring us to eternal life. Rather we need to be healed, re-created into a new order, no longer subject to the law of sin and death. Of course, it is a new spiritual state; until we die or the eschaton comes we are still in fallen, decaying bodies. But the essential us is re-created in union with Christ, to be clothed in a new body like that of Him at the end of time.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
This is pretty much how I see it, too.

Well then, please tell Seeker that when she comes back from holiday! [Big Grin]

Seriously, it is helpful to understand what it is that we are discussing. In debates like over Steve Chalke's book conevos are first of all attacked for believing monstrous things and then lambasted again for having a go at Steve. I don't mind taking at the heat, but it might as well be deserved. [Razz]

Right then, the issue is - CV Only (as in remove PSA completely and subsume all other models under the umbrella of CV). Okay, that is something I can get my teeth into. [Devil]

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

Actually I don't think that is what CV is saying. It is saying that God does, and has, forgiven our sin already, but that forgiveness is not enough to bring us to eternal life. Rather we need to be healed, re-created into a new order, no longer subject to the law of sin and death. Of course, it is a new spiritual state; until we die or the eschaton comes we are still in fallen, decaying bodies. But the essential us is re-created in union with Christ, to be clothed in a new body like that of Him at the end of time.

Yep, I still don't quite understand this bit. How is this not universalism? And what part does repentance and faith play?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originaly posted by Johhny S
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

Actually I don't think that is what CV is saying. It is saying that God does, and has, forgiven our sin already, but that forgiveness is not enough to bring us to eternal life. Rather we need to be healed, re-created into a new order, no longer subject to the law of sin and death. Of course, it is a new spiritual state; until we die or the eschaton comes we are still in fallen, decaying bodies. But the essential us is re-created in union with Christ, to be clothed in a new body like that of Him at the end of time.

Yep, I still don't quite understand this bit. How is this not universalism? And what part does repentance and faith play?
Well, as for whether it is universalism or not, in a sense I have to argue this from a position which is not my own. Of course, as you know, I am a "weak (empty hell) universalist". However, I think that the position is not of necessity universalist. As I see it, repentance is the fruit of accepting our prior forgiveness, and is a gift given to us by the Holy Spirit as He unites us with Christ (sorry, Freddy). Faith is the means by which we appropriate the benefits of the victory that Christ has won for us. I would argue that this faith is not just our faith, but Christ's faith as well, so I would reject a simple "sinners prayer" type mechanism as being normative, but that's just me - Others would probably disagree.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
However, I think that the position is not of necessity universalist. As I see it, repentance is the fruit of accepting our prior forgiveness, and is a gift given to us by the Holy Spirit as He unites us with Christ (sorry, Freddy). Faith is the means by which we appropriate the benefits of the victory that Christ has won for us. I would argue that this faith is not just our faith, but Christ's faith as well, so I would reject a simple "sinners prayer" type mechanism as being normative, but that's just me - Others would probably disagree.

As you know (too) I agree with you (sorry again Freddy) that the initiative in all this is God's. However, given that God already forgives us and (as it were) nothing stands between us, why on earth wouldn't God grant that gift to everyone? I can't see what is stopping this position collapsing into strong universalism.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
In debates like over Steve Chalke's book conevos are first of all attacked for believing monstrous things and then lambasted again for having a go at Steve.
You know I read Chalke's book to see what all of the fuss is about. What he says is "The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse". He is referring to the famous assertion by feminist theologian Joanne Carlson Brown and her paper "Divine Child Abuse", as many others have.

In the end his arguments are rather sloppy, and the whole debate seems to devolve into characterizations on both sides. From what you have been saying, I don't really see our views as being that far off. I agree with a lot of what you say about SA, I just don't think you've grasped CV yet, and there is a lot of depth there.

quote:
How is this not universalism? And what part does repentance and faith play?
Why would it be universalism? CV was the central view of the church for the first 1000 years. It ain't universalism.

Another thing to understand is that Atonement theories are quite different from the Gospel. The Gospel is about what we need to do to be saved (by grace through faith). The Atonement is about what God did to make grace available. So regardless of whether one opts for CV or PSA or SA or whatever, this has nothing to do with things like repentance or faith (which are of course essential).
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
This discussion goes to the nub of the matter which is what is our standing before God and how precisely do we know. Universalism does seem to be implied by CV as expounded here and with it comes the issue of why be a Christian? Why indeed have a belief system at all if none of it matters since Hell, if it exists is empty.

I have no consistent access to computers ATM so sorry to backtrack to JJ's reply to my last post.

Freddy in no way demonstrated that the word redemption means victory. He asserted it and he is entitled to his view. In common parlance it means and has always been understood to mean 'ransom' or the buying back of something in pawn.

A literal hermeneutic is one which must take account of context and does not negate metaphor when same is indicated. The literalness of my view of the 'blood ' of Christ is in fact metaphorical. I just believe, literally that the shed blood was the actual mechanism by which the price was paid for my soul. I have never seen the literal blood and don't expect to.

The 'word' as written has in my view, power to transform us if we let it. If however, we decide in advance that it can't mean something that it plainly states, then we have to gloss it. Perhaps we do all do this. However, the triangulation of the 'Word', the HS and the church go a way towards keeping us straight here. Peter says no prophecy is to be privately interpreted. Is CV such a view? Its problem to me is a tendency to make God palatable to our humanitarian sensibilities. Thus it is in my view far more open to the charge of being anthropomorphic.

Interesting that you should state that CV demands the utter destruction of sin. The problem though is that sin is part of our very nature. For it to be destroyed, and us preserved, PSA is the only consistent way since it allows judgement of the sin but allows God's love of trhe sinner. CV (and you may be right, perhaps I don't understand it fully,) cannot show HOW we are united through the HS with the risen Christ. Paul states simply that Christ dies for our sin thereby undergoing the judgement due to us. This seems to be stated and restated through his epistles. Gal 3:13 says Christ became a curse for us. How on earth could it mean anything except that Christ was subject to God's righteous judgement because our sins and sinfulness were imputed to him?

The need for conversion you believe in? But you don't necessarily believe in praying the 'sinners prayer'? What then is conversion? A mental assent to perfection as personified in Christ? If so, how does this enable the radical recreation that Christ states we need in John 3?

Did Jesus teach PSA? He did not teach any systematic theology as we know it. He was a Jewish rabbi who proclaimed himself as the promised messiah and proved it through his signs. His teaching was primarily addressed to Jews under Mosaic law and pharisaic interpretation of same. However, he did say at one point that the 'son of man came to give himself a ransom for many.' Quite PSA in a sense don't you think?

The 'God is angry despot that needs appeasing' problem seems to me to show the problem of CV. God as he reveals himself is angry, is a despot and needs appeasing; does he? Well this is human viewpoint. God ain't one of us. We cannot afford to judge him as we would judge one of ourselves. His ways are not ours nor his thoughts ours. Could it be that in our struggle to comprehend him we have presumed to pass judgement on him? To me this is the issue that drives CV.

Have I actually read this thread? I perhaps haven't read some posts as closely as I might. but I have been on this thread since about Pg 2. I appreciate JJ how you always take the time to comment point by point and endeavour to shed light rather than heat on the issues as you see them. Could you possibly be wrong though? quite simply wrong? PSA as she is generally understood is the basis of both Catholic and Reformed thinking about Christ. Show me one tradition that does not assume it as a given?
 
Posted by David Castor (# 11357) on :
 
quote:
However, he did say at one point that the 'son of man came to give himself a ransom for many.' Quite PSA in a sense don't you think?

Actually, if anything, this quote seems to endorse CV. The idea that God could hold himself to ransom is rather silly, in my opinion.

[ 11. July 2007, 01:37: Message edited by: David Castor ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
given that God already forgives us and (as it were) nothing stands between us, why on earth wouldn't God grant that gift to everyone?
The issues is that forgiveness is not for God simply a matter of willingness (God loved us while we were sinners) but restoration of relationship. That requires two parties. Additionally forgiveness is just one of many metaphors Scripture uses to describe redemption. Others are cleansing, new birth, ransom... these imply together that there is some sort liberation from death and the bondage of sin together with a new identity in Christ that involve our participation and relationship with God. So the idea that God would just write us a blank "that's ok do whatever you want" check just does not square with Scripture nor with experience.

I want to stress that one should not confuse Palagianism with Christus Victor. One is a heresy and the other was the primary understanding of the primitive church for the first millennium of its history. Christus Victor most certainly does not say that everything is OK between us and God. It stresses that sin is a bondage the leads to death that we need to be set free from.
 
Posted by David Castor (# 11357) on :
 
Actually, I think that the logical conclusion of PSA is universalism - notwithstanding the fact that universalist PSAers are a small group indeed. If Christ's death pays the penalty for sin, why can't it pay the penalty for everyone's sin? How does repentance actually make this transaction efficacious? If someone paid your fine, it would still be paid whether you said thankyou or not.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Universalism does seem to be implied by CV as expounded here and with it comes the issue of why be a Christian?
But it doesn't (see above). In fact it strongly implies that we are to follow Christ in the way of the cross which involves (in the Christus Victor model) a life of humility, servanthood, and love of enemies.

quote:
Freddy in no way demonstrated that the word redemption means victory.
The word redemption refers the the slave market, and for a Jew in the time of Jesus would immediately connote and image of their exodus out of slavery in Egypt and their feeling of being in exile in pagan Rome. So it would in other words connote the themes of liberation from bondage which is exactly the theme of Christus Victor. Same goes for the term "ransom".

<i>Its problem to me is a tendency to make God palatable to our humanitarian sensibilities. </i>

Some aspects of it are. One can say the same of PSA. But since CV is an ancient view going back to 150AD it also contains much that steps on our (post)modern toes. So it is important to wrestle through all of CV, not just the parts that fit well with our (post)modern view. Similarly substitutionary atonement is a rather important part of CV that has a tendency to be brushed over today but is a vital part of the picture.

quote:
Interesting that you should state that CV demands the utter destruction of sin. The problem though is that sin is part of our very nature. For it to be destroyed, and us preserved, PSA is the only consistent way since it allows judgement of the sin but allows God's love of trhe sinner.
Again CV contains substitutionary atonement which is opperating as you describe PSA here. This quote from Martin Luther is helpful. Luther begins by describing the problem of sin in Christus Victor terms:

"When the merciful Father saw that we were being oppressed through the Law, that we were being held under a curse, and that we could not be liberated from it by anything..."

then shifts into substitutionary atonement,

"...He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of all men upon Him, and said to Him: “Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sins of all men. And see to it that You pay and make satisfaction for them."

and then explains this in the context of Christus Victor,

“Let us see how Christ was able to gain the victory over our enemies. The sins of the whole
world, past, present, and future, fastened themselves upon Christ and condemned Him. But because Christ is God He had an everlasting and unconquerable righteousness. These two, the sin of the world and the righteousness of God, met in a death struggle. Furiously the sin of the world assailed the righteousness of God. Righteousness is immortal and invincible. On the other hand, sin is a mighty tyrant who subdues all men. This tyrant pounces on Christ. But Christ’s righteousness is unconquerable. The result is inevitable. Sin is defeated and righteousness triumphs and reigns forever.”

(from Luther's commentary on Galatians 3:13)

quote:
How on earth could it mean anything except that Christ was subject to God's righteous judgement because our sins and sinfulness were imputed to him?
It does mean that, but it means more: Isa 53 says that Christ bore not only our transgressions, but also our suffering and infirmity, meaning that God in Christ took on all that might separate us from him - shame, abuse, grief, pain, doubt, helplessness, fear, so that nothing might separate us from the love of God.

quote:
"he did say at one point that the 'son of man came to give himself a ransom for many.' Quite PSA in a sense don't you think?
As i explained two posts ago this is clearly a CV theme. Jews would not have seen the Roman cross as a fulfillment of justice, but as a curse.


quote:
PSA as she is generally understood is the basis of both Catholic and Reformed thinking about Christ.
This is not actually true. PSA is the foundation of Calvinism. It is not the view of Luther, nor was it ever the view of the Catholic Church.

quote:
Show me one tradition that does not assume it as a given?
Christianity for the first 1000 years, the Eastern Orthodox Church, (both CV) and as I said above Lutheranism, Methodism, and Catholicism do not espouse PSA.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by David Castor:
Actually, I think that the logical conclusion of PSA is universalism - notwithstanding the fact that universalist PSAers are a small group indeed. If Christ's death pays the penalty for sin, why can't it pay the penalty for everyone's sin? How does repentance actually make this transaction efficacious? If someone paid your fine, it would still be paid whether you said thankyou or not.

Not if you understand that a person must be in Christ and therefore be crucified with him. Some people think that the substitutionary death of Christ is something that happened 'over there' so to speak: the logic of this view is universalism. This isn't the case, because for Christ's death to be meaningfully substitutional one must understand that one was in Christ dying with him. In other words Christ's death was, and is, the means by which you understand yourself, in a very real sense, to have died.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
for Christ's death to be meaningfully substitutional one must understand that one was in Christ dying with him. In other words Christ's death was, and is, the means by which you understand yourself, in a very real sense, to have died.
This is quite biblical, but does not make sense with the logic of PSA which says that Christ is punished instead of us. So while the above view fits with SA (and with the Bible) it does not fit with PSA.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
for Christ's death to be meaningfully substitutional one must understand that one was in Christ dying with him. In other words Christ's death was, and is, the means by which you understand yourself, in a very real sense, to have died.
This is quite biblical, but does not make sense with the logic of PSA which says that Christ is punished instead of us. So while the above view fits with SA (and with the Bible) it does not fit with PSA.
[Confused] How can you have a Substitutional model that is not about Christ dying in our place (instead of us)? I thought that was what substitution meant?

I think you are being a little naive about how atonement models work in your sweeping generalisations about the origins of relative models. We are discussing the relative merits of different models now, it is actually very hard to demonstrate and delineate the evolution of those models. For example there is clear evidence of PSA in the early church fathers. You are trying to make a grey issue (the dominance of certain models) very black and white. It just doesn't 'fit' with Church History.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Just to try and clarify the universalist tangent, I accept that there are fewer problems with universalism under a CV rather than a PSA schema, but Numpty's excellent post above (with which I agree) is true both for PSA and for CV. What is true of the one is also true of the other. I am a weak universalist, and also a proponent of CV, but I hold these positions for quite different, and I believe thoroughly scriptural reasons. Belief in the one is not consequential of belief in the other. I very much suspect that most CVers are non-universalist, so I don't think it can be demonstrated that the one is the logical conclusion of the other.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Just to try and clarify the universalist tangent, I accept that there are fewer problems with universalism under a CV rather than a PSA schema, but Numpty's excellent post above (with which I agree) is true both for PSA and for CV. What is true of the one is also true of the other. I am a weak universalist, and also a proponent of CV, but I hold these positions for quite different, and I believe thoroughly scriptural reasons. Belief in the one is not consequential of belief in the other. I very much suspect that most CVers are non-universalist, so I don't think it can be demonstrated that the one is the logical conclusion of the other.

I believe you JJ, but is that because you are right or just because you are (like all of us are to some degree) being inconsistent? It could be that most CVers are non-universalist (at the moment) because they haven't yet reached the end of the trajectory of thought.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Just to try and clarify the universalist tangent, I accept that there are fewer problems with universalism under a CV rather than a PSA schema, but Numpty's excellent post above (with which I agree) is true both for PSA and for CV. What is true of the one is also true of the other. I am a weak universalist, and also a proponent of CV, but I hold these positions for quite different, and I believe thoroughly scriptural reasons. Belief in the one is not consequential of belief in the other. I very much suspect that most CVers are non-universalist, so I don't think it can be demonstrated that the one is the logical conclusion of the other.

I believe you JJ, but is that because you are right or just because you are (like all of us are to some degree) being inconsistent? It could be that most CVers are non-universalist (at the moment) because they haven't yet reached the end of the trajectory of thought.
Well, of course, I believe I'm right [Big Grin] !

Seriously though, what think you of the following argument, which I would guess would be used by non-u CVers.

Suppose that you are ill of a disease which, if untreated will prove fatal, but is curable with appropriate medication. The efficacy of the treatment is undoubted, but if you refuse to take the meds prescribed for you, then you will die.

Of course, this argument could equally be used by PSAers, which I why I would argue that there is no inherent link between universalism and any particular objective view of the atonement.

The debate re universalism is about how effective God is in persuading us to take the meds, rather than about the efficacy of the cure. Even (at least, weak) universalists agree that "taking the medication" (ie having our sinful nature transformed) is a prerequisite for eternal life.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
for Christ's death to be meaningfully substitutional one must understand that one was in Christ dying with him. In other words Christ's death was, and is, the means by which you understand yourself, in a very real sense, to have died.
This is quite biblical, but does not make sense with the logic of PSA which says that Christ is punished instead of us. So while the above view fits with SA (and with the Bible) it does not fit with PSA.
I think it does. Paul quite clearly said that he had been crucified with Christ: this can only refer to some form of mystical union with Christ in his death. However, Paul is perfectly clear that Christ's death was also in some sense substutionary. So, IMO, these two truths must held in tension: for the atonement to effectual we must be in mystical union with Christ crucified as our substitute. We must participate in Christ's death in order to render our death unnecessary, and indeed double jeopardy.

Any model of substitutionary atonement (penal or otherwise) that does not specify mystical union with Christ as the means by which the benefits of the passion are appropriated is, IMO, sub-biblical. It is not enough to stand back an watch Christ suffer and say, 'That is being done for me'; we must understand that in some sense it is being done to us as well as for us.

Penal substitution only makes sense if one recognises one's mystical union - and one's very real presence - with Christ in the crucifixion event. It is not possible for Christ to die 'for our sins' unless we are in some sense present with and in Christ as he dies. Jesus did not take the blame for our sins in the sense that God punished him for something he didn't do. Jesus took the blame for our sins in the sense that he came with us - or, to look at it from another angle, took us with him - to the cross and experienced, as temporal reality, the wage for sinfulness that we brought with us.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Any model of substitutionary atonement (penal or otherwise) that does not specify mystical union with Christ as the means by which the benefits of the passion are appropriated is, IMO, sub-biblical. It is not enough to stand back an watch Christ suffer and say, 'That is being done for me'; we must understand that in some sense it is being done to us as well as for us.

Penal substitution only makes sense if one recognises one's mystical union - and one's very real presence - with Christ in the crucifixion event. It is not possible for Christ to die 'for our sins' unless we are in some sense present with and in Christ as he dies. Jesus did not take the blame for our sins in the sense that God punished him for something he didn't do. Jesus took the blame for our sins in the sense that he came with us - or, to look at it from another angle, took us with him - to the cross and experienced, as temporal reality, the wage for sinfulness that we brought with us.

I agree that mystical union is absolutely at the heart of what moves the atonement from the cosmic to the personal. I don't think that the Atonement needs to be expressed penally for the above argument (with much of which I agree) to be valid. We die with Christ, we are raised to new life with Him .

[ 11. July 2007, 14:40: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
That's the verse, among others, to which I'm referring. But how does that explain Colossians 2.13-14:
quote:
13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

A question: according to this passage what was nailed to the cross? And how was it nailed to the cross; in other words, by what 'vehicle' was it so nailed?

[Cross Posted: Reply to Jolly Jape]

[ 11. July 2007, 16:47: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
I think it does. Paul quite clearly said that he had been crucified with Christ: this can only refer to some form of mystical union with Christ in his death. However, Paul is perfectly clear that Christ's death was also in some sense substutionary.[?QUOTE]

You have demonstrated that the idea of substitution being "with" is Biblical, and that also that Christ's death is substitutionary for Paul (meaning "for us"). But As I said before this does not fit with PSA which says that Christ's death is "instead of", which you seem to be denying since "with" and "instead of" are opposites.

It seems to me that you are arguing for substitutionary atonement rather than penal substitution.


[QUOTE]Any model of substitutionary atonement (penal or otherwise) that does not specify mystical union with Christ as the means by which the benefits of the passion are appropriated is, IMO, sub-biblical.

I would agree.

quote:
Jesus took the blame for our sins in the sense that he came with us - or, to look at it from another angle, took us with him - to the cross and experienced, as temporal reality, the wage for sinfulness that we brought with us
I agree again, but that is not penal substitution. That is recapitulation.

Seems that, so far, we are agreeing on what Christ's death means as far as substitutionary atonement goes, and that the disagreement is over the terminology. I don't recognize penal substitution in what you are describing.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Johnny S,

quote:
How can you have a Substitutional model that is not about Christ dying in our place (instead of us)? I thought that was what substitution meant?
Well I think Numpty has explained how quite well already. But no, substitution does not necessarily imply "instead of", that is the specific interpretation of PSA. Substitution as a theological term can also mean "for us" or "with us" or "as us".

quote:
I think you are being a little naive about how atonement models work in your sweeping generalisations about the origins of relative models. We are discussing the relative merits of different models now, it is actually very hard to demonstrate and delineate the evolution of those models. For example there is clear evidence of PSA in the early church fathers.
The only time I have heard a theologian claim this is in the book "Pierced for Our Transgression". Nearly every other theologian and biblical scholar has said quite the opposite, so this point is anything but clear. having read the Church Fathers myself I think it is a rather absurd argument that does not hold up upon examination.

quote:
You are trying to make a grey issue (the dominance of certain models) very black and white. It just doesn't 'fit' with Church History.
Am I? What I said was in response to the assertion that there was no atonement tradition within Christianity at all that was not based on PSA. I said in response that the predominant model for the first 1000 years was CV. There were currents of other models, for instance in Tertullian or Cyprian, but note the "greyness" of saying "predominant" as opposed to claiming that "only" PSA exists. The fact is that CV was the dominant model and that part of the Church Father's understanding of CV involved elements of punishment for sin and substitution. However to find PSA in that as the authors of "Pierced" do, involves cherry picking rather than a reading of what the Father's actual point is.

[ 11. July 2007, 17:15: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
sharktacos wrote:
quote:
I don't recognize penal substitution in what you are describing.

Well, I'm looking at it from another angle and from where I'm standing I can see it quite clearly. What I'm saying is this: if I am to accept that Jesus's death is (at least in part)penal (and I do) then it must be because he is acting as the vehicle for an alien unrighteousness. I believe that alien unrighteousness to be me. If I am not in Christ then his death cannot be penal. If I am in Christ then his death must be penal. Why? Because, in Christ, I am receiving the due penalty for my sin. I am a sinner, I deserve to die.

[ 11. July 2007, 17:16: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
sharktacos wrote:
quote:
I don't recognize penal substitution in what you are describing.

Well, I'm looking at it from another angle and from where I'm standing I can see it quite clearly. What I'm saying is this: if I am to accept that Jesus's death is (at least in part)penal (and I do) then it must be because he is acting as the vehicle for an alien unrighteousness. I believe that alien unrighteousness to be me. If I am not in Christ then his death cannot be penal. If I am in Christ then his death must be penal. Why? Because, in Christ, I am receiving the due penalty for my sin. I am a sinner, I deserve to die.
That makes sense, and I agree, including the penal elements.

What I would say is
1) this is a different understanding of penal then the classical legal instead of punishment view that is classically associated with PSA.

2) there is more do Christ death "in us" and "as us" then simply the penal. Christ takes on our guilt, but also takes on the damage of sin done to us, takes on our pain, suffering, and injustice.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:

2) there is more do Christ death "in us" and "as us" then simply the penal. Christ takes on our guilt, but also takes on the damage of sin done to us, takes on our pain, suffering, and injustice.

To say this more starkly: Christ on the cross became both the rapist and the raped. Meaning he took on the worst of our guilt and evil, and he also carried the most severe abuse and injustice that can be done to us so that nothing, not the sin we do and not the sin done to us, could separate us from love. To be fully biblical we need both of those elements in our understanding of substitution.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:

2) there is more do Christ death "in us" and "as us" then simply the penal. Christ takes on our guilt, but also takes on the damage of sin done to us, takes on our pain, suffering, and injustice.

To say this more starkly: Christ on the cross became both the rapist and the raped.
No. That's just nonsense, and if that's really what some so-called proponents of PSA believe then I feel very sorry for them. And I'd rather align myself with the likes Karl and Seeker than with someone who could posit such asinine pop-theology. Christ was never a sinner; never.

quote:
Meaning he took on the worst of our guilt and evil, and he also carried the most severe abuse and injustice that can be done to us so that nothing, not the sin we do and not the sin done to us, could separate us from love.

This sentence has no logical relationship to the previous one whatsoever. God the Father did not under any circumstances abuse the Son or treat him unjustly. Christ mystically took us to a painless punishment and died in our stead but not in our absence; he did not become a sinner so that God could legitimately kill him. He did not become the object of wrath from who we are spiritually detached; he allowed us to hide in him in order that we might survive God's wrath.

quote:
To be fully biblical we need both of those elements in our understanding of substitution.

Granted, but I'm not sure that you understand how propitiation actually works.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

Suppose that you are ill of a disease which, if untreated will prove fatal, but is curable with appropriate medication. The efficacy of the treatment is undoubted, but if you refuse to take the meds prescribed for you, then you will die.

Of course, this argument could equally be used by PSAers, which I why I would argue that there is no inherent link between universalism and any particular objective view of the atonement.

The debate re universalism is about how effective God is in persuading us to take the meds, rather than about the efficacy of the cure. Even (at least, weak) universalists agree that "taking the medication" (ie having our sinful nature transformed) is a prerequisite for eternal life.

I quite like the analogy but I'm not sure what light it sheds on PSA vs. CV. I'll need to think about it a bit more. My instinctive reaction is that CV tends towards universalism because I can't envisage a situation where a victory is won in a manner that 'taking the medication' is a genuine choice. A penal understanding treats us as 'people' and therefore I can just about visualise the possiblity of people accepting or rejecting the 'medicine'.

However, maybe you can come up with examples... I need to think some more!
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Johnny S,

quote:
How can you have a Substitutional model that is not about Christ dying in our place (instead of us)? I thought that was what substitution meant?
Well I think Numpty has explained how quite well already. But no, substitution does not necessarily imply "instead of", that is the specific interpretation of PSA. Substitution as a theological term can also mean "for us" or "with us" or "as us".
I know that there is debate over what 'Christ died for us' means ... hence 'for us', 'with us' or 'as us'. However, I think it is disingenuous to keep calling it 'substitution' since the term in English has always had some sense of 'instead of' - that is after all what a substitute is. If you think that this model is wrong then fine - suggest another one - however, I think it is disingenuous to carry on claiming that it is substitutionary when there is no substitution. To me this is classic POMO thinking a word is now taken to mean something completely different to what it used to mean but everyone is supposed to be happy because it is still the same word!



quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
What I said was in response to the assertion that there was no atonement tradition within Christianity at all that was not based on PSA.

Who said that?

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I said in response that the predominant model for the first 1000 years was CV. There were currents of other models, for instance in Tertullian or Cyprian, but note the "greyness" of saying "predominant" as opposed to claiming that "only" PSA exists.

Please, PLEASE, read through this thread and count the number of times when anyone has claimed anything remotely PSA Only. In fact I haven't read the 'Pierced for our transgressions' book but in the 2 minutes I spent skimming through it managed to read a paragraph which very specifically stated that they were not PSA Only.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The fact is that CV was the dominant model and that part of the Church Father's understanding of CV involved elements of punishment for sin and substitution. However to find PSA in that as the authors of "Pierced" do, involves cherry picking rather than a reading of what the Father's actual point is.

I don't follow you. Are you saying that the Church Father's taught Substitutionary atonement and they also contained elements of punishment for sin but they knew nothing of what we could call PSA? I can quote Eusebius or Cyril if you want me to.

I could equally ask you what answer you think the Church Father's would give to the following question - "Does God punish sinners?"

I'm not claiming that the Church Father's taught a fully developed 21st century PSA, only that they taught nothing that is incompatible with it.

[ 11. July 2007, 21:54: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Numpty I am thrown off by how rude your post to me was. "Asinine...nonsense...illogical..."
If you would like to re-post with a bit of civility and respect then I will respond. Other wise I will put you on my ignore list. I simply have no room for that. Your choice.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Johnny S,

quote:
I think it is disingenuous to keep calling it 'substitution' since the term in English has always had some sense of 'instead of' - that is after all what a substitute is.
You need to understand that there is the way a word is used in common English, and then there is how it is used in theology. A good example is the word "satisfaction". In common usage today it means "gratification" as in the Rolling Stones song. However this is not what it means in a theological context. There it means "compensation" or "restitution". I am here using the term "substitution" as it is classically defined in its theological sense. I am not making up the definition, nor am I being "pomo", that is just simply what the term means and has meant for a long time in this particular theological context.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
What I said was in response to the assertion that there was no atonement tradition within Christianity at all that was not based on PSA.

Who said that?

Jamat did.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I said in response that the predominant model for the first 1000 years was CV. There were currents of other models, for instance in Tertullian or Cyprian, but note the "greyness" of saying "predominant" as opposed to claiming that "only" PSA exists.

Please, PLEASE, read through this thread and count the number of times when anyone has claimed anything remotely PSA Only.

I never said they did. I merely stated the context of my statement which you had responded to.

quote:
Are you saying that the Church Father's taught Substitutionary atonement and they also contained elements of punishment for sin but they knew nothing of what we could call PSA?
Pretty close. I am saying that the dominant view of the Church Fathers was CV, and that CV contains elements of substitution and elements of penalty, but is not PSA. And I am saying that PSA specifically did not exist before Calvin.


quote:
I can quote Eusebius or Cyril if you want me to.

Go right ahead. Please give references as to where the quote is from.

quote:
I could equally ask you what answer you think the Church Father's would give to the following question - "Does God punish sinners?"
They would say sinners deserve punishment, but God desires mercy.


quote:
I'm not claiming that the Church Father's taught a fully developed 21st century PSA, only that they taught nothing that is incompatible with it.
I quoted Athanasius in a post above saying something that clearly is in conflict with PSA (just do a find for his name). I could also give you quite a few quotes from Luther that conflict with PSA. I would say that PSA clearly conflicts with the view of the early church.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[
quote:
PSA as she is generally understood is the basis of both Catholic and Reformed thinking about Christ.
This is not actually true. PSA is the foundation of Calvinism. It is not the view of Luther, nor was it ever the view of the Catholic Church.

quote:
Show me one tradition that does not assume it as a given?
Christianity for the first 1000 years, the Eastern Orthodox Church, (both CV) and as I said above Lutheranism, Methodism, and Catholicism do not espouse PSA. [/QB]
So John Wesley preached CV did he? I wonder if the hymns his brother wrote were CV too "'His blood can make the foulest clean..his blood availed for me.."

I was raised Catholic and pretty well knew the mass off by heart. We eat his body and drink his blood. Why I wonder is this necessary? To me it is not that Christ isn't the victor over sin and evil. Of course I believe he is. The issue is the mechanism by which the victory comes and by which we benefit from it. We benefit because He was judged for our sin, it was the sacrifice he made on calvary for us. What was this sacrifice if not a penal substitution? We participate because as we exercise our faith in Christ, God sees our sin was judged when Christ was. Having been forgiven we are also freed from the nature that restricted us so our sin and our sinfulness are both addressed. We are radically recreated or born again and we have the potential to be genuinely holy. Can there be any substitution that is not penal? Can there be holiness without a penalty being paid for sin? Could anyone but the perfect lamb have paid the penalty? In Revelation the only one found worthy to open the was the lamb who presents as having been slain.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by David Castor:
Actually, I think that the logical conclusion of PSA is universalism - notwithstanding the fact that universalist PSAers are a small group indeed. If Christ's death pays the penalty for sin, why can't it pay the penalty for everyone's sin? How does repentance actually make this transaction efficacious? If someone paid your fine, it would still be paid whether you said thank you or not.

Do you mean by this that one who thinks, as I do, that Christ took the judgement of my sin on the cross and who believes that I must actively appropriate the benefits of this through faith
am in fact without knowing it, a universalist?
The problem with your last sentence is assuming any appropriation can be automatic. You are free to accept or free to reject.

[ 12. July 2007, 03:43: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by David Castor:
Actually, I think that the logical conclusion of PSA is universalism - notwithstanding the fact that universalist PSAers are a small group indeed. If Christ's death pays the penalty for sin, why can't it pay the penalty for everyone's sin? How does repentance actually make this transaction efficacious? If someone paid your fine, it would still be paid whether you said thankyou or not.

Not if you understand that a person must be in Christ and therefore be crucified with him. Some people think that the substitutionary death of Christ is something that happened 'over there' so to speak: the logic of this view is universalism. This isn't the case, because for Christ's death to be meaningfully substitutional one must understand that one was in Christ dying with him. In other words Christ's death was, and is, the means by which you understand yourself, in a very real sense, to have died.
Which is precisely taught in Romans 6 if anyone cares to tead it. As we were with him in the likeness of his death, so we shall be with him in the likeness of his resurrection

[ 12. July 2007, 03:52: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by David Castor:
quote:
However, he did say at one point that the 'son of man came to give himself a ransom for many.' Quite PSA in a sense don't you think?

Actually, if anything, this quote seems to endorse CV. The idea that God could hold himself to ransom is rather silly, in my opinion.
In paying a ransom for many, Jesus was accepting a transference of sin onto himself which was undeserved. Through this mechanism as outlined in Is 53, he bore our sins and carried our issues. In Gethsemane his agony came about as a consequence of a turning away of the father from him as he gave himself up to be judged for the sin of the world. How is this model not perfectly consistent with everything we read in the scripture?

[ 12. July 2007, 04:08: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV ..... is about God overcoming evil and liberating us out of its bondage.

And precisely how this occurs is the problem bit if you take away the idea that Christ was judged in our place
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Numpty I am thrown off by how rude your post to me was. "Asinine...nonsense...illogical..."
If you would like to re-post with a bit of civility and respect then I will respond. Other wise I will put you on my ignore list. I simply have no room for that. Your choice.

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:

2) there is more do Christ death "in us" and "as us" then simply the penal. Christ takes on our guilt, but also takes on the damage of sin done to us, takes on our pain, suffering, and injustice.

To say this more starkly: Christ on the cross became both the rapist and the raped.
No. That's just nonsense, and if that's really what some so-called proponents of PSA believe then I feel very sorry for them. And I'd rather align myself with the likes Karl and Seeker than with someone who could posit such asinine pop-theology. Christ was never a sinner; never.
OK, I’m sorry to have offended you. Let me rephrase.

I disagree with that statement because it simply doesn’t make sense. I'd rather align myself theologically with critics of PSA than with a theology that is posited in such a two-dimensional and biblically inaccurate manner. Christ did not become a rapist: never.

I stand by the rest which can be read here.
 
Posted by David Castor (# 11357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by David Castor:
quote:
However, he did say at one point that the 'son of man came to give himself a ransom for many.' Quite PSA in a sense don't you think?

Actually, if anything, this quote seems to endorse CV. The idea that God could hold himself to ransom is rather silly, in my opinion.
In paying a ransom for many, Jesus was accepting a transference of sin onto himself which was undeserved. Through this mechanism as outlined in Is 53, he bore our sins and carried our issues. In Gethsemane his agony came about as a consequence of a turning away of the father from him as he gave himself up to be judged for the sin of the world. How is this model not perfectly consistent with everything we read in the scripture?
But in what sense is this actually a *ransom*?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Jamat,

quote:
So John Wesley preached CV did he?
Methodism, generally speaking goes with the "Moral Government" view of the Atonement outlined by John Milley. Milley specifically rejects PSA.

quote:
I was raised Catholic and pretty well knew the mass off by heart. We eat his body and drink his blood. Why I wonder is this necessary?
According to Thomas Aquinas, it has to do with Christ doing penance for our original sin. Again, Aquinas specifically rejects the PSA formula:

"If we speak of that satisfactory punishment[i.e. penance], which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another's punishment... If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sin only, because the sinful act is something personal."(Summa Theologica FS, Q. 87-A8)


quote:
What was this sacrifice if not a penal substitution?
It was a ransom. A sacrafice of love. Bearing injustice and suffering. A recapitulation. A liberation. An overcoming of evil with good...

quote:
Can there be any substitution that is not penal?
Yup. Isa 53 talks about this. Christ bears our "sorrow" and our "infirmity". Just look at who Jesus calls to himself throughout the Gospels: the sick, the least, the children, the heavyladen, prisoners, a woman "kept in bondage by Satan", the poor. See a pattern? He died for them too.

quote:

Can there be holiness without a penalty being paid for sin?

Here you lost me. Why would inflicting a penalty make something holy?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Numpty,

quote:
Christ did not become a rapist: never.

Would you say the same about this quote from Luther:
"...He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of all men upon Him, and said to Him: “Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sins of all men. And see to it that You pay and make satisfaction for them."
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
You know a reoccurring theme that I am hearing here from a number of posters in the PSA camp is the inability to imagine any other model besides PSA, and the inability to comprehend CV.

That should tell us something.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
You need to understand that there is the way a word is used in common English, and then there is how it is used in theology. A good example is the word "satisfaction". In common usage today it means "gratification" as in the Rolling Stones song. However this is not what it means in a theological context. There it means "compensation" or "restitution". I am here using the term "substitution" as it is classically defined in its theological sense. I am not making up the definition, nor am I being "pomo", that is just simply what the term means and has meant for a long time in this particular theological context.

Er no, you need to understand how English language works. Your 'satisfaction' illustration is a good one - it has changed its meaning but when theologians use it, it is accepted that the historic meaning of the word is being used. That way there can be continuity of discussion between the past and now.

However, you are not doing that with 'substitution'. As I have said before, I'm quite happy for the discussion of substitution to continue - perhaps we have got it wrong in the past. But there is a slight of hand going on when a term is now used to mean something completely different to what it used to mean. Then it is a time for some integrity and a new term.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:


I never said they did. I merely stated the context of my statement which you had responded to.

[Confused] Threads like this quickly fall apart if we continue discussions we are having with other people into the one we are having on the thread.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Go right ahead. Please give references as to where the quote is from.

I'm just going out, but I'll give you some quotes later.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

quote:
I could equally ask you what answer you think the Church Father's would give to the following question - "Does God punish sinners?"
They would say sinners deserve punishment, but God desires mercy.
So how is that incompatible with PSA?
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Numpty,

quote:
Christ did not become a rapist: never.

Would you say the same about this quote from Luther:
"...He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of all men upon Him, and said to Him: “Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sins of all men. And see to it that You pay and make satisfaction for them."

I would say the following: 'Where does that quote come from?'. I'd say this because, having read Luther before, I'm aware that his arrguments are not easily reducible to soundbites. Luther's arguments tend to accumulate in force over many paragraphs, even pages. Furthermore, his style of argumentation is often to make a provocative statements, like the one you've just quoted, that contain only half of his argument. He then qualifies that provative statement to a series of subtle qualifications and clarifications. So, my initial reaction to your quote from Luther is this: yes, it does look like Luther is saying that Christ became a rapist. However, I'm fairly convinced that if one reads further on into his argument he will have anticipated and refuted that mistaken assumption.

[ 12. July 2007, 09:17: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
(reluctantly raises head above parapet)

Numpty and Sharktacos, I wonder if you are not talking past each other on this. Numpty, I don't think that Sharktacos is saying that Jesus actually became a sinner on the cross, but rather that he bore there the whole of the human condition of alienation from God, that is, into Him was poured all the consequences of our fallenness. He "felt" (to use an inappropriately touch-feely term) the shame and guilt of the rapist and the sense of violation of the victim, because they are both part of the experience of mankind - albeit at the more extreme end of the spectrum. That's sort of how I read what he's saying.

(ducks back behind parapet)
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
However, you are not doing that with 'substitution'. As I have said before, I'm quite happy for the discussion of substitution to continue - perhaps we have got it wrong in the past. But there is a slight of hand going on when a term is now used to mean something completely different to what it used to mean. Then it is a time for some integrity and a new term.

But we do use the idea of substitution in this way, in contemporary english. As I see it, Christ does indeed die instead of us, the important part of it is that it is our role he is substituting. He takes our place, because we are not able, not strong enough, so to speak, to deliver the necessary victory. A bit like a football substitution, where a crocked player (us) is sustituted by Ronaldo in order that the winning goal might be scored. Of course, the winning goal, in this case, was to die in order to achieve that victory. It is impossible for us to have done that for ourselves, so our role is substituted by Christ, who was indeed able to win that victory. Think of this nuance of substitution as a synonym for "champion" (in the chivalric sense).
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by David Castor:
quote:
However, he did say at one point that the 'son of man came to give himself a ransom for many.' Quite PSA in a sense don't you think?

Actually, if anything, this quote seems to endorse CV. The idea that God could hold himself to ransom is rather silly, in my opinion.
In paying a ransom for many, Jesus was accepting a transference of sin onto himself which was undeserved.
But moral culpability for sin cannot justly be laid upon Christ unless the guilty party is also united with Christ. Penal substitution makes no sense whatsoever unless it rests upon the union of sinners with Christ in his death.

[ 12. July 2007, 09:52: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But we do use the idea of substitution in this way, in contemporary english. As I see it, Christ does indeed die instead of us, the important part of it is that it is our role he is substituting. He takes our place, because we are not able, not strong enough, so to speak, to deliver the necessary victory. A bit like a football substitution, where a crocked player (us) is sustituted by Ronaldo in order that the winning goal might be scored. Of course, the winning goal, in this case, was to die in order to achieve that victory. It is impossible for us to have done that for ourselves, so our role is substituted by Christ, who was indeed able to win that victory. Think of this nuance of substitution as a synonym for "champion" (in the chivalric sense).

Thanks for the clarification. My comments about subtitution were not in response to you since, as you explain above, you still maintain a sense of 'instead of' and you have made that clear from the beginning. However, Sharktacos seems to be going further and removing all sense of 'instead of', and hence removing substitute from the word substitution!

My discussion with you is over exactly what that substitution means. I'm quite happy to see that we both hold to substitutionary atonement but you remove the penal element. I'm not so sure (unless I have misunderstood his posts) that Sharktacos still holds to substitution in any meaningful way.

For what it is worth I agree with Numpty's description of PSA.

Perhaps it comes down to rhetoric. Maybe some from the CV side feel that PSAers have claimed too much historical support in the past. However, no one is going to win any friends by trying to turn it into some great PSA conspiracy.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV ..... is about God overcoming evil and liberating us out of its bondage.

And precisely how this occurs is the problem bit if you take away the idea that Christ was judged in our place
Isn't this the key to the whole issue?

It seems to me that the example of Christ's temptations in the wilderness answers that question.

Christ subdued the devil by refuting his suggestions and remaining in perfect obedience to the Father. Multiply those victories by thousands and you have Christ overcoming the power of darkness.

The idea is that Christ's encounters with evil, in the form of "the devil", the "power of darkness", the "prince of this world", and even those in this world who challenged and opposed Him, actually had a permanent effect.

When Christ's combats were over those powers were effectively subdued - meaning that people were no longer spiritually under their dominion but were free to choose good or evil.

The implication of this is not universalism, but the freedom to choose.

Furthermore, the means that Christ used were the teachings that He spoke. This is how He refuted the devil, how He opposed the Jewish leaders, and how He led, and fed, the multitudes. As these words remain with us, His power to fight for us also remains. The implication is that we use these truths in the same way, and overcome evil in our own lives by His power by living by these truths. This is how God's power works in us - not by our own strength but by His.

This is how we were, and are, liberated from bondage.

By contrast, how does Christ being judged in our place really help?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
On the subject of the the historical understanding of the atonement and PSA. The following quote by Howard Marshall puts it much more eloquently than me (from a paper of his on the Atonement):

quote:
It is sometimes alleged that the doctrine of penal substitution effectively dates from the Reformation and was virtually absent or unformulated earlier. However, a distinction must be made between the existence of the doctrine and its position. The doctrine of penal substitution may not be prominent before the Reformation, but this is quite different from saying that it was unknown. Thus, while Green and Baker can show how great stress is laid on the doctrine of recapitulation in Irenaeus, they also rightly point out that Irenaeus includes statements of propitiation. Irenaeus, like other early Christian theologians is concerned both with the deliverance of sinners from their sin and also with the mending of their relationship with God. Similarly Blocher gathers together patristic and other pre-Reformation statements which show that the doctrine was certainly held but was not central.{1} Further evidence from Origen, Cyril of Alexandria and Augustine is supplied by Boersma.{2} If the doctrine was not central in patristic and mediaeval theology, then that maybe hangs with the general tendency to misunderstand the grace of God that T. F. Torrance rightly detected as occurring from an early stage,{3} and that was not put right until the Reformers brought the church back to the New Testament.
{1} H. Blocher, ‘Biblical metaphors and the doctrine of the atonement’, JETS 47:4 (Dec. 2004), 630-631.
{2} H. Boersma, Violence, Hospitality and the Cross; Reappropriating the Atonement Tradition Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 19, 158-163.
{3} T. F. Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1948).


...


So, as I keep saying no one is claiming PSA only. If all that is claimed is that PSA has claimed a dominance that is not warranted then fine, so be it. However, if the desire is to remove PSA all together then I'm still not convinced there is anywhere near sufficient biblical or historical evidence to do so.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Actually, John, I do wonder if te dreaded "pond difference" is not rearing its ugly head here. Certainly, on reading Sharktacos article linked to on page 1 of this thread, I don't get the impression that he wants to ditch what you or I would understand as SA, though he doesn't, AFAICR, use the phrase. But I do recall having a minor exchange with Tom Clune about this, and his position is that his understanding of what is meant by SA is much more limited in scope than mine. I also remember Mousethief being pretty negative about SA, though I think that, by and large, my view of the Atonement is pretty much that which he himself holds.

ETA this in response to Johnny S post about Sharktacos and SA.

[ 12. July 2007, 11:30: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV in contrast says "Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough" (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, ch 7).

Context is always key. Don't forget that Athanasius was arguing against Arianism. He wanted to stress that Jesus must be God because only God can save and yet Jesus saves. Therefore in the above quote I suspect that Athanasius is stressing that the work of salvation must be something that could not be achieved by a 'mere human'. Whatever his point about what God could do theoretically his main point is that currently human repentance is not enough - God's action in salvation is absolutely necessary.

Below is a quote from exactly the same work by Athanasius (this time from chapter 20)

But since it was necessary also that the debt owing from all should be paid again: for, as I have already said, it was owing that all should die, for which especial cause, indeed, He came among us: to this intent, after the proofs of His Godhead from His works, He next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of all, in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to shew Himself more powerful even than death, displaying His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the resurrection of all.

Of course we can debate what 'debt' and 'in the stead of all' means. However, your argument of Athanasius directly contradicting PSA seems to be collapsing a little too easily. It is one thing to argue that Athanasius means slightly different things in those expressions to what PSAers mean, but it is another to demonstrate clearly that he was contradicting PSA.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Actually, John, I do wonder if the dreaded "pond difference" is not rearing its ugly head here.

You could well be right - isn't that a good reason for clarification then?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Actually, John, I do wonder if the dreaded "pond difference" is not rearing its ugly head here.

You could well be right - isn't that a good reason for clarification then?
Absolutely - I'm sure when Sharktacos wakes up we'll get his or her take on it.

(Edited for inclusivity)

[ 12. July 2007, 11:55: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
I agree with pretty much everything Jolly Jape has said including his interpretation of where I am coming from.

In order to move forward I think we will need to have a common understanding of terms here. Let's start with:

what is "penal substitutionary atonement" and how does it differ from "substitutionary atonement".
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Numpty,

I agree with your reading of Luther. Please read my commnents in the same way.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[
quote:
PSA as she is generally understood is the basis of both Catholic and Reformed thinking about Christ.
This is not actually true. PSA is the foundation of Calvinism. It is not the view of Luther, nor was it ever the view of the Catholic Church.

quote:
Show me one tradition that does not assume it as a given?
Christianity for the first 1000 years, the Eastern Orthodox Church, (both CV) and as I said above Lutheranism, Methodism, and Catholicism do not espouse PSA.

So John Wesley preached CV did he? I wonder if the hymns his brother wrote were CV too "'His blood can make the foulest clean..his blood availed for me.."

I was raised Catholic and pretty well knew the mass off by heart. We eat his body and drink his blood. Why I wonder is this necessary? To me it is not that Christ isn't the victor over sin and evil. Of course I believe he is. The issue is the mechanism by which the victory comes and by which we benefit from it. We benefit because He was judged for our sin, it was the sacrifice he made on calvary for us. What was this sacrifice if not a penal substitution? We participate because as we exercise our faith in Christ, God sees our sin was judged when Christ was. Having been forgiven we are also freed from the nature that restricted us so our sin and our sinfulness are both addressed. We are radically recreated or born again and we have the potential to be genuinely holy. Can there be any substitution that is not penal? Can there be holiness without a penalty being paid for sin? Could anyone but the perfect lamb have paid the penalty? In Revelation the only one found worthy to open the was the lamb who presents as having been slain. [/QB]

I think the Wesley's were more into the sacrificial view of atonement plus the exemplary one - 'Love so amazing, so divine demands my soul, my life, my all'.

[ 12. July 2007, 16:48: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Johnny S,

let's examine this:

But since it was necessary also that the debt owing from all should be paid again: for, as I have already said, it was owing that all should die, for which especial cause, indeed, He came among us:

Here Athanasius is using legal terms (debt leading to death). Before he uses physical terms (corruption leading to death). So why, according to him was it "owing that all should die"? Not because of transgression only, but because of the resulting corruption. Meaning sin is not only an outward act, but effects us inwardly, corrupting our souls and setting us on a course towards death. Not as an externally imposed punishment, but as the inevitable and certain result of our actions. A "moral law" if you will.

to this intent, after the proofs of His Godhead from His works, He next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of all,

why does he do this? Athanasius answers:

in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to shew Himself more powerful even than death, displaying His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the resurrection of all.

Not to satisfy the demands of punishment, but to "free" us from our inward soul corruption, to overcome "death" (who here Athanasius personifies and uses as synonymous with the devil). So Christ can rise victorious "resurrecting" as "more powerful than death".

Of all the Fathers, Athanasius' language is the most "legal" but what he is describing is much deeper than the fulfillment of mere legal obligation which in itself cannot reform or renew a heart.

quote:
your argument of Athanasius directly contradicting PSA seems to be collapsing a little too easily.
I disagree. PSA says the central point of Christ's death was to satisfy the demands of legal punishment. Athanasius plainly contradicts this and says that the problem was more profound.

The bottom line is that the Church fathers have a much deeper understanding of the gravity of sin that goes well beyond what a legal theory can comprehend and thus offers a broader understanding of what it means to be set free from sin. It is not mere acquittal (a legal model), it is new life (a physical or medical model).
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
why does he do this? Athanasius answers:

in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to shew Himself more powerful even than death, displaying His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the resurrection of all.

Not to satisfy the demands of punishment, but to "free" us from our inward soul corruption, to overcome "death" (who here Athanasius personifies and uses as synonymous with the devil). So Christ can rise victorious "resurrecting" as "more powerful than death".

[Confused] The quote above says 'free of their old trespass' (a legal metaphor) - you are the one jumping to 'inward soul corruption'. Maybe if you took those CV glasses off you might stop bumping into things! [Biased]


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
PSA says the central point of Christ's death was to satisfy the demands of legal punishment. Athanasius plainly contradicts this and says that the problem was more profound.

The bottom line is that the Church fathers have a much deeper understanding of the gravity of sin that goes well beyond what a legal theory can comprehend and thus offers a broader understanding of what it means to be set free from sin. It is not mere acquittal (a legal model), it is new life (a physical or medical model).

Athanasius was building up an argument, yes. The idea that his second point is more 'profound' than the first is your assertion - I'm not convinced. Surely he is agruing that Jesus fulfils the legal need as well as the internal work? There is clear evidence of CV here but only that which complements PSA.

As I said before the context of all this is his asertion that Jesus is God - he wants to make it clear that what Jesus achieved was not something mere humans could do.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
what is "penal substitutionary atonement" and how does it differ from "substitutionary atonement".

Okay. Shrewd move - it is far easier to knock down than to build. [Big Grin]

So, here goes ...

I'd start by saying that any explanation of the atonement must the answer to Luther's question... the answer to Exodus 34: 6-7 - how can guilty people draw near to a compassionate and gracious God?

I'll throw out a definition of PSA by John Stott and see how many agree with that to begin with. Do PSAers recognise it? Do SAers baulk at it?

quote:
John Stott:

In and through Christ crucified God substituted himself for us and bore our sins, dying in our place the death we deserved to die, in order that we might be restored to his favour and adopted into his family.

(The Cross of Christ, p 7)


 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
what is "penal substitutionary atonement" and how does it differ from "substitutionary atonement".

Okay. Shrewd move - it is far easier to knock down than to build. [Big Grin]

So, here goes ...

I'd start by saying that any explanation of the atonement must the answer to Luther's question... the answer to Exodus 34: 6-7 - how can guilty people draw near to a compassionate and gracious God?

I'll throw out a definition of PSA by John Stott and see how many agree with that to begin with. Do PSAers recognise it? Do SAers baulk at it?

quote:
John Stott:

In and through Christ crucified God substituted himself for us and bore our sins, dying in our place the death we deserved to die, in order that we might be restored to his favour and adopted into his family.

(The Cross of Christ, p 7)


This could be a good beginning, but it is lacking the two central elements of any atonement theory: the "why" question of the necessity of the cross Why did Christ need to die?), and the "how" question of the efficacy of the cross (how does Christ death save?). So the definition would need to be expanded to address both of these in order to express the "working mechanism" behind the theory.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
This could be a good beginning, but it is lacking the two central elements of any atonement theory: the "why" question of the necessity of the cross Why did Christ need to die?), and the "how" question of the efficacy of the cross (how does Christ death save?). So the definition would need to be expanded to address both of these in order to express the "working mechanism" behind the theory.

Funny that. Previously on the ship I have got quite a few comments along the lines of 'why are PSAers always so obsessed with the mechanism?' [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'll throw out a definition of PSA by John Stott and see how many agree with that to begin with. Do PSAers recognise it? Do SAers baulk at it?
quote:
John Stott:
In and through Christ crucified God substituted himself for us and bore our sins, dying in our place the death we deserved to die, in order that we might be restored to his favour and adopted into his family.
(The Cross of Christ, p 7)


This could be a good beginning, but it is lacking the two central elements of any atonement theory: the "why" question of the necessity of the cross Why did Christ need to die?), and the "how" question of the efficacy of the cross (how does Christ death save?).
But aren't these two implicit in the statement? The implication is that God's need for justice is satisfied by Christ's death.

My question about this is why should God go through a process that essentially changes God (i.e. satifies Him) rather than changing man?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
what is "penal substitutionary atonement" and how does it differ from "substitutionary atonement".

Okay. Shrewd move - it is far easier to knock down than to build. [Big Grin]

So, here goes ...

I'd start by saying that any explanation of the atonement must the answer to Luther's question... the answer to Exodus 34: 6-7 - how can guilty people draw near to a compassionate and gracious God?

I'll throw out a definition of PSA by John Stott and see how many agree with that to begin with. Do PSAers recognise it? Do SAers baulk at it?

quote:
John Stott:

In and through Christ crucified God substituted himself for us and bore our sins, dying in our place the death we deserved to die, in order that we might be restored to his favour and adopted into his family.

(The Cross of Christ, p 7)


This could be a good beginning, but it is lacking the two central elements of any atonement theory: the "why" question of the necessity of the cross Why did Christ need to die?), and the "how" question of the efficacy of the cross (how does Christ death save?). So the definition would need to be expanded to address both of these in order to express the "working mechanism" behind the theory.
Christ needed to die because the nature of God demanded an expiation of sin. In The OT, animal sacrifice temporarily plugged a gap here but now a perfect sacrifice has been found. The Passover lamb needed to be perfect and Christ filled the gap being The incarnation of the nature of God, the everlasting word,living a perfect life, sinless, and dying in the midst of the Passover feast. God in his holiness could not accept sin in his presence. We are sinners. Christ's 'God' nature was clothed in humanity yet he maintained his integrity of holiness by not sinning when in the likeness of a man. In his incarnation, he could dwell with sinners because his true nature was concealed, being seen momentarily at the transfiguration. Yet he maintained holiness and his association with sinners was enabled possibly because the cross event was imminent and had a retrospective effect.

The death of Christ saves, as Numpty has explained, by the inclusion of us into the cross event. When Christ was judged so was our sin. God can now see us as righteous, Christ having been judged in our place and we having been seen by God as having been simultaneously judged with him on the cross. Romans 6 explains the process. The actualisation of such salvation demands that God reveals this opportunity for grace to us and that we decide to accept it. Such is my understanding of the conversion process.

[ 13. July 2007, 01:01: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
So we need to examine the internal assumptions of how things work that lie behind PSA.

Freddy suggests that God needed "for justice is satisfied by Christ's death". Here we need to ask how justice is satisfied through punishment/death? Perhaps we need to define the term "satisfaction".

Jamat says that God's "demanded an expiation of sin". Again, why does it demand one, and what is meant by expiation? Further, Jamat says "When Christ was judged so was our sin". But why would that make things right? The implication is that once our sin was punished, God was no longer mad. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth however, so I'm asking: is that the intent? Is this the internal logic behind the theory of how justice works?

[ 13. July 2007, 02:28: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
So we need to examine the internal assumptions of how things work that lie behind PSA.

Freddy suggests that God needed "for justice is satisfied by Christ's death". Here we need to ask how justice is satisfied through punishment/death? Perhaps we need to define the term "satisfaction".

Jamat says that God's "demanded an expiation of sin". Again, why does it demand one, and what is meant by expiation? Further, Jamat says "When Christ was judged so was our sin". But why would that make things right? The implication is that once our sin was punished, God was no longer mad. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth however, so I'm asking: is that the intent? Is this the internal logic behind the theory of how justice works?

The problem since the fall has always been that God's holiness separated him from his fallen creation. Holiness and sin are mutually exclusive. But God in his love bridged the gap in Christ and the means was to judge Christ who was sinless by placing our sin upon him. God was never angry in a human sense just separated from us and incompatible with us hence the complexity of Mosaic law which Christ brought to an end and which, consequently, we no longer have to keep thank God.
This is evangelical faith 101 isn't it?

Justice is a moral law that demands redress of wrong, deny it at your peril. The argument on this thread is whether it has to be retributive or can be dealt with by a 'forgiveness'model.

My view as often stated is that retribution is a penalty exacted for redressing a wrong what ever the form it may take. To me retributive may also be restorative but not necessarily. I contend God needed to satisfy justice before forgiveness can be offered. The logic is that:
He judged Christ for my sin.
I am in Christ so I can be forgiven.
I must extend forgiveness to others now since this is Christ's obligation on me.

Whatever the form it takes, satisfaction is demanded by the definition of justice. An eternal law demands that our sin be judged, the problem for God is how to judge our sin yet save us intact.

My problem with CV is and remains that it seems to, when taken to a logical conclusion, minimise the problem of sin. JJ has waxed eloquent as to why this is not the case but I can't agree with him.

And it is actually Paul who said that when Christ was judged so was our sin. Ro 6:6,7,8 "Our old self was crucified with him....Now if we have died with Christ, we believe we shall also live with him."
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV ..... is about God overcoming evil and liberating us out of its bondage.

And precisely how this occurs is the problem bit if you take away the idea that Christ was judged in our place
Isn't this the key to the whole issue?

It seems to me that the example of Christ's temptations in the wilderness answers that question.

Christ subdued the devil by refuting his suggestions and remaining in perfect obedience to the Father. Multiply those victories by thousands and you have Christ overcoming the power of darkness.

The idea is that Christ's encounters with evil, in the form of "the devil", the "power of darkness", the "prince of this world", and even those in this world who challenged and opposed Him, actually had a permanent effect.

When Christ's combats were over those powers were effectively subdued - meaning that people were no longer spiritually under their dominion but were free to choose good or evil.

The implication of this is not universalism, but the freedom to choose.

Furthermore, the means that Christ used were the teachings that He spoke. This is how He refuted the devil, how He opposed the Jewish leaders, and how He led, and fed, the multitudes. As these words remain with us, His power to fight for us also remains. The implication is that we use these truths in the same way, and overcome evil in our own lives by His power by living by these truths. This is how God's power works in us - not by our own strength but by His.

This is how we were, and are, liberated from bondage.

By contrast, how does Christ being judged in our place really help?

Thought you had an issue with the devil idea Freddy.

The temptations in the wilderness were an example of a spirit-led man finding a 'God' power within to defeat evil. Christ, though, had no nature of sin as we do. The temptations for him were to short cut the cross and take the kingdom through a non-cross alternative but to him this would be to sidestep God's plan and let Satan win through the back door. You seem to be suggesting that we could emulate what Jesus did without going through calvary Freddy, though I'm sure you are not. However, this has a whiff of 'salvation by my own strength' doesn't it?
Incidentally has anyone been tempted to tun stones into bread lately?

Christ judged in my place solves my problem. I was dragged back by my sin from a holiness imperative, now I can pursue it. Read Rmans 6.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Jamat,

"satisfaction is demanded by the definition of justice"

Please define "satisfaction" and "justice". Do you mean that pain/destruction is demanded by the definition retribution? Or do you mean that restitution is demanded by the definition of restoration?

Is justice about "getting what we have coming to us"? Or is it about "making things right"?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Jamat,

"My problem with CV is and remains that it seems to, when taken to a logical conclusion, minimise the problem of sin."

What logical conclusion is that?

I would say on the contrary that it gives a much deeper and broader perspective on sin than a legal view can. So I again have to wonder what you think CV says? Have you read Aulen's book? Are you confusing Christus Victor with the "just forgive" view?

Again we need to define our terms.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I may have forgotten but I don't think we've looked at the Catholic doctrine of the Mass in this context: I've always understood the Mass to be a 'propitiatory sacrifice' (albeit unbloody), which to me sounds a lot like a form of PSA.

What say ye?
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What say ye?

Propitiatory sacrifice is unjust according to the legal model. It's like bribing the judge.

The implication is that SA is really about restoring the relationship between humans and God, not satisfying cosmic law. My opinion is that the distinction gets a bit fuzzy as you get into more nuanced versions of PSA.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Thanks Matt. Like it wasn't complicated enough already! [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
John Stott:
In and through Christ crucified God substituted himself for us and bore our sins, dying in our place the death we deserved to die, in order that we might be restored to his favour and adopted into his family.
(The Cross of Christ, p 7)

quote:
This could be a good beginning, but it is lacking the two central elements of any atonement theory: the "why" question of the necessity of the cross Why did Christ need to die?), and the "how" question of the efficacy of the cross (how does Christ death save?).
But aren't these two implicit in the statement? The implication is that God's need for justice is satisfied by Christ's death.

My question about this is why should God go through a process that essentially changes God (i.e. satifies Him) rather than changing man?

I'm not sure that is implicit in John Stott's quote.

Also, since the above quote was in answer to the question - "How can guilty people draw near to a gracious and compassionate (and holy... see Exodus 34) God?" - I don't see how you can say it is all about changing God. The change occurs in us. Our nature is punished for sin, forgiven, reconciled, redeemed and restored. I know JJ doesn't like concrete metaphors but I still can't see how a wall can be knocked down in such a way that it only effects the people on one side of it.

I re-read last night a book which was fascinating in the light of our discussion. 'Essentials', written by David Edwards with a response from John Stott. It is titled 'a liberal-evangelical debate'.

Two things struck me as I looked again at these two great thinkers arguing over the cross. (Remember it was published in 1988 well before SA was 'revisited'.)

1. There was much less of a middle ground (obviously since it was a liberal-evangelical debate!). John Stott could refer to NT expressions like 'Christ died for us' safe in the knowledge that most people would read that in an objective and (to some degree) penal sense. How things have changed! Lots of terms are being reviewed now. If the discussion happened today they would spend all their time defining terms!

2. All of Edwards problems with Stott's view are exactly the same ones we have been discussing on this thread. Now I'm not trying some crass 'guilty by association' argument here. In and of itself this proves nothing. I simply find it interesting that the middle ground is becoming blurred these days with evangelicals and others using the liberal arguments of yesteryear.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Thought you had an issue with the devil idea Freddy.

In my view hell is populated by devils and satans, and heaven is populated by angels. Collectively, hell is called "the devil" or "satan". The biblical use of the term simply personifies evil in a symbolic way, or it describes an encounter with either an individual devil or a group of them.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You seem to be suggesting that we could emulate what Jesus did without going through calvary Freddy, though I'm sure you are not.

Yes, we cannot emulate what Jesus did without going through Calvary. By this I take it that you mean that we each need to go through Calvary?

Jesus emphasized the need to lose one's life:
quote:
Matthew 10:39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Matthew 16:25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

Mark 8:35 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.

Luke 9:24 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.

Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

John 12:25 He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

Luke 17:33 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.

Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.

Is this what you mean by going through Calvary? Or do you mean PSA?

As I understand it, we are able to give up our own lives because Jesus gave up His. That is, we are able to give spiritual life priority over physical life because Jesus made that possible, and we can do it through His power.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
However, this has a whiff of 'salvation by my own strength' doesn't it?

This is my point with Johnny, and the reason behind my saying that PSA does not take sin seriously or promote repentance. If our "own strength" is irrelevant to our salvation, then why struggle against sin in ourselves? This is where I think that PSA is so seriously mistaken and unbiblical.

I believe that we struggle "as if of ourselves" but that the actual power is from Christ. So we do not save ourselves, Christ does. Still, the subjective appearance is that we make efforts to improve ourselves, calling on God's help, and that we make progress in this over the course of our lifetime. This makes sense of Jesus' frequent statements that we cannot be saved unless we do as He teaches us, and that without Him "we can do nothing." With Him and from Him we can overcome evil in our lives.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally has anyone been tempted to tun stones into bread lately?

Don't you think that this could be metaphoric? Christ's temptations in the wilderness summarize all the temptations of His lifetime.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Read Romans 6.

I think that we all know Romans 6 quite well. Is there anything in particular there that would be helpful?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Jamat,

"My problem with CV is and remains that it seems to, when taken to a logical conclusion, minimise the problem of sin."

What logical conclusion is that?

I would say on the contrary that it gives a much deeper and broader perspective on sin than a legal view can. So I again have to wonder what you think CV says? Have you read Aulen's book? Are you confusing Christus Victor with the "just forgive" view?

Again we need to define our terms.

I agree that we don't seem to have a common understanding of CV. I think I'm describing CV when I said above:
quote:
Christ subdued the devil by refuting his suggestions and remaining in perfect obedience to the Father. Multiply those victories by thousands and you have Christ overcoming the power of darkness.

The idea is that Christ's encounters with evil, in the form of "the devil", the "power of darkness", the "prince of this world", and even those in this world who challenged and opposed Him, actually had a permanent effect.

When Christ's combats were finished, those powers were effectively subdued - meaning that people were no longer spiritually under their dominion but were free to choose good or evil.

The implication of this is not universalism, but the freedom to choose.

Furthermore, the means that Christ used were the teachings that He spoke. This is how He refuted the devil, how He opposed the Jewish leaders, and how He led, and fed, the multitudes. As these words remain with us, His power to fight for us also remains. The implication is that we use these truths in the same way, and overcome evil in our own lives by His power by living by these truths. This is how God's power works in us - not by our own strength but by His.

This is how we were, and are, liberated from bondage.

Is this different than what others understand by CV?
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I may have forgotten but I don't think we've looked at the Catholic doctrine of the Mass in this context: I've always understood the Mass to be a 'propitiatory sacrifice' (albeit unbloody), which to me sounds a lot like a form of PSA.

What say ye?

I'd say that the Catholic Mass is more lke science fiction: it is based on the idea of folding the space-time continuum so that the sacrifice of the altar is directly and mystically connected to the one crucifixion event. It's not that the Mass is 'another' sacrifice, but rather that it is a mystical reconnection with the one sacrifice. It's as if the event of the mass is a dot on a piece of paper (i.e. a fixed point in time) and the crucifixion is another dot (fixed point in time) but that these events connect through the folding of space-time.

In short, I can see no penal element in the mass other than one that rests of mystical union with a the one penal sacrifice of teh cross.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I was more focussing on the 'propitiatory' bit.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Freddy, I am not recognizing CV in your description.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I may have forgotten but I don't think we've looked at the Catholic doctrine of the Mass in this context: I've always understood the Mass to be a 'propitiatory sacrifice' (albeit unbloody), which to me sounds a lot like a form of PSA.

What say ye?

I would say that PSA is something the Catholic Church would reject. Case in point:

"This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Doctrine of the Atonement")

Catholics believe in "satisfaction doctrine" which if you are used to thinking in PSA terms can sound a lot like PSA. But the Catholic Church would reject PSA. Hence the need to define terms.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Johnny S,

If you disagree with what Freddy said, could you then state the necessity and efficacy of the cross in your understanding of PSA?

No need to be "mechanical" I am merely looking for the operative internal logic behind the idea.

p.s. I like your idea about the falling wall effecting those on both sides.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Freddy, I am not recognizing CV in your description.

Just as I feared.

So how else can we think of Christ being victorious over evil? [Confused]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I may have forgotten but I don't think we've looked at the Catholic doctrine of the Mass in this context: I've always understood the Mass to be a 'propitiatory sacrifice' (albeit unbloody), which to me sounds a lot like a form of PSA.

What say ye?

I would say that PSA is something the Catholic Church would reject. Case in point:

"This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Doctrine of the Atonement")

Catholics believe in "satisfaction doctrine" which if you are used to thinking in PSA terms can sound a lot like PSA. But the Catholic Church would reject PSA. Hence the need to define terms.

Define 'propitiatory sacrifice', then, and explain how it differs from PSA.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Matt Black:
[/QUOTE]Define 'propitiatory sacrifice', then, and explain how it differs from PSA. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Catholic Atonement doctrine is rooted in the idea of penance. Penance is more about effecting an inner change in sinners then it is about appeasement of God.

Propitiation means "to make favorable". It is not a main focus of the Catholic view.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Freddy, I agree with what you say about us being set free to follow in Christ's teaching and way. What I find missing is any mention of how the incarnation, crucifixion, or resurrection fits into this.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Some have said that CV doesn't take sin seriously but I'm not sure that's the right word. I think CV does not take sin personally enough. Even NT Wright can't escape the fact that the scriptures speak of God treating some people as his enemies (and not just 'sin' as his enemy). The framework of the NT assumes the future action of God against evil doers (and not just their evil deeds).

Therefore PSA supplies a metaphor for how God treats our sin personally (NB not individually) and yet still can forgive and restore us.

So on to a fuller explanation of PSA. How about this one from Howard Marshall?

quote:
Howard Marshall:

Salvation is available to sinful human beings through the death of Christ that involves him in bearing the consequences of sin. These consequences constitute the penalty due to sin, rightly called a penalty because it is painful and deprives the sinner of life with God and all its blessings. In this way the holy and loving God upholds righteousness through judging sinners and saving those who accept what he has done in his Son on their behalf and instead of them.


 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Matt Black:
quote:
Define 'propitiatory sacrifice', then, and explain how it differs from PSA.
Catholic Atonement doctrine is rooted in the idea of penance. Penance is more about effecting an inner change in sinners then it is about appeasement of God.

Propitiation means "to make favorable". It is not a main focus of the Catholic view.

Just to clarify, from Wikipedia:
quote:
The Greek word hilasterion is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew kapporeth which refers to the Mercy Seat of the Arc. Hilasterion can be translated as either "propitiation" or "expiation" which then imply different functions of the Mercy Seat. Propitiation literally means to make favorable and specifically includes the idea of dealing with God’s wrath against sinners. Expiation literally means to make pious and implies either the removal or cleansing of sin.

The idea of propitiation includes that of expiation as its means, but the word "expiation" has no reference to quenching God’s righteous anger. The difference is that linguistically the object of expiation is sin, not God (i.e. sin is removed, not God). Linguistically, one propitiates a person (makes them favorable), and one expiates a problem (removes it). Christ's death was therefore both an expiation and a propitiation. By expiating (removing the problem of) sin God was made propitious (favorable) to us.

So a 'propitiatory sacrifice' would seem to be about pleasing God. The meaning depends on what kind of things you view as pleasing to God, or that would make Him favorable.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
You know a reoccurring theme that I am hearing here from a number of posters in the PSA camp is the inability to imagine any other model besides PSA, and the inability to comprehend CV.

That should tell us something.

Hello! PSA adherent here!
I value all the theories of atonement - they all speak to me, they all have value.

One on its own is never enough.

Sometimes PSA, sometimes ransom, sometimes example, etc, etc...

Why can't we have them all - all I would say is they should all be compulsory because they all have Scriptural backing - even it has to be said, PSA!
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Matt Black:
quote:
Define 'propitiatory sacrifice', then, and explain how it differs from PSA.
Catholic Atonement doctrine is rooted in the idea of penance. Penance is more about effecting an inner change in sinners then it is about appeasement of God.

Propitiation means "to make favorable". It is not a main focus of the Catholic view.

Just to clarify, from Wikipedia:
quote:
The Greek word hilasterion is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew kapporeth which refers to the Mercy Seat of the Arc. Hilasterion can be translated as either "propitiation" or "expiation" which then imply different functions of the Mercy Seat. Propitiation literally means to make favorable and specifically includes the idea of dealing with God’s wrath against sinners. Expiation literally means to make pious and implies either the removal or cleansing of sin.

The idea of propitiation includes that of expiation as its means, but the word "expiation" has no reference to quenching God’s righteous anger. The difference is that linguistically the object of expiation is sin, not God (i.e. sin is removed, not God). Linguistically, one propitiates a person (makes them favorable), and one expiates a problem (removes it). Christ's death was therefore both an expiation and a propitiation. By expiating (removing the problem of) sin God was made propitious (favorable) to us.

So a 'propitiatory sacrifice' would seem to be about pleasing God. The meaning depends on what kind of things you view as pleasing to God, or that would make Him favorable.

No - ilasterion was a Septuagint word for ‘mercy seat’. In Leviticus 16:16, blood was sprinkled over it. Hebrews 9:5 has the definite article THE hilasterion so it must refer to Christ removing what defiles the worshipper, rendering him unfit to approach God. The blood, in the Hebrew sacrificial system, is seen as ‘the life’ – so atonement is not about Christ’s death placating an angry God but about the living of his whole incarnate life as an offering to God and a showing to us of the way to live. Christ did not die INSTEAD (Greek anti) of us but FOR (Gk hyper) us – for us to follow in his self-giving steps.

This is the sacrificial theory and is, thus, different from PSA.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Freddy, I agree with what you say about us being set free to follow in Christ's teaching and way. What I find missing is any mention of how the incarnation, crucifixion, or resurrection fits into this.

I see. You're right.

As I see it, the way that the crucifixion fits into this is that it was the final conflict, involving the greatest agony and effort, and the final victory.

So when it was over:
quote:
John 19:28 Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!”...He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
What was finished? The conflict. What was accomplished? The victory, or the task He came to perform. As He said:
quote:
John 17.1 “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You... I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
I'm not sure what "the work" would be if not the subjugation of hell, completed at His death, since He also said:
quote:
John 12:27 “Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour....Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out."

John 16:33 "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”

According to the prophets, the Lord would cast out those who oppress His people:
quote:
Zephaniah 3:15 The LORD has taken away your judgments, He has cast out your enemy. The King of Israel, the LORD, is in your midst; You shall see disaster no more.
It seems to me that this is what He did, and it was the work that was finished in the crucifixion.

So the Incarnation was God's coming into the world to save it from destruction, His duration on earth was the time during which that salvation was accomplished, and the crucifixion was the final part of the process.

He explained the need for His death in numerous passages, which I quoted above, which point out that the things of this world need to die so that those of the spirit may live.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Why can't we have them all - all I would say is they should all be compulsory because they all have Scriptural backing - even it has to be said, PSA!

If you read back over recent posts you will see that PSAers do want them all. Some are advocating CV only - i.e. specifically wanting to remove PSA as a possible model.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
so atonement is not about Christ’s death placating an angry God but about the living of his whole incarnate life as an offering to God and a showing to us of the way to live. Christ did not die INSTEAD (Greek anti) of us but FOR (Gk hyper) us – for us to follow in his self-giving steps.

This is the sacrificial theory and is, thus, different from PSA.

Thanks, Leo. That makes it clearer and is better than what I said.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No - ilasterion was a Septuagint word for ‘mercy seat’. In Leviticus 16:16, blood was sprinkled over it. Hebrews 9:5 has the definite article THE hilasterion so it must refer to Christ removing what defiles the worshipper, rendering him unfit to approach God. The blood, in the Hebrew sacrificial system, is seen as ‘the life’ – so atonement is not about Christ’s death placating an angry God but about the living of his whole incarnate life as an offering to God and a showing to us of the way to live. Christ did not die INSTEAD (Greek anti) of us but FOR (Gk hyper) us – for us to follow in his self-giving steps.

This is the sacrificial theory and is, thus, different from PSA.

Woah there Leo. You are putting a whole lot of weight on one breathing in Hebrews 9: 5!

If you are argument is correct then it is rather odd (to put it mildly!) that the writer spends the rest of the chapter talking about what Christ's blood and his death achieved instead of his life. [Confused]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Why can't we have them all - all I would say is they should all be compulsory because they all have Scriptural backing - even it has to be said, PSA!

If you read back over recent posts you will see that PSAers do want them all. Some are advocating CV only - i.e. specifically wanting to remove PSA as a possible model.
Yes. I think the point is that some of us think that PSA is not a good model because of the way that it portrays God and salvation.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Leo writes,

quote:
No - ilasterion was a Septuagint word for ‘mercy seat’.
Thanks for adding that Leo, let me put it all together. Hilasterion is a Greek word that means either propitiate or expiate. In the Septuagint, which is the Old Testament in Greek that the authors of the New Testament used, the word that is used to to refer to the mercy seat in the Temple is "hilasterion". So from that we can conclude that when Paul calls Christ a "hilasterion" he is saying that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is the focal point of God's mercy.

I agree with what you say about the sacrifices. What is commonly misunderstood about them by PSAers is that the purpose of the blood was not to appease, but to cleanse, as the book of Hebrews clearly says.

[ 13. July 2007, 19:59: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Johnny S:

Salvation is available to sinful human beings through the death of Christ that involves him in bearing the consequences of sin. These consequences constitute the penalty due to sin, rightly called a penalty because it is painful and deprives the sinner of life with God and all its blessings. In this way the holy and loving God upholds righteousness through judging sinners and saving those who accept what he has done in his Son on their behalf and instead of them.

So then, let me compact that a bit:

Christ bears the penalty of our sin, so that God can uphold the demands of righteousness to punish sin. That demand being fulfilled for us in Christ, we are “off the hook”, so to speak.

Does that work for you as a rough definition?
 
Posted by Afghan (# 10478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Hilasterion is a Greek word that means either propitiate or expiate.

Not quite... The '-ion' ending (often rendered '-ium' in Latin) usually has a locational sense. So really it is 'a place where propitiation occurs'.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
What is commonly misunderstood about them by PSAers is that the purpose of the blood was not to appease, but to cleanse, as the book of Hebrews clearly says.

The word in Hebrew is kippur literally means 'to cover' - or perhaps more idiomatically 'to smooth over'. It is used to describe what Noah does with his pitch to the ark. As I said earlier, it is used to describe Jacob's gifts to Esau to obtain his forgiveness. 'Appeasement' seems a lot closer to the original sense than 'cleansing'.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I agree with what you say about the sacrifices. What is commonly misunderstood about them by PSAers is that the purpose of the blood was not to appease, but to cleanse, as the book of Hebrews clearly says.

Which is also consistent with the way it is spoken of elsewhere:
quote:
Genesis 49:11 He washed his garments in wine, And his clothes in the blood of grapes.

Revelation 1:5 To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,

Revelation 7:14 “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

So the point of the blood is to cleanse, not to appease. Which makes sense of the often used quotes in Hebrews:
quote:
Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hebrews 9:22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

According to this, Christ's sacrifice does not appease God, it cleanses us.

How does it do that?

As I understand it, it does it because in conquering sin He removed its power over us, or by His words He gave us the power to resist sin in ourselves - so that we can be cleansed, not by our own power but by His as we obey His Word.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Thanks for the clarification Freddy, that sounds more recognizable.

I think what it would need then is to work out how the imagery of demons and devil has a real connection with evil in our own lives and world, so people can connect to the meaning behind this ancient world view.

I also think it needs to be explained how CV is not simply a victory motif to tack onto a legal paradigm of punitive justice, but provides its own paradigm through which we can understand justice, sin, and salvation.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
'Appeasement' seems a lot closer to the original sense than 'cleansing'.
Not in the context. Appeasing or placating is a pagan concept of sacrifice. John Stott, and even Calvin stress God does not need to be made loving or reconciled, but is the one who provides the sacrifice. So saying God provides a way for us to appease him is like if I gave you a wad of cash so you could bribe me. It so radically changes the meaning simply that it makes no sense.

Our sin is expiated (removed) and thus we are set right and wrath is removed as a consequence (propitiation).
 
Posted by Afghan (# 10478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Not in the context. Appeasing or placating is a pagan concept of sacrifice.

I'm not sure what context you are talking about. We can only look at how the word is used in the Tanakh. To say that the context is different because of prior theological commitments feels closer to eisegesis than I'm comfortable with. But perhaps I've misconstrued what you're saying here. Could you clarify?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
According to this, Christ's sacrifice does not appease God, it cleanses us.

How does it do that?

As I understand it, it does it because in conquering sin He removed its power over us, or by His words He gave us the power to resist sin in ourselves - so that we can be cleansed, not by our own power but by His as we obey His Word.

Thanks Freddy for making a stab at explaining how CV works but I have to say that is precisely where CV falls down ISTM.

Christ's blood clearly does none of the things you say objectively or none of us living after him would sin. These things can only be true via the means of faith. Now I can just about understand how PSA works here - there is the famous case in America of a court ruling where a man refused to accept his own pardon and so was executed. As it were the legal metaphor 'works'. I can't see how Christ's blood can cleanse me (in a CV way) by faith though. It is just hand waving stuff. [Biased]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
John Stott, and even Calvin stress God does not need to be made loving or reconciled, but is the one who provides the sacrifice.

It is true that the wrath of God is operative against sinners who have not accepted the gospel, but it is not true that God’s wrath has to be appeased before he will be merciful. The mercy lies behind the death of Jesus in which God provides the way for sinners to return to him.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Our sin is expiated (removed) and thus we are set right and wrath is removed as a consequence (propitiation).

So does that mean that you agree that God's wrath is operating against sinners who have not yet repented?

Personally I think that is what this is all about - does God show wrath to unrepentant sinners / is God the enemy of those who reject him? Yes = PSA. No = CV.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
So then, let me compact that a bit:

Christ bears the penalty of our sin, so that God can uphold the demands of righteousness to punish sin. That demand being fulfilled for us in Christ, we are “off the hook”, so to speak.

Does that work for you as a rough definition?

Why do we need to compact it? Was the definition I offered so very long? Either you like it or not. [Biased]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Johnny says to Freddy,
"Christ's blood clearly does none of the things you say objectively or none of us living after him would sin."

You'll need to demonstrate that, not simply assert it. What Freddy said biblically speaking was quite accurate. It is your conclusion that is mistaken.

"Now I can just about understand how PSA works here - there is the famous case in America of a court ruling where a man refused to accept his own pardon and so was executed. As it were the legal metaphor 'works'. I can't see how Christ's blood can cleanse me (in a CV way) by faith though. It is just hand waving stuff."

Here you seem to be implying that PSA is appropriated by faith, where as CV is automatic. Nothing could be further from the truth. As far as how salvation works (by grace through faith) there is zero difference between CV and PSA.

Johnny says to shark
"does God show wrath to unrepentant sinners / is God the enemy of those who reject him? Yes = PSA. No = CV.

If you think this is the difference, then you have not understood CV. Bible=we are God's enemies because of our sin. God loves his enemies.

From what you are saying here, I don't know what in the world you are describing, but it is most certainly not CV, it more resembles a collection of pop-heresies that you are randomly applying.

"So does that mean that you agree that God's wrath is operating against sinners who have not yet repented?"

Yes.

The difference is that CV offers a more nuanced understanding of the problem and the solution. It on the one had says that God's wrath stands against us because of our sin, so we are God's enemies, but at the same time that God loves his enmeies and desires mercy. Wrath and law are not simply iron clad rules to be obeyed by God, but have themselves become fallen and have now "what was holy through sin has become death to us" as Paul says. So God not only needs to overcome our personal fallenness, but also the falleness of the law, wrath, condemnation, religion, and authority that have equally become fallen and are in need of redemption.

Because PSA works in a legal framework it can only be individual and external, There is no concept in the definition that speaks of sin on an institutional or structural level (so it is ignored) and there is no concept of how an inner change is effected in us (so the doctrine of sanctification is tacked on artificially). Because of this it only offers a superficial understanding of sin and salvation that amounts to acquittal. As if the only problem was God being mad rather than sin being like a cancer in us. So PSA gets so stuck on one line of thought in the Bible (the idea of wrath) than it ignores all the others. For this reason PSA has yet to fully grasp the gravity of sin and is sub-biblical, a half-truth.

"Why do we need to compact it? Was the definition I offered so very long?"

Now you are just being difficult. Unless you have a substantive problem with the definition we will stick with this:

Christ bears the penalty of our sin, so that God can uphold the demands of righteousness to punish sin. That demand being fulfilled for us in Christ, we are “off the hook”, so to speak.

As I said it only deals with sin on an artificial external level and ignores the bondage and inner rot of sin that we need to be cleansed from. Jesus said that "the sick need a doctor" but PSA simply gives them a clean bill of health without curing the disease. If thus offers a superficial understandings of what Christ really did on the cross and the grace available through faith in his blood.

CV in contrast takes into account the full biblical picture (including wrath and substitution) understood in a relational rather than legal paradigm which is the central leitmotif of Scripture.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
According to this, Christ's sacrifice does not appease God, it cleanses us.

How does it do that?

As I understand it, it does it because in conquering sin He removed its power over us, or by His words He gave us the power to resist sin in ourselves - so that we can be cleansed, not by our own power but by His as we obey His Word.

Thanks Freddy for making a stab at explaining how CV works but I have to say that is precisely where CV falls down ISTM.

Christ's blood clearly does none of the things you say objectively or none of us living after him would sin.

Christ's blood does do these things.

According to Jesus, the blood gives us the power - which we are free to use or not. So we can certainly sin. We only use the power when we obey His Word, which we may or may not do.

But the blood is not just blood. It is a clear symbol for the truth of the covenant or testimony that Christ taught. The blood is associated with the covenant or testimony because it stands for what is testified, and our acceptance of it:
quote:
Hebrews 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.”

Zechariah 9:11 “ As for you also, because of the blood of your covenant, I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit.”

Matthew 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.

The blood of the new testament is the new things that Jesus taught us. His blood is poured out, or shed, so that we can receive it, accept it, and be forgiven.

This is the reason for the imagery relating to the drinking of His blood:
quote:
John 6:53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

If we drink His blood it means that we take His truth into ourselves.

You can tell that drinking His blood means accepting and living by His words because He says this elsewhere:
quote:
John 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

1 John 3:24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

How do we drink His blood and abide in Him? We hear His Word and obey it.

Other passages associate Christ's blood with the truth that He speaks:
quote:
1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

1 John 5:6 This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth….And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

Revelation 19:13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

The light, the truth, the Word - these are all associated with Christ's teachings and our acceptance of those teachings.

This is how evil is overcome. The blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony both stand for the truth that guides and fights for us:
quote:
Revelation 12: 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.

Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

We partake of Christ's flesh and blood to gain the love and the knowledge we need to be freed of evil in our life.

So I don't think that CV is weak here. I think this is consistent with all of Christ's teachings.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Johnny S:

Salvation is available to sinful human beings through the death of Christ that involves him in bearing the consequences of sin. These consequences constitute the penalty due to sin, rightly called a penalty because it is painful and deprives the sinner of life with God and all its blessings. In this way the holy and loving God upholds righteousness through judging sinners and saving those who accept what he has done in his Son on their behalf and instead of them.

So then, let me compact that a bit:

Christ bears the penalty of our sin, so that God can uphold the demands of righteousness to punish sin. That demand being fulfilled for us in Christ, we are “off the hook”, so to speak.

Does that work for you as a rough definition?

Not according to the writer of the following statement:
quote:
God put [Christ] forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed. (Romans 3:25)

Boil that down to the most basic problem the death of Christ is meant to solve. God put Christ forward (he sent him to die) in order to demonstrate his righteousness (or justice). The problem that needed solving was that God, for some reason, seemed to be unrighteous, and wanted to vindicate himself and clear his name. That is the basic issue. God's righteousness is at stake. His name or reputation or honor must be vindicated. Before the cross can be for our sake, it must be for God's sake.

But what created that problem? Why did God face the problem of needing to give a public vindication of his righteousness? The answer is in the last phrase of verse 25: "because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed."

Now what does that mean? It means that for centuries God had been doing what Psalm 103:10 says, "He does not deal with us according to our sins or repay us according to our iniquities." He has been passing over thousands of sins. He has been forgiving them and letting them go and not punishing them.

The writer's main point is that contemporary articulations of the atonement have become radically anthropocentric. Human beings, and the needs of humanity, become the primary lens through which the crucifixion is viewed. The writer I quoted, who happens to be John Piper, takes a more theocentric view of the passage that is currently being discussed in this thread. For the whole article, which I think, makes interesting reading click here.

[ 14. July 2007, 05:22: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Because PSA works in a legal framework it can only be individual and external.
I think my explanation of PSA, which does rest on a 'legal' framework, explains quite adequately how the cross is effectual at a corporate level: the body (or corpus if you wish) in whom and through whom justified sinners are united is Christ. As for the external, I would have to say that the cross has not atoned for any sin that exists outside of Christ crucified. The locus of atonement for sin is Christ in a very real sense. Sin must be understood to have been destroyed in and through Christ alone. No sin that is external to Christ, in other words any sin that has not been borne by him, is not atoned for.

quote:
There is no concept in the definition that speaks of sin on an institutional or structural level (so it is ignored)
This is not true. The NT quite clearly portrays justified people using corporate (the body of Christ) and structiral (the Temple) language. The NT portrays cross as the means by which true union at an institutional and structural level is acheived.


quote:
...and there is no concept of how an inner change is effected in us (so the doctrine of sanctification is tacked on artificially).
Again, this is not true. In the Reformed tradition sanctification is by faith alone, just as is justfication. The two are inseparable inasmuch as as justified sinner will bear the fruit of repentance which is a holy life. The categorical distinction, however, is this: sanctification is not what roots the believer in God. In other words the root is justfication by faith, the fruit is sanctification by faith.

quote:
Because of this it only offers a superficial understanding of sin and salvation that amounts to acquittal. As if the only problem was God being mad rather than sin being like a cancer in us.
PSA does not suggest that 'God being angry' is the only problem. Piper quite clearly asserts that the main problem is that God desires mercy not sacrifice and insodoing lays himself open to the charge of indulgence and injustice.

quote:
So PSA gets so stuck on one line of thought in the Bible (the idea of wrath) than it ignores all the others. For this reason PSA has yet to fully grasp the gravity of sin and is sub-biblical, a half-truth.
No, what I think has happened is this: you seem to have dismissed PSA as an intellectually inferior model of the atonement and you allowing that assumption (and it is an assumption) to justify a superficial reading of PSA. It is much deeper and theologicall subtle than you are currently allowing for, and this is causing you to engage superficially with the argument and with its proponents.

[ 14. July 2007, 06:03: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by craigb (# 11318) on :
 
In all this talk about Gods Wrath, could someone please explain what Gods wrath is?

Thanks craig b
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Not according to the writer of the following statement:
quote:
God put [Christ] forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed. (Romans 3:25)

Boil that down to the most basic problem the death of Christ is meant to solve. God put Christ forward (he sent him to die) in order to demonstrate his righteousness (or justice). The problem that needed solving was that God, for some reason, seemed to be unrighteous, and wanted to vindicate himself and clear his name. That is the basic issue. God's righteousness is at stake. His name or reputation or honor must be vindicated. Before the cross can be for our sake, it must be for God's sake.

But what created that problem? Why did God face the problem of needing to give a public vindication of his righteousness? The answer is in the last phrase of verse 25: "because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed."

Now what does that mean? It means that for centuries God had been doing what Psalm 103:10 says, "He does not deal with us according to our sins or repay us according to our iniquities." He has been passing over thousands of sins. He has been forgiving them and letting them go and not punishing them.

The writer's main point is that contemporary articulations of the atonement have become radically anthropocentric.
I think that Piper radically misses the point of Romans 3:25.

The sins that He has passed over, but which He will now rectify, are the ones referred to in passages like these:
quote:
Psalm 13:1 How long, O LORD? Will You forget me forever?How long will You hide Your face from me?
How long shall I take counsel in my soul,Having sorrow in my heart daily? How long will my enemy be exalted over me?

Psalm 35:17 Lord, how long will You look on?Rescue me from their destructions, My precious life from the lions.

Psalm 74:10 O God, how long will the adversary reproach? Will the enemy blaspheme Your name forever?

Psalm 82:2 How long will you judge unjustly, and show partiality to the wicked?

Psalm 94:3 LORD, how long will the wicked, how long will the wicked triumph?

Isaiah 6:11 Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered:“ Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant, The houses are without a man, The land is utterly desolate,

Habakkuk 1:2 O LORD, how long shall I cry, And You will not hear? Even cry out to You, “Violence!” And You will not save.

Zechariah 1:12 Then the Angel of the LORD answered and said, “O LORD of hosts, how long will You not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which You were angry these seventy years?”

Luke 18:7 And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them?

Revelation 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”

In these passages, as in many others, God's righteousness is at stake because He has so far failed to bring justice to the world, He has failed to free us from our oppressors, He has failed to bring peace and end war.

This is a very major biblical theme. God has allowed the good to suffer, but He will make it right sooner or later.

Isn't this one of the most common charges against God that we talk about here on the Ship? How can there be a God if He allows evil to exist and prosper the way it does? Paul is simply articulating the problem of evil, and Piper is missing the point.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
In all this talk about Gods Wrath, could someone please explain what Gods wrath is?

God's wrath is very much like the wrath of a loving parent. There isn't really any wrath at all, but the child thinks that there is because he or she hears the parent speaking sternly and sees the parent's serious face.

The biblical wrath of God is nothing more than the inherent consequences of sinful actions. This wrath is visited on us very much like the wrath of gravity is visited on those who fail to support themselves in space.

God's wrath is a childish, anthropocentric perspective of the consequences of evil. There is no wrath. But love looks like wrath from the point of view of the sinner - so the Bible speaks of it that way.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Freddy, I'm not sure that he is missing to point actually. What I find interesting is your confidence in deciding exactly what sins God has been overlooking and, presumably, your confidence that it only applies to stuff that has happened to the innocent. However, what I'd like to know is whether you really do consider the vast majority of humanity to be more sinned against than sinning.

As for your examples from scripture of the sort of sins that God has been overlooking I would simply point out that you don't necessariliy need to look back to the OT to find stuff that God has been overlooking, the book of Romans itself opens with a fairly comprehensive list and subsequent exegesis that establishes precisely what sort of sins Paul is taking about.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Freddy, I'm not sure that he is missing to point actually. What I find interesting is your confidence in deciding exactly what sins God has been overlooking and, presumably, your confidence that it only applies to stuff that has happened to the innocent. However, what I'd like to know is whether you really do consider the vast majority of humanity to be more sinned against than sinning.

As I understand it, the biblical paradigm is that Israel is God's people, the good guys, but that they are oppressed by their enemies for reasons that are basically their own fault. God's promise is that someday He will liberate His people, restore peace, and that then the people really will follow Him and behave themselves.

The Christian interpretation is that all those who follow Christ are God's people, and that we are oppressed, not by literal physical enemies, but by sin. This is basically our own fault, but the promise is that God will liberate us, and has liberated us, if we believe and obey Him.

So the injusitce is that sin, and its purveyors, continue to prosper.

It isn't so much that the vast majority of humanity is more sinned against than sinning, but that we are all victims of sin, or slaves of sin, and need to be set free. This is a theme that Jesus addressed directly:
quote:
John 8:31 “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
I think that this pretty much sums up Jesus' message.

So, no, this isn't just about stuff that happens to the innocent. It is about all of us and our unrighteousness.
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
As for your examples from scripture of the sort of sins that God has been overlooking I would simply point out that you don't necessarily need to look back to the OT to find stuff that God has been overlooking, the book of Romans itself opens with a fairly comprehensive list and subsequent exegesis that establishes precisely what sort of sins Paul is taking about.

Yes, it's a great list. These are the things that we need to be liberated from. These are the things that oppress the human race.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
In all this talk about Gods Wrath, could someone please explain what Gods wrath is?

Thanks craig b

God's wrath is God's settled animosity towards the dark exchange (Romans 1.23 & 25), the fruit of that dark exchange, and those that approve of, and wilfully practice, that exchange.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Thanks for the clarification Freddy, that sounds more recognizable.

I think what it would need then is to work out how the imagery of demons and devil has a real connection with evil in our own lives and world, so people can connect to the meaning behind this ancient world view.

Maybe it is an ancient worldview, but I also think that it is a common one.

I remember an old Disney film featuring Jimminy Cricket in which an angel and a devil sat on his shoulders giving him conflicting advice. It is a common cartoon scenario that people easily identify with.

Everyone experiences these kinds of internal dialogues between conflicting thoughts and desires. We do not often think of them as contests between angels and demons, but this is not an uncommon Christian perspective on what goes on within the human mind and heart.

Lewis' "Screwtape Letters" remains popular with Christians because it strikes a sensible chord built on this common perspective.

The CV explanation is that people are in some unconscious way influenced by deep spiritual forces. These forces are connected with God, heaven and hell, and there is a kind of contest between them. Cartoon theology pictures this as angels and demons sitting on our shoulders. Biblical theology depicts the inhabitants of heaven and hell as exercising some kind of influence on us, but it is never clear how they do this and whether it is actual or metaphoric.

In any case, modern Christianity in no way repudiates the influence of heaven and hell on humanity. CV simply reinforces the idea that there is a contest between these influences. It asserts that God has fundamentally won this contest, and so we can expect that justice and righteousness will eventually prevail in tangible ways in this world.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I also think it needs to be explained how CV is not simply a victory motif to tack onto a legal paradigm of punitive justice, but provides its own paradigm through which we can understand justice, sin, and salvation.

I'm not sure what you mean. [Confused]

The CV paradigm is that there is a contest between good and evil in this world, and that God came into the world and won the victory.

The meaning, I think, is that the world has been saved from the destruction that was imminent before the Incarnation, and that over time justice and righteousness will be seen to prevail everywhere.

The meaning for the individual is that there is an internal contest in everyone between good and evil, and that we can "win" the contest if we can hear and obey Jesus' words. In this way He gives us strength, and wins the victory for us.

The paradigm is the most basic and universally understood approach to problem solving. Everyone knows that solutions to all problems are about the aquisition of knowledge and its application to the problem. When you solve the problem you "win" and this is what CV is about.

Justice, sin, and salvation easily fit into this paradigm. Justice is achieved by ridding the world of sin. Sin is overcome through knowledge and understanding from God that acts to convince people to willingly change the way they think and act. Salvation is what happens as a result of these actions by God to change humanity.

I'm not sure that I understand how this can be seen as a victory motif to tack onto a legal paradigm of punitive justice. It has nothing to do with God punishing the world. It is about God changing the world through His own interaction with evil itself, making it possible for people to live happy lives free of the slavery of sin.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Perhaps this is a 'pond difference' again but you are not understanding what I'm saying.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Johnny says to Freddy,
"Christ's blood clearly does none of the things you say objectively or none of us living after him would sin."

You'll need to demonstrate that, not simply assert it. What Freddy said biblically speaking was quite accurate. It is your conclusion that is mistaken.

I wasn't refering to the teaching of scripture but plain observable fact. If Christ had defeated the power of sin (which he has) then any atonement model (CV or PSA) has to cope with the fact that Christians still sin.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:


"Now I can just about understand how PSA works here - there is the famous case in America of a court ruling where a man refused to accept his own pardon and so was executed. As it were the legal metaphor 'works'. I can't see how Christ's blood can cleanse me (in a CV way) by faith though. It is just hand waving stuff."

Here you seem to be implying that PSA is appropriated by faith, where as CV is automatic. Nothing could be further from the truth. As far as how salvation works (by grace through faith) there is zero difference between CV and PSA.

Not at all. I was claiming that both models appropriate Christ's work by faith, but I was concentrating on the mechanism of both - in response to your question!

Any model must have contact points as well as differences with reality, otherwise it has no real use. I cited a legal example as a 'contact point' between PSA and real life. Talk of the blood of Christ 'cleansing' me of my sins is helpful and biblical but it begs the question - how? (There must be a connection between the sign and the thing signified ... if someone falls overboard on ship I don't run to the lifejacket sign and throw the sign into the water, but go to the box the sign is pointing to!) I believe PSA provides a 'contact' point between the cleansing metaphor and the real world.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The difference is that CV offers a more nuanced understanding of the problem and the solution. It on the one hand says that God's wrath stands against us because of our sin, so we are God's enemies, but at the same time that God loves his enmeies and desires mercy.

okay ... but so far I don't see any difference from PSA.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Wrath and law are not simply iron clad rules to be obeyed by God, but have themselves become fallen and have now "what was holy through sin has become death to us" as Paul says. So God not only needs to overcome our personal fallenness, but also the falleness of the law, wrath, condemnation, religion, and authority that have equally become fallen and are in need of redemption.

I think you need to read Romans again. Paul makes it clear that the law is 'holy, righteous, good' (Romans 6: 12). His argument is that, although sin uses the law to 'become death to us' it is not because there is anything wrong with the law. We are at fault, not the law.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Because PSA works in a legal framework it can only be individual and external, There is no concept in the definition that speaks of sin on an institutional or structural level (so it is ignored) and there is no concept of how an inner change is effected in us (so the doctrine of sanctification is tacked on artificially). Because of this it only offers a superficial understanding of sin and salvation that amounts to acquittal. As if the only problem was God being mad rather than sin being like a cancer in us. So PSA gets so stuck on one line of thought in the Bible (the idea of wrath) than it ignores all the others. For this reason PSA has yet to fully grasp the gravity of sin and is sub-biblical, a half-truth.

I think Numpty has already replied to this but I think you are trying to turn a strength into a weakness. The strength of PSA is that it emphasises a personal responsibility for sin. If you are claiming that some read 'individual' for 'personal' then that is why we need all biblical models! [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

"Why do we need to compact it? Was the definition I offered so very long?"

Now you are just being difficult. Unless you have a substantive problem with the definition we will stick with this:

Christ bears the penalty of our sin, so that God can uphold the demands of righteousness to punish sin. That demand being fulfilled for us in Christ, we are “off the hook”, so to speak.


Let's get this straight. You asked me for a defintion. I supplied one. You did not comment on whether you agreed or disagreed with it, but simply offered another one instead (not replacing the odd term but essentially giving a completely different definition). Then when I was puzzled by your response you accused me of 'being difficult'. [Confused] Again this may be a 'pond differences' thing and so sorry if I come across as 'shirty' but it comes across to me as rather patronising to ask for a definition and then simply replace it without interacting with the first one. If there are reasons why you prefer your new one to the one I offered then tell me so that I have something to engage with.

[ 14. July 2007, 16:45: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Perhaps this is a 'pond difference' again but you are not understanding what I'm saying.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Johnny says to Freddy,
"Christ's blood clearly does none of the things you say objectively or none of us living after him would sin."

You'll need to demonstrate that, not simply assert it. What Freddy said biblically speaking was quite accurate. It is your conclusion that is mistaken.

I wasn't refering to the teaching of scripture but plain observable fact. If Christ had defeated the power of sin (which he has) then any atonement model (CV or PSA) has to cope with the fact that Christians still sin.
Maybe you read my comment on this above, but I will repeat it.

Christ's defeat of the power of sin sets us free, it does not obliterate sin. We are therefore free to sin or not sin, whereas before humanity was in danger of being ruled by sin.

Christ's words give us power to resist sin if we choose to use that power by calling on Him and obeying His word.

Plain observable facts do, it is true, show that not everyone does this, and so sin continues to plague us.

Christ's victory is nevertheless real. It saves everyone who is willing to follow Him. In the long run it will bring peace on earth and bring on an era in which His will is done on earth as it is in heaven. At least that is how I read it.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Maybe you read my comment on this above, but I will repeat it.

Christ's defeat of the power of sin sets us free, it does not obliterate sin. We are therefore free to sin or not sin, whereas before humanity was in danger of being ruled by sin.

Christ's words give us power to resist sin if we choose to use that power by calling on Him and obeying His word.

Plain observable facts do, it is true, show that not everyone does this, and so sin continues to plague us.

Christ's victory is nevertheless real. It saves everyone who is willing to follow Him. In the long run it will bring peace on earth and bring on an era in which His will is done on earth as it is in heaven. At least that is how I read it.

Sorry Freddy if it appeared that I was ignoring your comment. I generally agree with you but the question I was asking was this - how does faith in Christ give us this power? I fully appreciate that ultimately it is a mystery but if we give up too easily then we have no way of evaluating different atonement models.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Sorry, I missed this earlier.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
God's wrath is very much like the wrath of a loving parent. There isn't really any wrath at all, but the child thinks that there is because he or she hears the parent speaking sternly and sees the parent's serious face.

The biblical wrath of God is nothing more than the inherent consequences of sinful actions. This wrath is visited on us very much like the wrath of gravity is visited on those who fail to support themselves in space.

God's wrath is a childish, anthropocentric perspective of the consequences of evil. There is no wrath. But love looks like wrath from the point of view of the sinner - so the Bible speaks of it that way.

This reminds me of CS Lewis (hardly an evangelical!). I think it was in his 'Letters to Malcolm' that he has an exchange about God's anger at sinful humanity. It is suggested that God's wrath is as bit like electricity ... if you touch the bare cable you get electrocuted. To which CS Lewis responded very pessimistically - in which case we are all doomed ... the angry can forgive, but electricity can't!
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Sorry Freddy if it appeared that I was ignoring your comment. I generally agree with you but the question I was asking was this - how does faith in Christ give us this power? I fully appreciate that ultimately it is a mystery but if we give up too easily then we have no way of evaluating different atonement models.

It is an important question. How does faith give us power?

I think that the answer is that the power is held in the information itself when it is accepted. Christ's words in our minds enable us to act in obedience to Him. Without them we do not have this power. If we have that information, and understand it, have faith in it, accept it, and agree with it, we are then able to act on it by His power.

It seems to me that this is a common-sense approach. It is a fairly universal idea that knowledge is power. The Bible teaches this on virtually every page.

A more sophisticated understanding of the concept is that since all power rests in God and flows out from Him alone, the real question is actually how humans can access that power.

As I understand it, the idea is that life is continually flowing out from God, creating and sustaining everything in the universe moment to moment. As He is omnipresent, and everywhere the same, the variety of creation is accounted for by the fact that everything in creation is limited, and so it receives that universal life in its own unique, but limited, way, according to its form and makeup.

In a nutshell, information causes subtle chemical and structural changes in the brain, allowing it to receive God's life slightly differently moment to moment, as a person learns, believes, obeys, or otherwise reacts to that information. The cumulative effect of a lifetime of subtle changes caused by everything that went into a person's life - information, choices, actions, etc. - is what determines a person's ultimate fate. You can say that it is faith that determines this, but faith is really shorthand for a whole process of learning, understanding, believing and acting - all made possible by freely given grace.

This is how I understand that faith gives us power.

[ 14. July 2007, 18:49: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Johnny S:

Salvation is available to sinful human beings through the death of Christ that involves him in bearing the consequences of sin. These consequences constitute the penalty due to sin, rightly called a penalty because it is painful and deprives the sinner of life with God and all its blessings. In this way the holy and loving God upholds righteousness through judging sinners and saving those who accept what he has done in his Son on their behalf and instead of them.

So then, let me compact that a bit:

Christ bears the penalty of our sin, so that God can uphold the demands of righteousness to punish sin. That demand being fulfilled for us in Christ, we are “off the hook”, so to speak.

Does that work for you as a rough definition?

This is all very odd. Why did Jesus teach us (Matthew 5:38f) not to retaliate while God himself demands massive retaliation?

If the good news is focussed on the cross, what was the good news he told his disciples to preach (Luke 9:6) BEFORE the cross?

If Jesus died to pay the price of our sins, how does that square with his proclamation of the year of Jubilee, where all debts are unilaterally written off?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If the good news is focussed on the cross, what was the good news he told his disciples to preach (Luke 9:6) BEFORE the cross?

Good question. Also, the cross itself was a symbol that Jesus used before He went to the cross Himself:
quote:
Matthew 10:38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

Matthew 16:24 "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me."

Mark 10:21 “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.”

Luke 9:23 “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.

Luke 14:27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.

The cross was evidently a widely understood symbol for struggle and suffering. The message seems to be that everyone needs to be willing to struggle and suffer if they wish to follow Jesus.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why did Jesus teach us (Matthew 5:38f) not to retaliate while God himself demands massive retaliation?

Who said PSA is about God's retaliation? We've discussed punishment at length on this and other threads but I don't think anyone has tried to limit 'punishment' to retaliation.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If the good news is focussed on the cross, what was the good news he told his disciples to preach (Luke 9:6) BEFORE the cross?

That is an interesting question but how does it help in our discussion of atonement models? I could imagine all sorts of answers you could give to that question whatever atonement model you held.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If Jesus died to pay the price of our sins, how does that square with his proclamation of the year of Jubilee, where all debts are unilaterally written off?

We've looked at this before and not really come to any conclusion. The year of jubilee was not about spreadsheets being erased it was supposed to mean the wholesale return of (e.g.) property to their original owners. It was not just about 'cancelling debt' but also involved 'repaying' physical things. My Father is self-employed and knows a lot about writing off debts - he will tell you how costly that is. I know we have a welfare state in the UK but there is always a cost to someone.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
the cross itself was a symbol that Jesus used before He went to the cross Himself:
The cross was evidently a widely understood symbol for struggle and suffering. The message seems to be that everyone needs to be willing to struggle and suffer if they wish to follow Jesus.

Freddy, it may be an issue we need to wrestle with but it is to do with objective vs. subjective understandings of the cross (not CV vs. PSA). Everyone would agree with you about the subjective aspect to the cross, we have been arguing over the objective aspect to it.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Everyone would agree with you about the subjective aspect to the cross, we have been arguing over the objective aspect to it.

You're right. Good point.

So how do you think that faith gives us power?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Numpty, If you would like to post a definition of what you think PSA is, I will respond to that.

You don't get to comment however on my response to Freddy's definition. That amounts to the logical fallacy of "bait and switch" or "moving target".
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

Isn't this one of the most common charges against God that we talk about here on the Ship? How can there be a God if He allows evil to exist and prosper the way it does? Paul is simply articulating the problem of evil, and Piper is missing the point.

I think this is spot on Freddy. I would add here that the "righteousness that is revealed" that Paul is speaking of was the big discovery of Luther in his "Turmerlebnis". Piper is also missing this point. The righteousness of God, Luther says is not a punishing one where we get our due (which would be bad news), but one where God acts to make us right (good news).

This THE central point of Luther, and therefore of Reformation Christianity. Yet most Calvinists do not understand this and think of justice and righteousness in terms of punishing and wrath. The very thing that Luther rejected. To Luther this was HUGE because it was as Luther said the very Gospel. Miss this point and you have missed the Gospel of grace. It is however ironically exactly this point which many Calvinists miss.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

Isn't this one of the most common charges against God that we talk about here on the Ship? How can there be a God if He allows evil to exist and prosper the way it does? Paul is simply articulating the problem of evil, and Piper is missing the point.

I think this is spot on Freddy. I would add here that the "righteousness that is revealed" that Paul is speaking of was the big discovery of Luther in his "Turmerlebnis". Piper is also missing this point. The righteousness of God, Luther says is not a punishing one where we get our due (which would be bad news), but one where God acts to make us right (good news).

This THE central point of Luther, and therefore of Reformation Christianity. Yet most Calvinists do not understand this and think of justice and righteousness in terms of punishing and wrath. The very thing that Luther rejected. To Luther this was HUGE because it was, as Luther said, the very Gospel. Miss this point and you have missed the Gospel of grace. It is however ironically exactly this point which many Calvinists miss.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
This THE central point of Luther, and therefore of Reformation Christianity. Yet most Calvinists do not understand this and think of justice and righteousness in terms of punishing and wrath. The very thing that Luther rejected. To Luther this was HUGE because it was, as Luther said, the very Gospel. Miss this point and you have missed the Gospel of grace.

Very nicely put. [Overused]

In my denomination it is said that therefore shunning evils as sins against God is the Christian religion itself.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Johnny, all of the comments I made apply equally to you longer definition. So let me say it again with your longer definition:


“Salvation is available to sinful human beings through the death of Christ that involves him in bearing the consequences of sin. These consequences constitute the penalty due to sin, rightly called a penalty because it is painful and deprives the sinner of life with God and all its blessings. In this way the holy and loving God upholds righteousness through judging sinners and saving those who accept what he has done in his Son on their behalf and instead of them”.

As I said it this definition deals with sin on an artificial external level and ignores the bondage and inner rot of sin that we need to be cleansed from. Jesus said that "the sick need a doctor" but PSA (as defined above) simply gives them a clean bill of health without curing the disease. It thus offers a superficial understandings of what Christ really did on the cross and the grace available through faith in his blood.

CV in contrast takes into account the full biblical picture (including wrath and substitution) understood in a relational rather than legal paradigm which is the central leitmotif of Scripture. The above definition, if focusing on the legal, misses the main focus of Scripture and the NT which is relational.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Freddy,

I agree with what you say about truth setting us free, but there is an element that I find missing in your explanation. Salvation is at its root not so much about a change in behavior as it is a change identity - going from being a child of the devil with a hurtful identity that expresses itself in hurt, to becoming a child of God who acts like a king's kid by loving as she is loved.

So a big part of the change is not in just knowing facts (as freeing as that is), but in being known relationally, in being loved by God. It is that experience of being loved by God that transforms us, and makes us new creations with a new identity.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I agree with what you say about truth setting us free, but there is an element that I find missing in your explanation. Salvation is at its root not so much about a change in behavior as it is a change identity - going from being a child of the devil with a hurtful identity that expresses itself in hurt, to becoming a child of God who acts like a king's kid by loving as she is loved.

So a big part of the change is not in just knowing facts (as freeing as that is), but in being known relationally, in being loved by God. It is that experience of being loved by God that transforms us, and makes us new creations with a new identity.

Absolutely. The knowledge is only a tool.

The grace of God is how He works to transform a person who applies it to their life, and make them into a new person, with a new identity, a new name.

At least that is how I understand it.

I'm not sure if this is the same as the experience of being loved by God - although that is certainly the reality of it.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

As I said it this definition deals with sin on an artificial external level and ignores the bondage and inner rot of sin that we need to be cleansed from. Jesus said that "the sick need a doctor" but PSA (as defined above) simply gives them a clean bill of health without curing the disease. It thus offers a superficial understandings of what Christ really did on the cross and the grace available through faith in his blood.

I think we are still talking passed each other here. PSA does articulate a change of identity - sin is condemned in Christ and his righteousness is imputed to us. The 'receiving the penalty of the curse in Adam' and 'receiving new life in Christ' fits perfectly with PSA. The argument from Paul, e.g. in Ephesians 4 v 1 is - 'become what you are' ... in other words, you already have a new identity in Christ, you have been adopted into a new family, now start acting like it! As far as I can see this argument works the same for CV as for PSA. The question is over the mechanism of how the new identity comes about. It is here that I think PSA has the edge. PSA points to the new creation ('me' as in my old self is crucified with Christ and raises with him) where as CV is merely a 'patch up job on the old self' (sin is destroyed but I'm still my old self).


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV in contrast takes into account the full biblical picture (including wrath and substitution) understood in a relational rather than legal paradigm which is the central leitmotif of Scripture. The above definition, if focusing on the legal, misses the main focus of Scripture and the NT which is relational.

This argument only works if you want one particular atonement model to reign supreme. I prefer a more Christ centred approach ( [Biased] ) where all bibilical models serve one another!

[ 16. July 2007, 08:47: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Sorry, been absent for a while due to work committments.

Just skim-reading the last couple of days, I'd like to comment on a few points.

Johnny:
quote:

I think we are still talking passed each other here. PSA does articulate a change of identity - sin is condemned in Christ and his righteousness is imputed to us. The 'receiving the penalty of the curse in Adam' and 'receiving new life in Christ' fits perfectly with PSA. The argument from Paul, e.g. in Ephesians 4 v 1 is - 'become what you are' ... in other words, you have already have a new identity in Christ, you have been adopted into a new family, now start acting like it! As far as I can see this argument works the same for CV as for PSA. The question is over the mechanism of how the new identity comes about. It is here that I think PSA has the edge. PSA points to the new creation ('me' as in my old self is crucified with Christ and raises with him) where as CV is merely a 'patch up job on the old self' (sin is destroyed but I'm still my old self).


I'm not sure where you get the idea that CV is merely a "patch-up job on the old self" from. AFAICS both schemas have, as an integral part of them, the regeneration, by the power of the Spirit, of the believer. As Paul says, "It is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me". I can't even get a rizla between the two models on this! I know I've said this about a zillion times before, but I really don't think we should forget that the term "sin" can refer, both to the things we do that are displeasing to God, and to the old, corrupted human nature, what Paul calls the "flesh". Although CV, (and, it seems, certain slants on PSA (as expressed by Numpty) does not depend on the atonement for forgiveness of sins, the regeneration of the whole of creation, and also, with that, ourselves, is precisely what the Atonement achieves. (We can argue about whether that is in potential, or in actuality, but that is a different matter).

quote:
Personally I think that is what this is all about - does God show wrath to unrepentant sinners / is God the enemy of those who reject him? Yes = PSA. No = CV.
Yes, that is indeed one of the main differences. Put another way, PSA assumes that, all things being equal, without the Atonement, man is God's enemy. CV assumes that God is man's enemy.


quote:

We've looked at this before and not really come to any conclusion. The year of jubilee was not about spreadsheets being erased it was supposed to mean the wholesale return of (e.g.) property to their original owners. It was not just about 'cancelling debt' but also involved 'repaying' physical things. My Father is self-employed and knows a lot about writing off debts - he will tell you how costly that is. I know we have a welfare state in the UK but there is always a cost to someone.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you have written here, John, but surely this just demonstrates that God's idea of justice is the undoing of the action which brings the debt in the first place. Of course, this is at God's expense, we are all agreed upon that, (literally, in the case of Jubilee, as all the land was really owned by God, merely held in trust by the people who "owned" it), but the paradigm is of restoration, not retribution.


Numpty, I really quite like that Piper quote. However, I am not convinced totally that God is that worried about how He is portrayed by his creatures, and if He were so worried, I think, like Freddy, that He would be more concerned at the unjust fate of the "innocent" (i.e. why is there suffering) rather than why do the guilty not suffer, though I give you that it is the implication of Romans 3:25. I guess I would see the emphasis in the verse as "demonstrate His justice" rather than "forbearance" In other words, He is explaining something which had always been in the light of a new revelation - how the cross shows what God's justice is like.

I do, however, like the "de-anthropocentrizing" (IYKWIM [Big Grin] ) of the Atonement, as I see it myself as basically a cosmic event. Jesus was reconciling, not only his human creation, but the whole of the created order. (memo to self, "must read some more Piper")

originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Everyone would agree with you about the subjective aspect to the cross, we have been arguing over the objective aspect to it.

You're right. Good point.

So how do you think that faith gives us power?

I'm not sure it is the faith that gives us the power, as such. It's more that the power for sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit in mediating God's grace to us. It is He who gives us the power. The faith bit is the way that we see this operating, such that we gain benefit from it. Faith is the way in which we perceive the Kingdom of God, our "spiritual eyes", if you like. But then, I'm a supernaturalist.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not sure where you get the idea that CV is merely a "patch-up job on the old self" from.

I don't really think CV is like that - it was just a bit of rhetoric to get your attention. It seems to have worked. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
AFAICS both schemas have, as an integral part of them, the regeneration, by the power of the Spirit, of the believer. As Paul says, "It is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me". I can't even get a rizla between the two models on this! I know I've said this about a zillion times before, but I really don't think we should forget that the term "sin" can refer, both to the things we do that are displeasing to God, and to the old, corrupted human nature, what Paul calls the "flesh". Although CV, (and, it seems, certain slants on PSA (as expressed by Numpty) does not depend on the atonement for forgiveness of sins, the regeneration of the whole of creation, and also, with that, ourselves, is precisely what the Atonement achieves. (We can argue about whether that is in potential, or in actuality, but that is a different matter).

Just as you cite Numpty as an example of a nuanced PSA similarly I can see how the way you explain CV there is no 'rizla' (I assume that it isn't a giant rizla [Big Grin] ) between them on this issue - however, I think that, just as PSA on its own can lead towards distorted presentations of the gospel, so CV naturally leads towards ideas of 'sin' being destroyed rather than ourselves being crucified with Christ so that we can receive a new nature.

So I take your point that CV doesn't have to look that way, but then PSA doesn't have to 'look that way' either!

Equally please remember that I was replying to the accusation that PSA only deals with sin and does not offer a new nature.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Put another way, PSA assumes that, all things being equal, without the Atonement, man is God's enemy. CV assumes that God is man's enemy.

I disagree. Both models assume that God is man's enemy, the debate is over whether or not man is God's enemy (and if he was what that actually means.)

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I agree wholeheartedly with what you have written here, John, but surely this just demonstrates that God's idea of justice is the undoing of the action which brings the debt in the first place. Of course, this is at God's expense, we are all agreed upon that, (literally, in the case of Jubilee, as all the land was really owned by God, merely held in trust by the people who "owned" it), but the paradigm is of restoration, not retribution.

My point was that the paradigm is restoration through God paying the penalty himself. I don't see it as either / or.

I don't see it as retribution but as God demonstrating just how serious sin is. This is not about persuading God to forgive us but it is about acknowledging that sin is serious. When I discipline my children I am constantly caught between forgiving them and loving them (a good thing to do!) and unintentionally implying that what they have done doesn't really matter because it was just a 'small matter' to forgive them. This is reflected in the way that, in our culture, if someone apologises for something we often reply, 'oh, it doesn't matter.'

Now, again, I know that your view of CV does treat sin very seriously. This is just about the 'impression' that atonement models bring. If some feel that PSA needs a more CV view to balance it then I think CV needs PSA likewise.

I know that you'll be frustrated by these comments because you will feel that they don't represent CV fairly. But that is the point. Any model will produce something of a caricature as it works itself out into popular preaching and communication. If the PSA that stands behind popular preaching is a lot more nuanced than first expected then we should equally expect that a more nuanced view of CV will produce somewhat of a caricature as it filters out into the 'mainstream'.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Sorry, been absent for a while due to work committments.

We have missed you. It doesn't seem fair that work should get in the way like that. [Disappointed]
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not sure where you get the idea that CV is merely a "patch-up job on the old self" from. AFAICS both schemas have, as an integral part of them, the regeneration, by the power of the Spirit, of the believer. As Paul says, "It is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me".

I agree. It just works differently in the two models.

According to CV a person is regenerated through the struggle against sin. The person seems to himself or herself to work hard to overcome bad habits and desires, but it is Christ working in him or her. As a result of this struggle the old self gradually dies, and a new, better, self is born. Christ lives within them.

According to PSA, as I understand it, a person is regenerated by faith through the freely given gift of the Holy Spirit. The focus is not on the inner struggle against sin, but on the removal of God's wrath through the imputation of Christ's righteousness. The new, better, self is born as this wrath is removed and the Holy Spirit enters.

Is this right?
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not sure it is the faith that gives us the power, as such. It's more that the power for sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit in mediating God's grace to us. It is He who gives us the power. The faith bit is the way that we see this operating, such that we gain benefit from it.

Yes, that's it. The power is God's. The question is how we receive it from Him.

As I see it, faith, and the resulting obedience, open the way. The power of knowledge is that it is the objective key to a subjective process.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

Isn't this one of the most common charges against God that we talk about here on the Ship? How can there be a God if He allows evil to exist and prosper the way it does? Paul is simply articulating the problem of evil, and Piper is missing the point.

I think this is spot on Freddy. I would add here that the "righteousness that is revealed" that Paul is speaking of was the big discovery of Luther in his "Turmerlebnis". Piper is also missing this point. The righteousness of God, Luther says is not a punishing one where we get our due (which would be bad news), but one where God acts to make us right (good news).

This THE central point of Luther, and therefore of Reformation Christianity. Yet most Calvinists do not understand this and think of justice and righteousness in terms of punishing and wrath. The very thing that Luther rejected. To Luther this was HUGE because it was, as Luther said, the very Gospel. Miss this point and you have missed the Gospel of grace. It is however ironically exactly this point which many Calvinists miss.

Ultimately, the "righteousness from God" is nothing less than Christ himself. Proponents of PSA do not, as you suggest, conflate the "righteousness from God" and the "wrath of God": that assertion simply isn't true.

The "righteousness of God" and the "wrath of God" are not the same thing and no Calvinist that I've ever read has suggested that they are, quite the reverse in fact. However, it is by means of this "righteousness from God" - namely Christ - (Romans 3.22 & Phil. 3.9) giving himself to us and for us that the wrath of God is satisfied. The hymn Rock of Ages puts it well:
quote:
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From Thy wounded side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure;
Save from wrath and make me pure.

The point is this: Christ is broken (cleft) so that we might 'hide' in him (Galatians 2.20).

Christ crucified is the only means of mortification of sin that God has provided. The answer to the question, 'How can I kill my sin?' is simply this: die with Christ. We are called into mystical union with Christ in his death because only in Christ's death is there sufficient provision of grace for us obey the command to kill sin (Romans 8.13,14).

The righteousness that comes from God becomes ours through union with Christ in his risen righteousness only if we undergo mortification of sin through union with him in his death (Romans 6.1-11). The justification that this brings is immediate in the sense that once our sin is dead we become, through union with the risen Christ, righteous in God's sight. The sanctification, however, is progressive because is requires the ongoing activity (again by grace) of penitent faith as the means by which post-regenerate sin is brought daily to Christ's death as the sufficient and effective means of destroying it.

Christ willingly becomes the locus - the only place graciously provided by God - where God's wrath becomes an accessible and effectual power for the survivable killing of sin. The reason we can survive is because Christ is sinless and risen. We die to sin with and in Christ; we live to God in and with Christ. Christ is the means by which the wrath of God becomes the means of both justification and sanctification instead of destruction and death. Union with Christ is all. The wrath of God experienced in Christ mortfiies sin and raises the sinner; the wrath of God out of Christ destroys both sin and condemns sinner.

On the cross Christ becames the locus of God's settled animosity towards sin so that through union with him we can die to that sin and live to God. Christ in a very real sense becomes the indestructible life in which our sin can be destroyed. Paradoxically we are saved from wrath by entering into that wrath in and through Christ.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
God put [Christ] forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed. (Romans 3:25)

Boil that down to the most basic problem the death of Christ is meant to solve. God put Christ forward (he sent him to die) in order to demonstrate his righteousness (or justice). The problem that needed solving was that God, for some reason, seemed to be unrighteous, and wanted to vindicate himself and clear his name. That is the basic issue. God's righteousness is at stake. His name or reputation or honor must be vindicated. Before the cross can be for our sake, it must be for God's sake.

But what created that problem? Why did God face the problem of needing to give a public vindication of his righteousness? The answer is in the last phrase of verse 25: "because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed."

Now what does that mean? It means that for centuries God had been doing what Psalm 103:10 says, "He does not deal with us according to our sins or repay us according to our iniquities." He has been passing over thousands of sins. He has been forgiving them and letting them go and not punishing them.

The writer's main point is that contemporary articulations of the atonement have become radically anthropocentric. Human beings, and the needs of humanity, become the primary lens through which the crucifixion is viewed. The writer I quoted, who happens to be John Piper, takes a more theocentric view of the passage that is currently being discussed in this thread. For the whole article, which I think, makes interesting reading click here.
Read the article. Works for me...
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
According to CV a person is regenerated through the struggle against sin. The person seems to himself or herself to work hard to overcome bad habits and desires, but it is Christ working in him or her. As a result of this struggle the old self gradually dies, and a new, better, self is born. Christ lives within them.

According to PSA, as I understand it, a person is regenerated by faith through the freely given gift of the Holy Spirit. The focus is not on the inner struggle against sin, but on the removal of God's wrath through the imputation of Christ's righteousness. The new, better, self is born as this wrath is removed and the Holy Spirit enters.

Is this right?

That's not quite how I understand it, Freddy. If I might deal firstly with how I understand the process works under PSA, I think the term "imputed righteousness" is a bit of a tangential issue. Not all adherents of PSA regard it as crucial to their model, and there is a considerable amout of debate as to whether the term is useful at all. I think the standard PSA position would be that (and here, also, I think that there are various nuances) we (that is, our old sinful self) is put to death with Jesus on the cross. Through our identification with Him, our sins are punished, the law is satisfied (with His vicarious death) leaving the way of communion between Created and creature open. But we are also resurrected with Him, and part of the fruits of that resurrection is that our spirit is made alive to God, in the Power of the Holy Spirit. As we continue to keep that pathway open, by living lives of repentance (see Numpty's earlier post), He lives through us, changing our motivation and animating our spirits towards God.

Our bodies, though, are still subject, prior to the general resurrection, to our corrupted desires, so that, in this life there is always a conflict between the Spirit given desire to do good arising from our regenerated spirits, and the baser, fleshly impulses to go our own way, which are typical of our fallen and compromised "souls" (mind, emotions, etc).

We need, therefore, to keep being renewed ourselves, through prayer, the sacraments (contoversial to some), reading the scriptures, worship etc, pace Romans 12. This is not so much a work of the flesh, as a divine work into whose way we need to put ourselves. The transformation is His task, the enabling of that transformation, the "giving of permission" if you like, is ours.

All of which, it has to be said, is not so very different from my understanding of how it works for CV, if you take it with your understanding of the wrath of God (which I do) and the implication of this for our understanding of the law.

My impression from the many things that you have posted, is that you would think this lays too little emphasis on our responsibility for living a godly life, and yet you are very clear that the ability so to do is dependant on God's power, and not on our own efforts.

I agree with you that CV does imply a change in our nature that allows a more "free" (ie less constrained by sin) will, allowing us to choose the Godly way. I'm not, hoewever, sure that this is not also inherent in PSA.

My arguments against PSA are not so much based on the poor standards of life exhibited by some of its followers (in general I have found the lives of most of those who espouse it are exemplary by any standards) but rather what it says about the nature of God, and what are appropriate and effective ways of dealing with sin.

ETA oops, x-posted with Numpty, who puts the PSA argument so much better and with greater subtlety that I do!

[ 16. July 2007, 13:39: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Numpty, If you would like to post a definition of what you think PSA is, I will respond to that.

You don't get to comment however on my response to Freddy's definition. That amounts to the logical fallacy of "bait and switch" or "moving target".

Now I know there is a Hell thread caused by this post - but let me make one thing clear.

sharktacos: Neither you nor any other poster in Purgatory gets to determine who responds to your posts or what they are permitted to say.

Carry on.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
If I might deal firstly with how I understand the process works under PSA, I think the term "imputed righteousness" is a bit of a tangential issue. Not all adherents of PSA regard it as crucial to their model, and there is a considerable amout of debate as to whether the term is useful at all.

That's the first time I've heard that.

Johnny, is this true?

As I have understood it, the concept of imputation is a cornerstone of PSA. For example, from the THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST: AN EVANGELICAL CELEBRATION, which I quoted earlier:
quote:
12. We affirm that the doctrine of the imputation (reckoning or counting) both of our sins to Christ and of his righteousness to us, whereby our sins are fully forgiven and we are fully accepted, is essential to the biblical Gospel (2 Cor. 5:19–21).
We deny that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ infused into us or by any righteousness that is thought to inhere within us.

13. We affirm that the righteousness of Christ by which we are justified is properly his own, which he achieved apart from us, in and by his perfect obedience. This righteousness is counted, reckoned, or imputed to us by the forensic (that is, legal) declaration of God, as the sole ground of our justification.
We deny that any works we perform at any stage of our existence add to the merit of Christ or earn for us any merit that contributes in any way to the ground of our justification (Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8–9; Titus 3:5).

Without imputation I'm not sure how PSA can work.

On the other hand, I am thrilled with the idea of dispensing with it, since I consider it to be a completely wicked doctrine. I think that it is wicked because the understandable zeal to avoid the idea of merit is then allowed to mean that the quality of our life is detached from our salvation.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think the standard PSA position would be that (and here, also, I think that there are various nuances) we (that is, our old sinful self) is put to death with Jesus on the cross. Through our identification with Him, our sins are punished, the law is satisfied (with His vicarious death) leaving the way of communion between Created and creature open. But we are also resurrected with Him, and part of the fruits of that resurrection is that our spirit is made alive to God, in the Power of the Holy Spirit.

OK. Sure. I agree that this is PSA also. I also agree that our old self is put to death in a similar way to what happened on the cross, and that the two acts represent one another. So I like this version of PSA much better.

But I still don't like it at all, since I don't think that it is possible for us to be identified with Him except representatively, nor is it possible for Him to vicariously bear our sins. And the punishment of sin and consequent satisfaction of the Law is complete nonsense.

Other than that, I like the idea that the point is to open the way between Creator and created, and that we, in a sense, are resurrected with Him on Easter morning - just as He lifted up those who had been previously confined to "Sheol."
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As we continue to keep that pathway open, by living lives of repentance (see Numpty's earlier post), He lives through us, changing our motivation and animating our spirits towards God.

I definitely like the idea that we continue to keep that pathway open by lives of repentance. I also believe that this is how He changes our motivation and animates our spirits toward God.

Doesn't what I quoted from "THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST: AN EVANGELICAL CELEBRATION" deny that though? Does this mean that this document, which has been, I believe, affirmed by many U.S. denominations, is mistaken?
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My impression from the many things that you have posted, is that you would think this lays too little emphasis on our responsibility for living a godly life, and yet you are very clear that the ability so to do is dependant on God's power, and not on our own efforts.

That's right. I really think that this apparent contradiction is the sticking point for many people. How can we be responsible if everything depends on God's power?
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I agree with you that CV does imply a change in our nature that allows a more "free" (ie less constrained by sin) will, allowing us to choose the Godly way. I'm not, hoewever, sure that this is not also inherent in PSA.

I agree that this freedom is also inherent in PSA. The difference is that in PSA our salvation does not depend on it.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My arguments against PSA are not so much based on the poor standards of life exhibited by some of its followers (in general I have found the lives of most of those who espouse it are exemplary by any standards) but rather what it says about the nature of God, and what are appropriate and effective ways of dealing with sin.

I agree with you that it is not about the poor standards of life exhibited by people who are proponents of PSA. I have had good experiences with people like this. On the other hand, I do think that the doctrine does not take sin seriously, and while its eager proponents may refrain from sin on religious grounds, the effect of the doctrine on Christianity as a whole has been to divorce religion from life. Christians, as a whole, are not known world-wide for our exemplary life and culture. I think that PSA has something to do with this.

But I do agree with you about what PSA says about the nature of God, and what are appropriate and effective ways of dealing with sin. Attributing the concept of payment and satisfaction to God is primitive and absurd, in my opinion.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
As I have understood it, the concept of imputation is a cornerstone of PSA. For example, from the THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST: AN EVANGELICAL CELEBRATION, which I quoted earlier:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. We affirm that the doctrine of the imputation (reckoning or counting) both of our sins to Christ and of his righteousness to us, whereby our sins are fully forgiven and we are fully accepted, is essential to the biblical Gospel (2 Cor. 5:19–21).
We deny that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ infused into us or by any righteousness that is thought to inhere within us.

13. We affirm that the righteousness of Christ by which we are justified is properly his own, which he achieved apart from us, in and by his perfect obedience. This righteousness is counted, reckoned, or imputed to us by the forensic (that is, legal) declaration of God, as the sole ground of our justification.
We deny that any works we perform at any stage of our existence add to the merit of Christ or earn for us any merit that contributes in any way to the ground of our justification (Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8–9; Titus 3:5).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, maybe I put the case a little more strongly than is strictly speaking accurate. A great many proponents of PSA would certainly assent to imputed righteousness. What I was trying, somewhat poorly, to portray, is that imputed righteousness is not necessarily a pcore doctrine of PSA. Frankly, I don't think it makes that much sense to me, either, but that is somewhat tangential.

The problem with IR is, istm, that it is a catch all that covers all positions from the understanding that we are identified with Christ in His resurrection and thus share in His righteous status before the Father, (which, IMHO, is reasonable and scriptural) to the "We are made righteous by Christ, so it doesn't matter what we do, our status before God is one of enjoying His favour, because He looks at us and sees only Christ", which, frankly, tends towards antinomianism. So I'm not sure the term is sufficiently well defined to constitute a core dogma for PSAers. I've heard, in my time, lots of sermons on PSA, but can't think of a single one where the doctine of IR has been specifically taught, or even mentioned much except in passing.

But all that's only my impression. John will have, I'm sure, a more definative POV.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But all that's only my impression. John will have, I'm sure, a more definative POV.

What makes you think that? I'm an 'all shades of grey' kinda guy and not at all into definitive POVs. [Biased]

Besides don't you think Numpty might want to say something? (Or perhaps he has flown over to the USA for a personal duel with Sharktacos ... that would explain both their disappearances... ummh... pistols or swords ... my money is on the steel.)

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The problem with IR is, istm, that it is a catch all that covers all positions from the understanding that we are identified with Christ in His resurrection and thus share in His righteous status before the Father, (which, IMHO, is reasonable and scriptural) to the "We are made righteous by Christ, so it doesn't matter what we do, our status before God is one of enjoying His favour, because He looks at us and sees only Christ", which, frankly, tends towards antinomianism.

I can't speak for everyone but I had always assumed that IR was the other side of the coin to PSA. However, I agree with JJ in that I have met some (especially Americans... although I don't know why) who are PSA but don't seem to say much about IR.

As far as antinomianism is concerned:

1. The very fact that Paul had to work so hard to defend 'his' gospel from that charge (e.g. Romans 6 v 1) means that it must have looked like it. (Even if it wasn't!)

2. Any atonement model is going to fluctuate between antinomianism and pelagianism. The flip side of your point is that any atonement view that does not have IR must surely put some weight of salvation on our 'works'? What righteousness did the thief on the cross have at all in his dying breath?

[ 17. July 2007, 15:34: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
What righteousness did the thief on the cross have at all in his dying breath?

My thought is that he was a kindly and well-intentioned individual, who may have snatched a thing or two in his lifetime out of need, but who made heartfelt repentance.

Had he been simply cut down from the cross, as opposed to being cut free of this world, he would have gone on to live an exemplary life.

Our only evidence of this is his remarkable statement on the cross. Jesus, however, evidently saw into his heart and knew that he had truly reformed.

So the example need not justify salvation by faith alone.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I can't speak for everyone but I had always assumed that IR was the other side of the coin to PSA.

Johnny, I'm trying to grasp this statement. I have always thought that IR was the indespensible device that made PSA work. It certainly seems that way in the evangelical statement I quoted above.

How could PSA work without IR? How would Jesus' payment of the penalty be of any use if the result could not be imputed to the average sinner like me?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My thought is that he was a kindly and well-intentioned individual, who may have snatched a thing or two in his lifetime out of need, but who made heartfelt repentance.

Had he been simply cut down from the cross, as opposed to being cut free of this world, he would have gone on to live an exemplary life.

Our only evidence of this is his remarkable statement on the cross. Jesus, however, evidently saw into his heart and knew that he had truly reformed.

So the example need not justify salvation by faith alone.

Freddy you do have a rather active imagination. Let me guess he was driving down the Jerusalem highway off to help some orphans but carelessly went just over the speed limit ... and they crucified him for it. [Frown]

I'm sure his repentance was heartfelt but you seem to suggest that our salvation rests on what we might do if we get the chance. The simple fact is that he had no 'deeds' or 'fruit' to show for his repentance. And he needed none. Hallelujah, what a Saviour! (Oops ... got a bit carried away there.)
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

How could PSA work without IR? How would Jesus' payment of the penalty be of any use if the result could not be imputed to the average sinner like me?

You're asking the wrong person. I do think they go together.

And Freddy, I think you are a much better than average sinner. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Let me guess he was driving down the Jerusalem highway off to help some orphans but carelessly went just over the speed limit ... and they crucified him for it. [Frown]

That's pretty much how I picture it. A clear example of injustice. [Cool]
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm sure his repentance was heartfelt but you seem to suggest that our salvation rests on what we might do if we get the chance.

Actually, that's it exactly. That's what my denomination teaches.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

How could PSA work without IR? How would Jesus' payment of the penalty be of any use if the result could not be imputed to the average sinner like me?

You're asking the wrong person. I do think they go together.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you said about the other side of the coin. Now I see that you meant that they are inseparable - which I think as well.

So I'm wondering how JJ means that it is possible to accept PSA but not IR. [Confused]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
That's pretty much how I picture it. A clear example of injustice. [Cool]

Any evidence for this? (especially since on the cross he confessed that he did deserve his punishment!)

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm sure his repentance was heartfelt but you seem to suggest that our salvation rests on what we might do if we get the chance.

Actually, that's it exactly. That's what my denomination teaches.
So what's the point of life then? God can just look at each one of us and know how we are going to respond. It would sure save a lot of suffering and heartache.

[ 17. July 2007, 22:55: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
That's pretty much how I picture it. A clear example of injustice. [Cool]

Any evidence for this? (especially since on the cross he confessed that he did deserve his punishment!)
Yes, he did confess this, and I think that this is a good sign. The only evidence is his brief statement on Jesus' behalf, and then Jesus' remarkable response to it.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm sure his repentance was heartfelt but you seem to suggest that our salvation rests on what we might do if we get the chance.

Actually, that's it exactly. That's what my denomination teaches.
So what's the point of life then? God can just look at each one of us and know how we are going to respond. It would sure save a lot of suffering and heartache.
The point is that our response is something that changes over time as we learn, grow, and become better people. In the case of the thief, his experience up to that point evidently caused some deep changes to take place in him.

So the point of life is to learn how to be useful members of God's kingdom through a life of learning, obedience, repentance and service. We are not born loving God and the neighbor, but we can learn, through God's power, to have these loves in ourselves.

At any point in our life Jesus would know by a mere glance what we truly love, and what we might do if we get the chance. We might live an exemplary life, but actually be ready to do something naughty if only we had the chance. Similarly, we might live a very difficult, and even immoral life, but actually have been trapped by circumstances and long for a different kind of life, if only we had the chance. Intentions count. Repentance and change are possible.

But I think the truth is that most people do have opportunities, and that their actual choices are a fair representation of what they would do if they had the chance.

This way of seeing it works well with Christus Victor, where life is a contest between good and evil, with Christ fighting on our side.

It does not work, in my opinion, with PSA, which denies that anything we do at any stage of our existence does anything for us that contributes in any way to the ground of our justification.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
So I'm wondering how JJ means that it is possible to accept PSA but not IR.

OK, let me try to unpack this a bit. Maybe my understanding of IR is a little flawed, but I take it to refer to the idea that when God looks upon us and our actions, he looks at them through Jesus. It's as if He doesn't see us at all, but only Jesus. It's not just that we share in Jesus righteousness by faith (you might or might not agree with that, but there is at least some biblical support for the idea), or that our sinful nature has been put to death on the Cross, but that (to caricature for the sake of getting across the point) we almost cease to exist from God's point of view. Now it is easy to see where this doctrine originates from. Paul talks repeatedly about us being clothed in Christ, that it is not us that live but Christ that lives in us. But I think Paul was thinking more of a picture of us being united with Christ, which seems to me to be a very different thing. I rather suspect that the phrase at the end of the DB that you quoted:
quote:
We deny that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ infused into us or by any righteousness that is thought to inhere within us.
is aimed at countering this type of thinking. Certainly, my impression of IR is that it is akin to the righteousness of Christ being infused into us.

But it may just be that I have a defective understanding of IR.

Tangentially, John, I had rather the impression that IR was more popular amongst American Evos than British ones. But it may be the old stereotyping at work.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
So I'm wondering how JJ means that it is possible to accept PSA but not IR.

OK, let me try to unpack this a bit. Maybe my understanding of IR is a little flawed, but I take it to refer to the idea that when God looks upon us and our actions, he looks at them through Jesus. It's as if He doesn't see us at all, but only Jesus. It's not just that we share in Jesus righteousness by faith (you might or might not agree with that, but there is at least some biblical support for the idea), or that our sinful nature has been put to death on the Cross, but that (to caricature for the sake of getting across the point) we almost cease to exist from God's point of view.
JJ, I think that I can understand what you are meaning here, and how that idea is perhaps not central to PSA. You are talking about how God looks on humanity, and how He therefore regards us. Our virtual ceasing to exist is an understandable caricature of that idea, which is not, I agree, emphasized in PSA.

I think, though, that the real point is about whether or not we have any righteousness.

Are we righteous? Any of us? The obvious answer is that we are not. So the obvious question is "How, then, can we be saved?" To which the PSA answer is that salvation does not depend on our righteousness, but on Christ's righteousness. The question is then "How do we get that righteousness?" The answer is that this righteousness is counted, reckoned, or imputed to us by the forensic (that is, legal) declaration of God.

In case I haven't made myself clear in the past, this is what I consider to be so wicked about PSA. It contradicts Jesus' repeated statements that salvation does depend on our righteousness.

Christus Victor allows for this because Jesus helps us to become righteous by fighting with us in our battles to become so. This means that the power is His and the righteousness is still His, but that we share in it because He is with us and in us, as He says so many times.

The difference could be seen as merely technical, depending on how you define "sharing in it", how you think of Christ's presence within us, and the precise way that you understand "impute." But in practice it really does, I think, amount to whether you think that your salvation depends on obedience to Christ's teachings or not.
 
Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
Wow. 19 pages. I couldn’t hope to read it all, I barely have time to compose a halfways lucid response, & really shouldn’t be doing it anyway as I have a ton of other stuff needing done. I hope I’m not retreading the same worn pathways, excuse me (and ignore me) if I do.

But I kinda can’t help it. I see these threads pop up one in a while, and I think, “Are the PSA/IR and Christus Victor things mutually exclusive?” Perhaps that is a valid question for a completely different thread.

For me, to take one and not the other is like saying “No! You must look at the diamond only from this direction! Don’t turn it around, don’t let it flash and shine as you see all the different faces from different points of view!”

Because I am not righteous. I know I never will be this side of Heaven. Everything I do is in some way marred by my sinfulness, either falling short of the mark or aiming in the completely opposite direction, to pick up on the arrow analogy.

Yet He is my righteousness! (I can’t go about digging up verses now, but anyone who hasn’t read that one probably shouldn’t be in on the discussion). And judicially, that righteousness has been imputed to me, I think the Scriptures make that clear.

Freddy, you are right in that imputed righteousness is not actual righteousness. Paul also tells us that we are “predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.” I think Paul’s writings are full of the idea that the flesh must be crucified, that actual righteousness must come about before we will stand before the Throne.

And I’d go further than Christ sharing in our struggles to become righteous. I’d say that I am His workmanship, as my sig says, created in Christ Jesus to do good works. He shepherds me along, provides the direction, guidance, sustenance. It’s more Him than me, I can tell you that!

I’m in a hurry and this is making less sense than when I was thinking about it in bed last night. But anybody who thinks that PSA is a substitute for actual righteousness just isn’t reading the Scripture. Nevertheless, I think it is also clear that He bore our sins and carried our sorrows in a multitude of ways, cumulating on the Cross, which was ultimate surrender, ultimate victory, and ultimate propitiation.

Someday, I’ll be “purer than gold is, and clearer than glass could ever be” (Rich Mullins, “Can I be with You?). Until then, Christ stands in my place. When the accuser comes, He says, no, that one is mine, bought and paid for.

I think we struggle and try to put a nice clean “one or the other” approach when we are dealing with something almost incomprehensible. There are a variety of illustrations in Scripture dealing with our salvation, including the “redeemed slave” I just alluded to above.

But I gotta go, sorry to horn in. Blessings to you all.

Tom
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
I see these threads pop up one in a while, and I think, “Are the PSA/IR and Christus Victor things mutually exclusive?” Perhaps that is a valid question for a completely different thread.

For me, to take one and not the other is like saying “No! You must look at the diamond only from this direction! Don’t turn it around, don’t let it flash and shine as you see all the different faces from different points of view!”

Thanks for chiming in on this, Tom. Your comments are helpful. It is good to be reminded that we might need to turn the diamond slightly to see it from other directions.

So are PSA and CV mutually exclusive? It seems that way to me because in the one our salvation depends on our righteousness, and in the other it doesn't. Is there a middle ground that makes both true?
 
Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
Thank you Freddy.

Gee, maybe I'm not real good at the terms here, or I'm just too steeped in the PSA model. I can't imagine my salvation depending on my righteousness.

That I will one day be righteous, I can imagine. That in order to stand blameless before his Throne, I must be pure enough to stand in his presence (i.e. 100%). I can understand that. I can well understand that after my death that final corrections to my character will be needed.

But in a way I can't explain, it's not my "faithful striving" that does it. He took the initiative, He came, He overcame, He is victor, He is the Champion, He is the Redeemer, he is my Redeemer. He chose me, arrested me, broke me, gave me "repentance unto life." If there's virtue in me, it's because of His work and the work of the Spirit. I don't mean to be overly humble or pious or self-effacing, really I don't, I just can't see it any other way. That is the Victory of Christ that I see. The outcome is never in doubt, I can never be separated from His love, even any "Purgatorial" corrections will be not penal but in the loving embrace of a Father - I will be purged of any remaining impurities of character. But the relationship will be there, moreso even than here. I will finally be able to love the lord my God with all my heart, and my neighbor as myself. There is no way that will happen this side of Heaven, especially if it's my efforts that'll get me there!

I did take a smidge of time to get back to Page 1, and I like what Karl said, and then Callan - that salvation is something Christ accomplishes, rather than merely endure. I'd agree with that take on things even though I've lived with a PSA type viewpoint for a long time.

Sorry, I'm really in a rush.

Blessings,

Tom
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, he did confess this, and I think that this is a good sign. The only evidence is his brief statement on Jesus' behalf, and then Jesus' remarkable response to it.

Come on Freddy. The only thing we know about this guy is recorded in the gospels. There from his own lips he confesses that he was being punished justly.

At this point I would understand if you replied something like 'this bit of data does not fit my theory but I'm still not convinced' - that would be fair enough. Trying to claim anything else just looks a bit silly. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This way of seeing it works well with Christus Victor, where life is a contest between good and evil, with Christ fighting on our side.

This is where it all gets a bit vague. How is he fighting on our side? Who is doing the most fighting? If we win is it because of him or us? etc. etc.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

In case I haven't made myself clear in the past, this is what I consider to be so wicked about PSA. It contradicts Jesus' repeated statements that salvation does depend on our righteousness.

Christus Victor allows for this because Jesus helps us to become righteous by fighting with us in our battles to become so. This means that the power is His and the righteousness is still His, but that we share in it because He is with us and in us, as He says so many times.

The difference could be seen as merely technical, depending on how you define "sharing in it", how you think of Christ's presence within us, and the precise way that you understand "impute." But in practice it really does, I think, amount to whether you think that your salvation depends on obedience to Christ's teachings or not.

In this respect I don't see a difference between PSA and CV since 'in Christ' means that his righteousness is my righteousness.

I also think you are barking up the wrong tree about obedience in general. PSA teaches that we are not saved by works but we are saved for works (Ephesians 2: 8-10). Obedience to Christ's teachings is evidence of faith in Christ so in that sense we should expect to see the evidence of obedience of which you speak.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, he did confess this, and I think that this is a good sign. The only evidence is his brief statement on Jesus' behalf, and then Jesus' remarkable response to it.

Come on Freddy. The only thing we know about this guy is recorded in the gospels. There from his own lips he confesses that he was being punished justly.

At this point I would understand if you replied something like 'this bit of data does not fit my theory but I'm still not convinced' - that would be fair enough. Trying to claim anything else just looks a bit silly. [Biased]

Johnny, I'm not sure what you are not seeing here. It completely fits my theory. [Cool]

Sure the thief did all those bad things. But he reformed. He changed. What's wrong with that? Once you change, your past sins are of no consequence in God's eyes. At least that's the way I see it.

Here is how heaven works in my denomination. You die. You wake up in the afterlife. No one asks you what good or bad things you ever did. No one cares about your past at all. All that matters is the kind of person you really are. You pick up life where you left off, and live a normal life in that world. You forget that you are even in another world.

If you are the kind of person who did bad things in the world, you will probably continue to do bad things in the next life. You will associate yourself with bad people. You will have the kind of pleasures, and their opposite, that are inherent in evil. Over time, the torment of those practices will become more and more apparent - and you will flee from them, if you can. But if you are willing to endure the down-side, because you really enjoy the up-side, then you stick with it. That's hell.

But if you get the program, and realize that it is all about love to God and the neighbor, you become increasingly happy. That's heaven.

This is what happened to the thief. His life continued after his death. Jesus' promise of a paradise was not an idle one. He was apparently actually the kind of person who could enjoy the paradise that is heaven.

The trouble with sinful actions is not that they get counted up and that you get punished for them. The problem is that our actions form our inner being, and that over time we become whatever it is that we do. So we form habits and beliefs, and they become harder and harder to change as we continue in them.

This means that it is exceedingly unlikely that a thief on a cross would have a true change of heart that carried over into the next life. But not impossible. Evidently Jesus knew what He was talking about.

Maybe that looks silly. [Hot and Hormonal] But I don't feel silly. I feel fine, really. [Angel]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This way of seeing it works well with Christus Victor, where life is a contest between good and evil, with Christ fighting on our side.

This is where it all gets a bit vague. How is he fighting on our side? Who is doing the most fighting? If we win is it because of him or us? etc. etc.
I don't think it is vague at all. It feels as if we do the fighting. The truth is that He does the fighting.

Similarly, it feels as if the victory, and its benefits are ours. The truth is that the victory is His.

The truth is also that we are free to fight or not fight, and that we only actually fight insofar as we attribute the power to Him. What is called "fighting" is actually the same thing as abiding in Jesus.

The point is that we really do exist, and we feel that we exist. But since all existence is really His, we only really have it if we know what it is and whose it is. Jesus said this repeatedly, I think.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
I can't imagine my salvation depending on my righteousness.

There it is. That's the difference between PSA and CV.

I think Jesus said that it does depend on your righteousness.
quote:
Matthew 5:20 “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of the heavens.”

Matthew 13:49 "At the completion of the age angels will go forth and separate the wicked from out of the midst of the righteous."

Matthew 7.21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

As did the Old Testament:
quote:
Psalm 1:5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment,
Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knows the way of the righteous,
But the way of the ungodly shall perish.

So the point is that it is critical to become a righteous person. If you fail then you won't be as happy as if you succeed - because sin leads to enslavement and suffering.

And it's not that hard. Even the thief on the cross could do it.

It is also, as Jesus points out, essential to understand that the righteousness is not really ours, nor is the effort, because without Him we can do nothing.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Johnny, I'm not sure what you are not seeing here. It completely fits my theory. [Cool]

Sure the thief did all those bad things. But he reformed. He changed. What's wrong with that? Once you change, your past sins are of no consequence in God's eyes. At least that's the way I see it.

Perhaps you need to take the sunglasses off then? [Big Grin]

The description of the thief you give also fits a PSA description. My point is that he had no time (in this life) to 'do' anything to demonstrate that repentance. Your claims about him 'carrying on' in heaven is just an example of reading back your view point into the argument. I'm sure I do the same sometimes. You have no evidence, biblical or otherwise, that our 'good deeds' in the afterlife can save us.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


I think Jesus said that it does depend on your righteousness.

<snip>

So the point is that it is critical to become a righteous person. If you fail then you won't be as happy as if you succeed - because sin leads to enslavement and suffering.

And it's not that hard. Even the thief on the cross could do it.

It is also, as Jesus points out, essential to understand that the righteousness is not really ours, nor is the effort, because without Him we can do nothing.

[Ultra confused] We are going round in circles Freddy. All PSAers would completely agree with you. If Christ imputes his righteousness to me then it is my righteousness. Therefore a PSAer is quite happy to agree with all your biblical quotes. On this matter CV and PSA are agreed. Christ came to make us righteous people. It is the grounds for that righteousness that is being debated.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
OK Freddy, I know we've had this discussion before, but I don't see that the "saved as a consequence of obedience to Jesus teaching (assisted by the grace of God)" (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is pretty much the view you hold) is, of necessity, any more a part of CV than of PSA. Equally, my position (saved by grace alone, but for a life of good works, pace Ephesians 2:8-10) is as valid under CV as it is under PSA.

Now, I know that this is a hot topic for you, and I respect and understand your position on it, but I have to say that anything that depends on my righteousness, with or without God's grace, is just bad news for me, at any rate, because, if that's true, then I'm toast! I screw up at least as often as I get things right, sometimes in major ways. I'm sort of hoping that that doesn't count in the great scheme of things.

I take what you say about the primacy of motivation, but even so, if my salvation depends on my ability to be faithful to my Lord, I think I'm in dire straits [Eek!] .

Having said that, I accept that your position is compatible with CV in a way which it is not compatible with PSA.

[ 19. July 2007, 09:22: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The description of the thief you give also fits a PSA description.

Isn't the PSA understanding that the thief's confession of faith saved him, rendering his actual quality moot? That's pretty different from my understanding that Jesus saw his actual quality.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[Ultra confused] We are going round in circles Freddy. All PSAers would completely agree with you. If Christ imputes his righteousness to me then it is my righteousness. Therefore a PSAer is quite happy to agree with all your biblical quotes. On this matter CV and PSA are agreed. Christ came to make us righteous people. It is the grounds for that righteousness that is being debated.

Not according to the statements I have been quoting. They say that our righteousness is emphatically not the issue.
quote:
14. We affirm that, while all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and are in the process of being made holy and conformed to the image of Christ, those consequences of justification are not its ground. God declares us just, remits our sins, and adopts us as his children, by his grace alone, and through faith alone, because of Christ alone, while we are still sinners (Rom. 4:5).
We deny that believers must be inherently righteous by virtue of their cooperation with God’s life-transforming grace before God will declare them justified in Christ. We are justified while we are still sinners.

If we are justified while we are still sinners, then righteousness is not the grounds of our justification. Yet Jesus said otherwise.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK Freddy, I know we've had this discussion before, but I don't see that the "saved as a consequence of obedience to Jesus teaching (assisted by the grace of God)" (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is pretty much the view you hold) is, of necessity, any more a part of CV than of PSA. Equally, my position (saved by grace alone, but for a life of good works, pace Ephesians 2:8-10) is as valid under CV as it is under PSA.

It's true that I may not have a complete grasp of the ins and outs of what is called CV, so I may just be substituting the New Church view and calling it CV. [Paranoid] But I am seeing an enormous and crucial difference between CV and PSA on this.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Now, I know that this is a hot topic for you, and I respect and understand your position on it, but I have to say that anything that depends on my righteousness, with or without God's grace, is just bad news for me, at any rate, because, if that's true, then I'm toast! I screw up at least as often as I get things right, sometimes in major ways. I'm sort of hoping that that doesn't count in the great scheme of things.

Isn't this the meat of the issue? Isn't the question of whether or not we are toast fairly crucial?
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Having said that, I accept that your position is compatible with CV in a way which it is not compatible with PSA.

Thank you for saying that. I am really just arguing that PSA and CV are incompatible.

OK, maybe I'm also arguing that PSA does not take sin seriously. [Biased]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The description of the thief you give also fits a PSA description.

Isn't the PSA understanding that the thief's confession of faith saved him, rendering his actual quality moot? That's pretty different from my understanding that Jesus saw his actual quality.
I'm not sure this is going anywhere. I know your understanding is different. I'm talking about what actually happens in Luke 23, and both CV and PSA fit with the text.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Not according to the statements I have been quoting. They say that our righteousness is emphatically not the issue.
quote:
14. We affirm that, while all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and are in the process of being made holy and conformed to the image of Christ, those consequences of justification are not its ground. God declares us just, remits our sins, and adopts us as his children, by his grace alone, and through faith alone, because of Christ alone, while we are still sinners (Rom. 4:5).
We deny that believers must be inherently righteous by virtue of their cooperation with God’s life-transforming grace before God will declare them justified in Christ. We are justified while we are still sinners.

If we are justified while we are still sinners, then righteousness is not the grounds of our justification. Yet Jesus said otherwise.
Freddy, are you deliberately misunderstanding this? I thought Numpty and others had made this very clear. The statement you quote distances itself (as would I) from any sense that we are justified because of our inherent righteousness. However, (again I say [Snore] ) if Christ's righteousness is imputed to me then it becomes my righteousness. Therefore all the quotes about our righteousness having to exceed the Pharisees is fulfilled because my righteousness is perfect, in Christ. I'm not asking you to agree with me, just to see what PSA is actually saying.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm talking about what actually happens in Luke 23, and both CV and PSA fit with the text.

Yes, they both fit with the text. That's the point I was making. My CV interpretation is perfectly legitimate, I think.

You brought it up as an illustration of how righteousness could not possibly be the grounds of our salvation. It is often referred to this way, to illustrate the PSA view of salvation by faith alone.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, (again I say [Snore] ) if Christ's righteousness is imputed to me then it becomes my righteousness. Therefore all the quotes about our righteousness having to exceed the Pharisees is fulfilled because my righteousness is perfect, in Christ. I'm not asking you to agree with me, just to see what PSA is actually saying.

So you're not worried that you might not be righteous enough to enter heaven? What if you fail to obey the Ten Commandments?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, they both fit with the text. That's the point I was making. My CV interpretation is perfectly legitimate, I think.

You brought it up as an illustration of how righteousness could not possibly be the grounds of our salvation. It is often referred to this way, to illustrate the PSA view of salvation by faith alone.

Right, I see what you mean now. I would argue that PSA makes much better sense of the thief on the cross than CV but would not want to make it a proof text.

I thought you were trying to demonstrate that it couldn't fit with PSA. My mistake.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
And just when I was starting to understand you!

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So you're not worried that you might not be righteous enough to enter heaven? What if you fail to obey the Ten Commandments?

Freddy, are you serious? Or are you playing some kind of game?

Have you Read Romans 3?

Let's try verse 20 for a start:

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."

As JJ has been trying to tell you - this has nothing to do with PSA vs. CV but everything to do with, IMHO, your semi-pelagian view of salvation.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
And just when I was starting to understand you!
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So you're not worried that you might not be righteous enough to enter heaven? What if you fail to obey the Ten Commandments?

Freddy, are you serious? Or are you playing some kind of game?

Have you Read Romans 3?

Let's try verse 20 for a start:

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."

And yet Jesus clearly says that this is what we need to do to enter heaven. Or doesn't He?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As JJ has been trying to tell you - this has nothing to do with PSA vs. CV but everything to do with, IMHO, your semi-pelagian view of salvation.

Are you saying that CV does not mean that we need to overcome sin in our life, with Christ's help, in order to be saved? I don't see this as semi-pelagian.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
On the contrary, one must be 'saved' in order to have any hope of overcoming sin. We are saved from our sins.

But that's just basic evangelical theology; and Johnny S is right, it's got nothing specifically to do the CV as a distinctive model of the atonement. It's a matter of much wider difference between evangelical and swedenborgian soteriology.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Johnny S is right, it's got nothing specifically to do the CV as a distinctive model of the atonement. It's a matter of much wider difference between evangelical and swedenborgian soteriology.

Are you saying that what I've been calling CV is nothing more than Swedenborgianism? [Ultra confused]

How do you know? Whose definition of CV are we working from?

Surprisingly, for a thread of this length, no one has come up with a very complete definition of Christus victor. Or else I missed it.

We know that the term itself was coined by Gustav Aulen in the 1930's:
quote:
Aulén argues that theologians have misunderstood the view of the early Church Fathers in seeing their view of the Atonement in terms of a Ransom Theory arguing that a proper understanding of their view should focus less on the payment of ransom to the devil, and more of the liberation of humanity from the bondage of sin, death, and the devil. As the term Christus Victor (Christ the Victor) indicates, the idea of “ransom” should not be seen in terms (as Anselm did) of a business transaction, but more in the terms of a rescue or liberation of humanity from the slavery of sin.
It's a view that in the past has been predominently Orthodox:
quote:
While largely held only by Eastern Orthodox Christians for much of the last one thousand years, the Christus Victor theory is becoming increasingly popular with both Evangelicals because of its connection to the Early Church Fathers, and with Liberal Christians and Peace Churches such as the Mennonites because of its subversive nature, seeing the death of Jesus as an exposure of the cruelty and evil present in the worldly powers that rejected and killed him, and the resurrection as a triumph over these powers. As Marcus Borg writes,
“ for [the Christus Victor] view, the domination system, understood as something much larger than the Roman governor and the temple aristocracy, is responsible for the death of Jesus... The domination system killed Jesus and thereby disclosed its moral bankruptcy and ultimate defeat."

I like all of that, but it doesn't say much about CV's implications for individual salvation.

Numps, JJ, or Johnny, do you have more specific sources that would contradict what I have been saying above? [Confused]

[ 19. July 2007, 23:37: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


Numps, JJ, or Johnny, do you have more specific sources that would contradict what I have been saying above? [Confused]

Apologies if I sound like a stuck record - no specific sources but, if that is an accurate summary of CV, I think it highlights both its strengths and its weaknesses (lacking in personal responsiblity ... a focus on the 'system' rather than the 'person').

Which is why I prefer both PSA and CV. [Big Grin]

Right, I'm off on holiday tomorrow for a fortnight... rain, rain, and then more rain.

Freddy, promise that you'll keep this thread going and you won't let those 'Wycliffe Hall' guys get too far in front. [Biased]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Are you saying that what I've been calling CV is nothing more than Swedenborgianism? [Ultra confused]
Freddy,
An Atonement theory in itself does not explain how salvation works on our side. It explains what God needed to do to make salvation available. What does sound rather "Swedenborgian" about your view is the idea that salvation is about knowledge that sets us free leading to right actions/life on our part. (I've already expressed some of my problems with this view). But that is a theory of salvation not atonement.

One could argue that since Aulen was Lutheran and based a good deal of CV on Luther, that he (and Luther) would have taken a more "Lutheran" understanding of salvation to go along with CV. Also I imagine that the early church would have had some problems with it as well as it does sound rather Pelagian.

Specifically your understanding of CV, (separated from your view of salvation) seems more or less right on to me. But since the two do get mixed up here pretty rapidly, perhaps that is leading to confusion.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Freddy, promise that you'll keep this thread going and you won't let those 'Wycliffe Hall' guys get too far in front. [Biased]

Absolutely. We can't have that. [Disappointed]

Hope you enjoy the two weeks! I'm sure you'll wonder the whole time how it all turned out. [Biased]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
An Atonement theory in itself does not explain how salvation works on our side. It explains what God needed to do to make salvation available.

I guess that you and Johnny are probably right about this. None of the CV sources I have looked at really go into it.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Specifically your understanding of CV, (separated from your view of salvation) seems more or less right on to me. But since the two do get mixed up here pretty rapidly, perhaps that is leading to confusion.

Yes, they do. Certainly in the New Church they are wrapped up as one thing - thus leading to my conflating the two.

It does seem to me that CV implies what I have said about salvation. But maybe not. So I guess I'll drop that.

On the other hand, I am quite certain that PSA has the implications that I have said it does. It really is directly about individual salvation. I doubt anyone disagrees with that.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
On the other hand, I am quite certain that PSA has the implications that I have said it does. It really is directly about individual salvation. I doubt anyone disagrees with that.
Both PSA and CV are about individual/personal salvation, both with a different understanding of the problem and solution. Both also in that have a corporate sense too, in that it is not just "for me" but also "for humankind". What I think CV adds to this is the idea that Christ also died and rose to redeem our systems (religion, power, wrath, law, etc). This of course has a personal aspect as well since the domination of systems effect individuals too.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Are you saying that what I've been calling CV is nothing more than Swedenborgianism? [Ultra confused]
Freddy,
An Atonement theory in itself does not explain how salvation works on our side. It explains what God needed to do to make salvation available.

So for 30 years I have been under the illusion that I knew the answer to the Question "Men and brethren, what must we do to be saved?"
But now I find that the atonement has nothing to do with 'my side' of the equation? sounds suspicious.
There is the theory and the practice don't you think?
One must triangulate ones experience and devotional life with ones perception of scripture with the church in the sense of what over the centuries, the church thinkers have taught and thought. It is obvious that they haven't always agreed.
In favour of a PSA reading I think you can add the apostle John's opinion to Paul's and the Hebrews writer's because he also refers to Christ's 'propitiatory' sacrifice. and clearly intends to convey the message that Christ took the punishment that we sinners deserved.(see 1 Jn 2,3)

[ 21. July 2007, 03:35: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:

So for 30 years I have been under the illusion that I knew the answer to the Question "Men and brethren, what must we do to be saved?"
But now I find that the atonement has nothing to do with 'my side' of the equation? sounds suspicious.

Jamat, think of it like this: one does not need to understand how a phone works (satellites, fiber optic networks, etc) in order to talk on the phone. Understanding our side of "what we must do to be saved" is like knowing how to pick up and dial the phone. Atonement is what God did to make that possible, just like the phone company has to do a lot to make that simple phone call possible. If all that was not there (those satalites and fiber optics etc) it would not work, and in the same way "what we must do to be saved" only works because of the work of God in the atonement. So of course the two are connected. However one does not need to comprehend fiber optics to make a call, nor does one need to have a developed atonement doctrine before they can "call upon the name of the Lord" to be saved.


quote:
In favour of a PSA reading I think you can add the apostle John's opinion to Paul's and the Hebrews writer's because he also refers to Christ's 'propiti atory' sacrifice. and clearly intends to convey the message that Christ took the punishment that we sinners deserved.(see 1 Jn 2,3)
i disagree. 1 Jn 2 simply says "He is the hilasterion for our sins". We have discussed this word earlier. Even if we go with an understanding of the word in the sense of "turning asside wrath" (which is debatable to say the least) there is nothing in there to indicate how wrath is turned aside. Assuming that this is through "Christ taking the punishment that we sinners deserved" is reading an understanding into that text that is simply out of sync with how Jews understood their temple sacrificial system, and with the book of Hebrews too.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Jamat,

Just to be sure we are not talking past one another, could you clarify why "Christ taking the punishment that we sinners deserved" would propitiate God?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
I would like to mix things up a bit by talking about the idea of justice as it progresses from the OT to the NT and in doing so get at some themes of PSA and CV as they relate to justice.

In the OT justice is primarily focused on Israel who is oppressed under pagan captivity calling out for justice. We can see this is the Psalms which speak of being "saved" from those who pursue and attack David, to the Prophets who speak of the poor being lifted up from under their burden. Jesus quotes several of these prophesies that speak of good news to the poor, and it is from this understandable that the Jews at the time expected the Messiah to be one who would destroy the evil pagans and restore Israel to its former glory.

But the message of the NT and Jesus instead says that evil is not just "them" over there, it is "us". We are all sinners, and if we only seek to destroy the bad guys to bring about justice, we will find ourselves at the end of that sword. To put this in the language of Paul, we have all sinned, we are all guilty, and we are all subject to wrath. So the good news of wrath - that the bad guys are gonna get it - is really bad news because we are all guilty of oppressing and hurting others.

At the same time though we are also victims of sin. Both sin done to us by others, and also by our own sins that imprison us in hurtful self -destructive behavior. So while we need to be saved from wrath, that can't be all. There needs to be a different way for justice to come about, not by destroying our enemies (which will just come back to get us since we are all guilty of hurting others), but of a way to lift ourselves out of the bondage of hurting, and to stop the cycle of blame and revenge. So here we go from the idea of retributive justice (and also of the idea of acquital from retributive justice) to the idea of restorative justice, of a justice focused on setting things right, mending what was broken. Because while we now see in the light of the NT that we are the oppressor, we are at the same time the victim too. The victim of others hurtfulness, but also the victim of our own hurtfulness, and merely not getting punished does not actually take us out of that bondage to hurt we are stuck in. It does not bring about justice in us to simply get clemency. We need to go beyond a punitive model to a restorative model that heals what has been broken in us and our world, one that redeems and makes all things new, that gives us new life. Going from the way of and eye for an eye to the way of overcoming evil with good through love of enemies and unmerited grace that God demonstrates by loving us first while we were his enemies because of our hurtfulness. That is the good news to the poor.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Jamat,

Just to be sure we are not talking past one another, could you clarify why "Christ taking the punishment that we sinners deserved" would propitiate God?

Because he said it would. Think of Cain and Abel.Why did one sacrifice do it and one not? It was the blood. The blood equals the life. A life had to be takenfor sin to be forgiven and relationship restored. We are just lucky Christ became the 'mercy seat' or 'covering' or we would still bear the consequences of our sinfulness.
Think also of Noah. 'God smelled the soohing aroma'? Same deal. God is God and he demands that sin be dealt with this way and only so. Think of the original couple. God clothed them with skins so sacrifice can be inferred here too. Hebrews..'Without the shedding of blood is no forgiveness.' The big discussion earlier about whether the blood implied a penal substitution notwithstanding, I believe that the sacrifice of a life, animal or son of God is a venting of judgement. It shows how seriously God takes sin. Who are we to question or say it is barbaric because it doesn't suit our sensibilities?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
I think you need to pick one of two tacts:

A) say that God requires a sacrifice for what ever reason, and who or we to question.

or

B) offer an understanding of why a sacrifice might be required.

What you seem to be doing is (B) saying that it has a certain role ("venting judgment" as you say), but then this explanation is put in the "God works in mysterious ways" category (A).

The problem with this of course is that the particular understanding of the sacrifices you are offering is not one that is clearly taught in Scripture (I would argue that it is in fact contrary to what most Biblical scholars including conservative ones would say the role of sacrifice was). If you just wanted to go with explanation (A) and say "God must know," I could agree with you, but when you attach a certain interpretation onto that (B), I think one does need to be able to at least make a Biblical argument to justify that interpretation. In other words, I do not question the sacrifices, I question your understanding of them. Otherwise, if we do not examine the solidness of our our particular exegesis of Scripture and simply pull the "God says so" trump card, we run the risk of imposing our own cultural assumptions onto our reading of the Bible.

Anyway, that's why people need to be able to justify their particular interpretations. I was really only asking you to clarify what that interpretation was at all, which I am still guessing from your term "venting judgment" has to to with the idea of appeasement of anger/revenge through killing. But I can only guess that's what you mean from the context. My understanding is you are saying that this sounds bad to us, and indeed sounds barbaric and unjust, but that God is beyond question so we should accept that. Is that correct?
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
How would you describe CV to someone else (say, a non-Christian, or a Christian who only knew PSA)?

<tiptoes in quietly, whispers>
It's all explained in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, though one should probably read the whole searies. OliviaG
<tiptoes out>
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
<tiptoes in quietly, whispers>
It's all explained in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, though one should probably read the whole searies. OliviaG
<tiptoes out>

I think that's right...
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
Except for the spelling of "series". [Hot and Hormonal] OliviaG
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Shark
the particular understanding of the sacrifices you are offering is not one that is clearly taught in Scripture (I would argue that it is in fact contrary to what most Biblical scholars.

Who precisely are 'most Bible scholars? Would the writer to the Hebrews agree with them?

Heb 9:15 "He is the mediator of a new covenantin order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of transgressions....those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."

This says to me:

His death is the mechanism of my redemption
It redeems because it satisfies God's anger against transgressions.

What does it say to you?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Who precisely are 'most Bible scholars?
One that comes to mind is Leon Morris. Also John Goldingay.

quote:
Would the writer to the Hebrews agree with them?
I think he would, yes.

Heb 9:15 "He is the mediator of a new covenant in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of transgressions....those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."

My version reads "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant".

The term "ransom" is clearly one that evokes Christus Victor, and the idea of being ransomed out of slavery which was the central defining narrative of the Jewish people.

quote:
This says to me:
His death is the mechanism of my redemption

That I would agree.

quote:
It redeems because it satisfies God's anger against transgressions.
This I find unbiblical, and not at all what Hebrews says. You quoted Hebrews earlier saying that "without blood there is no forgiveness" (9:22) but this is not the full sentence/verse. The full sentence/verse is

"In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness"

You can see from this that the purpose of the blood is not to appease, but to "cleanse". This is the writers point throughout this entire section. This idea of cleansing and sanctification here reflects the entire Hebrew concept of holiness and "cleanliness". So here we have the idea of expiation (cleansing, sanctifying). Christ's blood sanctifies us, cleanses us from sin. This is as you say not a pleasant idea to us today, but it is the idea of the sacrifices. Those sacrifices make God propitiated (turning aside wrath as Paul says in Romans) because when we are cleansed there is no reason for wrath because wrath is the result of our sin and so if the sin is removed so is wrath. However this has nothing to do with God needing to be appeased or placated in order to love us because God is the one who provides the sacrifice. It is also not about God needing the satisfy the demands of justice through violence carried out on the innocent or himself (which would be profoundly unjust), but a new kind of justice that breaks the cycle of an eye for an eye with the way of love of enemies that God demonstrated when he allowed himself to be wronged for us, bearing all of our pain, guilt, hurt, despair, helplessness, and shame on the cross and rising victorious in order to set us free from all that would separate us from him.

That's what I see there. Not the fulfillment of justice, but the scandal of how despite the terrible injustice of the cross that God worked justice through that, in this humiliation God's glory is revealed, in this defeat is victory, in this darkness is the light of the crucified one.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
On what basis can forgiveness happen other than that sin is in some way judged. Is judgement of sin unbiblical? To me,ppeasement is locked into the notion of forgiveness
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
On what basis can forgiveness happen other than that sin is in some way judged. Is judgment of sin unbiblical? To me,ppeasement is locked into the notion of forgiveness

Appeasement is the polar opposite of forgiveness.

Forgiveness means that one faces the hurt, yes. So if by judgment you mean facing hurt, then I agree. But forgiveness is about notdemanding to be appeased or hitting back.

Forgiveness is an important analogy, but I don't think it is all there is to it when it comes to us and God. The problem is not simply a matter of reconciliation, but of our sin being like a cancer in us. So God cannot simply say "ok I'm not mad any more" nor can he simply say "ok I punished someone else so that's out of the way". Sin is our problem and needs to be healed, removed, purified. PSA only deals with sin on God's side (satisfying his anger) which is silly because God is not the one with the problem, we are.

There's a story of Jesus healing a paralyzed man where he asks "what is easier, to forgive sin or to say 'get up and walk?" and then he says "so you may know that I have power to forgive sin... get up and walk". This indicates for me that when God forgives that it is not simply about leniency (inaction: not hitting back), but is more like saying "get up and walk" (active: transforming power). God's forgivness has creative life-giving power in it that re-creates us.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Forgiveness is an important analogy, but I don't think it is all there is to it when it comes to us and God. The problem is not simply a matter of reconciliation, but of our sin being like a cancer in us. So God cannot simply say "ok I'm not mad any more" nor can he simply say "ok I punished someone else so that's out of the way". Sin is our problem and needs to be healed, removed, purified. PSA only deals with sin on God's side (satisfying his anger) which is silly because God is not the one with the problem, we are.

There's a story of Jesus healing a paralyzed man where he asks "what is easier, to forgive sin or to say 'get up and walk?" and then he says "so you may know that I have power to forgive sin... get up and walk". This indicates for me that when God forgives that it is not simply about leniency (inaction: not hitting back), but is more like saying "get up and walk" (active: transforming power). God's forgivness has creative life-giving power in it that re-creates us.

[Overused] [Overused] Precisely, so Sharktacos! That incident from Jesus' life explicitly shows that forgiveness and restoration (the undoing of the wrong) are not the same thing (though, of course, in real life experience the realisation (making real for the individual) of forgiveness, and restoration may occur simultaneously).

[ 24. July 2007, 08:45: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The problem is not simply a matter of reconciliation, but of our sin being like a cancer in us. So God cannot simply say "ok I'm not mad any more" nor can he simply say "ok I punished someone else so that's out of the way". Sin is our problem and needs to be healed, removed, purified. PSA only deals with sin on God's side (satisfying his anger) which is silly because God is not the one with the problem, we are.

This is so right. PSA is one-sided in that way. The whole point isn't to remove God's "anger" but to get rid of the reason for it. The former would be like forgiving your car for not working, the latter like fixing it so that it will work.

CV says, to me anyway, that God made it possible for us to stop sinning. No more sin, no more "anger" - not that I believe there ever was any. The whole point of the Incarnation was to change humanity so that it wouldn't sin anymore - or to make it so that people could choose not to sin anymore.
 
Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
Would it surprise anyone that I think both are true? As do most con/evos I know. I think the labels used are something like "justification" (the PSA part) and "sanctification" (the CV part). Most con/evos I know see Christ's life, death & resurrection as a powerful victory, not simply something He endured (as someone suggested way back on the first page).

PSA without CV is just a "magic pill", a "sacrament" (to wrongly use the word), that allows one to say, "Well, yes, I rec'd Christ, so I'm going to Heaven...well, yes, I'm a little backslidden right now..." Much as a Catholic can attend the sacraments without it really affecting his life, so can the con/evo "receive Christ" and continue pretty much unaffected. He's fullfiled the requirement, on we go... (I'm not trying to make this into a Catholic/Prot thing, just pointing out that virtually any way we look at Christianity, there's a way to misunderstand/misuse it!)

Someday, we won't sin anymore, in thought, word or deed. I don't think this will happen this side of death, but it's clear that the cancer is indeed within us, and changes must be made to our character in order for us to stop sinning. I just think PSA & CV deal with two different aspects of the same issue.

Blessings,

Tom
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Would it surprise anyone that I think both are true?

Tom,

In broad strokes I agree with you. I would add that we we need to work out
A) how these two views fit together, and
B) how we can express both in a way that connects with people today.

My main problem with PSA is that it is a locked into a particular legal way of expressing substitutionary atonement that limits itself to a rather medieval understanding of justice. J.I. Packer has suggested that we do with PSA what Gustav Aulen did with CV (which also had been expressed in legal terms) and express it in dramatic terms rather than in rationalist ones. I think Packer is right on here.

I do think in general that both sides can benefit from a dialog. People who endorse CV tend to ignore the problem of guilt and see things in the terms of being a victim. People who endorse PSA on the other hand tend to have little concept of the idea of institutional sin and structural evil. So maybe both could be enriched by the balancing focus of the other.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
On what basis can forgiveness happen other than that sin is in some way judged. Is judgment of sin unbiblical? To me,ppeasement is locked into the notion of forgiveness

Appeasement is the polar opposite of forgiveness.

This statement just shows that in my view,you don't have a biblical notion of forgiveness from God's viewpoint
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
On what basis can forgiveness happen other than that sin is in some way judged. Is judgment of sin unbiblical? To me,ppeasement is locked into the notion of forgiveness

Appeasement is the polar opposite of forgiveness.

This statement just shows that in my view,you don't have a biblical notion of forgiveness from God's viewpoint
If you would like to demonstrate this with Scripture I would be happy to listen.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
You are entitled to your opinion of course, The word'binblical' is a bit pejorative.
The reasoning is.
Sin is serious, God must condemn sin and sinners.
He wants to demonstrate his love nevertheless but his integrity demands he CAN'T forgive without dealing with or passing judgement on sin.
Christ fulfils the role of victim and saviour enabling forgiveness because:

He was sinless sacrifice, passover lamb etc
We are able to partake of the judgement of God on him.Ro 6 Our Old man was crucified with him etc.

Forgiveness is therefore a consequence of God's righteous anger against sin being appeased.
Now I could add the whole book of Romans as a basis but you wouldn't appreciate that so why don't you tell me how someone can RIGHTEOUSLY be forgiven by God without Christ having been judged on their behalf.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
He was sinless sacrifice, passover lamb etc
We are able to partake of the judgement of God on him.Ro 6 Our Old man was crucified with him etc.

I don't think that this demonstrates the error of what Shaktacos was saying. Just Romans? Not Jesus?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
why don't you tell me how someone can RIGHTEOUSLY be forgiven by God without Christ having been judged on their behalf.

According to Jesus, the usual way is to repent:
quote:
Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”

Mark 1:4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3:3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,

Luke 24:47 that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;

We are also forgiven as we forgive others:
quote:
Matthew 6:12 And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors.

Matthew 6:14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Mark 11:25 “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.”

Luke 6:37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

These passages don't suggest that forgiveness is about Christ being judged on our behalf. They tie forgiveness to our choices.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
I understand the reasoning, what I am asking if for you to show me where it says this in the Bible.

If you are going to claim a concept is "biblical" you should be able to demonstrate that.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Freddy,

I do think there is more to the cross than just forgiveness. Otherwise, why did Jesus need to die (and Jesus stresses that he does need to)? We can see hints of it in what Paul says about dying with Christ. The problem is when we impose a foreign understanding of forgiveness onto Paul based on legal thought. What Paul is saying is not reasonable legal conclusions (nor is it simply the logic of repent and you are forgiven), it is a "scandal". Likewise what Isaiah 53 talks about is this huge shock.

I think we need to really dig into that "foolishness" of the cross. So I am wary of any view which is to "reasonable" (which I think can apply both to PSA and to the view you are proposing of simple forgiveness) because there is something deep and hidden that as Isaiah says we can hardly believe when we hear it. So our understanding needs to go into those dark depths.

I don't mean to say that this means that what you say about forgiveness is not true, but that there is also something deeper still.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I understand the reasoning, what I am asking if for you to show me where it says this in the Bible.

If you are going to claim a concept is "biblical" you should be able to demonstrate that.

So you want the actual 'legal' words that prove something? the proof texts? Eph 2:14-16 Romans5:8-10 1Pet 2:24 Col 2:13-14 1Jn 2:2 2Cor 5:21
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I understand the reasoning, what I am asking if for you to show me where it says this in the Bible.

If you are going to claim a concept is "biblical" you should be able to demonstrate that.

So you want the actual 'legal' words that prove something? the proof texts? Eph 2:14-16 Romans5:8-10 1Pet 2:24 Col 2:13-14 1Jn 2:2 2Cor 5:21
ok, let's start with your first reference in Eph 2:14-16:

"For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility."

What are you seeing here? I don't see the relevance. Paul says here that the "dividing wall" is "abolished" and "destroyed". Abolished and destroyed are not the same thing as "appeased" by a long shot, in fact they are pretty much the opposite.

Next you quote Romans 5:8-10

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!"

The key section here is: "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!"

From this we see that in being justified through Christ's blood we are saved from wrath. This verse does not explain however what it means to be justified and how this saves us from wrath. It simply states that we are. We both can plug our theories in, so it really proves nothing as far as demonstrating the mechanism which you claim is operative (forgiveness requiring appeasement through violence). It simply states that because we were set right (justified) through the cross we are no longer God's enemies.

Next is 1 Pet 2:24
"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed."

The operative picture here is us being "healed" through Christ's wounds. Meaning a change in us. This again is not about appeasement. Further he is quoting from Isa 53 which emphatically states repeatedly that the suffering of the Servant is not the fulfillment of justice but a picture of injustice and oppression. We also see there that Christ "bore our sins" and also bore our "sorrow" and "infirmities". Again this is not a punitive legal framework. You need to look at these verses in their own context. Scripture interprets Scripture.

Next up is Col 2:13-14

"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross."

We begin with a picture not of legal acquittal and satisfaction but rather a medical picture of going from death to life. A change in us, not in God.

Next we see (as in the above example from Ephesians) a clear Christus Victor theme: Christ does not satisfy the law, he cancels and judges it. Judgment is judged, the law is put to death, "nailed to the cross". God condemns what would condemn us, judges what would judge us. In this he is made Lord over all, as not only we come under Christ, but also the law comes under Christ.

Moving along, 1 John 2:2
"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[a] the sins of the whole world."

Yup here sure is. Nothing about appeasement there though.

Finally 2 Cor 5:21
"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Again, yes. And again, this says nothing about appeasement. None of the verses you quoted do. Because it simply is not in there. God in Christ is "made to be sin" and becomes "a curse" for us (Gal 3:13). So that we can by entering into his death also participate in his life. All that is biblical. But there is nothing in there about God needing to be satisfied or appeased before he will forgive, nor about justice requiring a "venting of anger". That is simply not in the Bible anywhere.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You are entitled to your opinion of course, The word'binblical' is a bit pejorative.
The reasoning is.
Sin is serious, God must condemn sin and sinners.

He doesn't have to do anything. He's God. If He wants to give everyone a "Get out of Jail Free" card, He can. That's His right.

quote:
He wants to demonstrate his love nevertheless but his integrity demands he CAN'T forgive without dealing with or passing judgement on sin.
I don't see why. Not at all. And even if He has to judge sin and say "That is bad", He is not constrained to punish. He doesn't have to do anything He doesn't want to do. And if He doesn't want to punish, He doesn't have to. Love, we are told in 2 Corinthians, keeps no record of wrongs. It always forgives.

quote:
Christ fulfils the role of victim and saviour enabling forgiveness because:

He was sinless sacrifice, passover lamb etc
We are able to partake of the judgement of God on him.Ro 6 Our Old man was crucified with him etc.

Forgiveness is therefore a consequence of God's righteous anger against sin being appeased.

That's a very different thing from saying that God had to punish sin. Indeed, it means that punishment has been averted. I'd go further, if sin is punished, then by definition, it has not been forgiven.

quote:
Now I could add the whole book of Romans as a basis but you wouldn't appreciate that so why don't you tell me how someone can RIGHTEOUSLY be forgiven by God without Christ having been judged on their behalf.
Forgiveness is inherently right. Forgiving is always righteous by definition. That's why we are commanded to do it. Jesus doesn't command us to forgive because someone else has taken the rap, or even in response only to repentance - He tells us to forgive, pure and simple. That is how we emulate God.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Freddy,

I do think there is more to the cross than just forgiveness. Otherwise, why did Jesus need to die (and Jesus stresses that he does need to)? We can see hints of it in what Paul says about dying with Christ. The problem is when we impose a foreign understanding of forgiveness onto Paul based on legal thought. What Paul is saying is not reasonable legal conclusions (nor is it simply the logic of repent and you are forgiven), it is a "scandal". Likewise what Isaiah 53 talks about is this huge shock.

I think we need to really dig into that "foolishness" of the cross. So I am wary of any view which is too "reasonable" (which I think can apply both to PSA and to the view you are proposing of simple forgiveness) because there is something deep and hidden that as Isaiah says we can hardly believe when we hear it. So our understanding needs to go into those dark depths.

I don't mean to say that this means that what you say about forgiveness is not true, but that there is also something deeper still.

I agree completely. There is something deep and hidden. Christ did an impossible thing. There is definitely more to it than simple forgiveness. We could not have been forgiven without the Incarnation - we would instead have been completely destroyed.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So you want the actual 'legal' words that prove something? the proof texts? Eph 2:14-16 Romans5:8-10 1Pet 2:24 Col 2:13-14 1Jn 2:2 2Cor 5:21

Jamat, when you assert so strongly that the Bible says something, and then chafe at having to quote it and explain how it says what you claim it says, you're not really helping us to understand.

Sharktacos' counter-explanations are pretty good, I think.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
I agree completely. There is something deep and hidden. Christ did an impossible thing. There is definitely more to it than simple forgiveness. We could not have been forgiven without the Incarnation - we would instead have been completely destroyed.

A minor quibble, I know, but what do you think to my argument that we could, indeed, have been forgiven without the incarnation, but that forgiveness would have, in effect, done us no good, since without the transformation that frees us from the death principle (which was wrought by Christ, we could not inherit eternal life. The incarnation is about salvation, or reconciliation if you like, not forgiveness, which was always available to us.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
I agree completely. There is something deep and hidden. Christ did an impossible thing. There is definitely more to it than simple forgiveness. We could not have been forgiven without the Incarnation - we would instead have been completely destroyed.

A minor quibble, I know, but what do you think to my argument that we could, indeed, have been forgiven without the incarnation, but that forgiveness would have, in effect, done us no good, since without the transformation that frees us from the death principle (which was wrought by Christ, we could not inherit eternal life. The incarnation is about salvation, or reconciliation if you like, not forgiveness, which was always available to us.
I think I agree with you. You might be over-thinking it. The whole point was to make people better, not to overcome technical or legal obstacles. I'm not sure if that is what you are saying.

As I see it the issue is simply about becoming "good" people. Christ had to come because humanity, as a whole, was turning away from God. He came to convince them, or to make it possible for them, to turn back to God.

So I agree that forgiveness was always available. I also agree that forgiveness does us no good if we have not made the "transformation that frees us from the death principle." I understand that last phrase to be about the process of reformation and regeneration that involves recognizing our sins, repenting of them, praying to God for His aid, and living a new life.

So I also agree that the Incarnation is about salvation, or reconciliation if you like, not forgiveness, because He came to save us from the power of darkness. His forgiveness had always been available. But He needed to make it possible for people to genuinely make the change from evil to good, or to be able to choose life over death. He did this by re-establishing order and balance in the relationship between humanity and the spiritual forces that affect them. His primary means were "the sword of His mouth" (Revelation 2.16) or His words.

So if that is what you meant, I really like your argument. [Biased]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
I'll add my thoughts in here too.

JJ, I think what you are saying is basically right . Out of fairness we should point out that Calvin says in his Institutes that he did not think that the Atonement made God loving. John Stott another big gun for PSA says the same thing. So one could argue that this particular notion is a misunderstanding of PSA in its "cruder forms". On the other hand Stott then turns around and affirms the idea of appeasement which seems to contradict what he just said, which to me seems to reveal an internal contradiction in PSA thinking. My own theory is that the cross is all about paradox (dying to live, justice through injustice, etc) and a theory that tries to make rational sense of the whole thing is bound to get itself tied in knots.

Freddy, you say that redemption comes through "recognizing our sins, repenting of them, praying to God for His aid, and living a new life". I know I keep saying this, but I think a bigger factor here is our being "filled with the spirit" and experiencing the "new birth" were we enter into the resurrection life of Christ and become "part of the vine" so that Jesus indwells and empowers us to be "transformed into the image of God". It is this new birth that is at the core of the new covenant where God makes his temple in us.

I don't know much about your faith tradition, but I think it arose with this kind of experiential relational faith, and then later moved away from this kind of mystical relational emphasis to focus on works of love. Maybe it needs to do both? I would say that this new birth gives us the power to lead a life of Christ-like love. We are first loved, and that overflows.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Freddy, you say that redemption comes through "recognizing our sins, repenting of them, praying to God for His aid, and living a new life". I know I keep saying this, but I think a bigger factor here is our being "filled with the spirit" and experiencing the "new birth" were we enter into the resurrection life of Christ and become "part of the vine" so that Jesus indwells and empowers us to be "transformed into the image of God". It is this new birth that is at the core of the new covenant where God makes his temple in us.

I don't disagree, Sharktacos. The question is how you go about being "filled with the spirit," what it feels like, and how you tell if it has happened or not. I don't think that these are easy things to know.

As I understand it, this kind of religious experience and "work" is much more like every other area of endeavor than you are making it sound. In every area of life the key to overcoming weakness and becoming fit for service lies in gaining information, putting it into practice, recognizing shortcomings, seeking God's aid in improvement, and employing effort and practice to improve.

At least this is the subjective human experience of how it works.

The way that is really works, as I understand it, is the way that you are describing it. We can only do these things from God, so when we think that we are acquiring knowledge and employing effort, it is really God who is teaching us and filling us with His Spirit. Only He can make this "new birth" happen within us. The new birth happens as we progress from compelling ourselves to do what is right, to doing the right thing because we truly love to do it. This is how we are transformed into the image of God.

So I don't see any conflict between what I said and what you are saying. I am describing the way that it seems to us, and you are describing what really happens. I put it the way I do, though, because if we think that God will just come to us and fill us with His Spirit apart from any effort on our part - even though we know that it is not truly our effort - then we will miss out, or deceive ourselves about what is happening within us.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I don't know much about your faith tradition, but I think it arose with this kind of experiential relational faith, and then later moved away from this kind of mystical relational emphasis to focus on works of love. Maybe it needs to do both?

I don't think that the New Church arose with this kind of experiential relational faith, and then later moved away from this kind of mystical relational emphasis to focus on works of love. This church is based on Emanuel Swedenborg's Scriptural exegesis, and its focus is on Jesus' teachings. But I agree that it is important to focus on both faith and love.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I would say that this new birth gives us the power to lead a life of Christ-like love. We are first loved, and that overflows.

I don't disagree that this is the way that it actually happens. But I think that we are at first insensible of Christ's love working within us. It works within everyone, but we can't, at first, feel it, except maybe on occasion.

As I understand it, the choice to act or not act on that love and on that power is ours. We become aware of that love, and benefit from its power, only as we think, feel, and act according to it over time. This allows it to open a channel within us, and brings about our new birth.

Alternatively, we can ignore it and refuse to act according to that love or listen to God's words. This is our choice.

So it's true that God's love and power really come first. But to all intents and purposes, in our subjective lives, we need to hear God's Word, believe it, and obey it, or nothing happens.

Fortunately, most people have a lot of time to figure this out, try out alternatives, and move along a path of their own choosing. I think that Christ made it clear, though, that there are different paths, that we need to choose among them, and that they do go different places.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
He was sinless sacrifice, passover lamb etc
We are able to partake of the judgement of God on him.Ro 6 Our Old man was crucified with him etc.

I don't think that this demonstrates the error of what Shaktacos was saying. Just Romans? Not Jesus?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
why don't you tell me how someone can RIGHTEOUSLY be forgiven by God without Christ having been judged on their behalf.

According to Jesus, the usual way is to repent:
quote:
Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”

Mark 1:4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3:3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,

Luke 24:47 that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;

We are also forgiven as we forgive others:
quote:
Matthew 6:12 And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors.

Matthew 6:14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Mark 11:25 “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.”

Luke 6:37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

These passages don't suggest that forgiveness is about Christ being judged on our behalf. They tie forgiveness to our choices.

Freddy I have no problem with Jesus teaching. To me, though, it looks both back to the law and forward to the cross. Forgiveness isn't a magic wand, it is a tough transaction with a legal basis. At stake is God's integrity his nature of 'Godness.' If you say 'forgive!' I ask on what basis? Is forgiveness possible or does it have integrity if not linked to the substitutionary death of Jesus? In human terms my view of forgiveness is linked to God's forgiveness of me on the basis of the cross. I can realistically forgive only because the debt I owed God was forgiven me and it was far greater than the debt of wrong another human will ever owe me no matter how bad their actions toward me.(see the parable of the unforgiving servant)
To one who says, 'God can do anything he likes.' I would reply that, 'yes, except be internally inconsistent.' If his attitude toward sin ever changes, his integrity is compromised and his nature corrupted. He would at that point cease to be the being he is. Satan in fact did this when the lightbearer became the adversary.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So you want the actual 'legal' words that prove something? the proof texts? Eph 2:14-16 Romans5:8-10 1Pet 2:24 Col 2:13-14 1Jn 2:2 2Cor 5:21

Jamat, when you assert so strongly that the Bible says something, and then chafe at having to quote it and explain how it says what you claim it says, you're not really helping us to understand.

Sharktacos' counter-explanations are pretty good, I think.

Your 'reading' is your right Freddy but what's to understand?

Ro 5:9 clearly states we are saved from God's wrath through him. How could you not read appeasement into that?

Or this, 1Pet2:24 He bore our sins in his body on the cross

Col 2:13,14 he canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us

1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins (ie the covering for them)

2Cor 5:21 He made him who knew no sin to BE sin on our behalf.

Now if someone thinks it is 'unbiblical' to read these as suggesting 'appeasement' as a funtcion of the work of the cross, my reply is that they are looking for ways to make the scripture say something more acceptable to their sensibilities. This is in my view, not an option.

[ 26. July 2007, 04:17: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Jamat,

I understand in part what you are saying in that God cannot ignore sin, and that there is a cost to forgiveness. When we forgive, we take that pain upon ourselves instead of insisting on getting payback. Anyone who has had to forgive a grievous wrong or betrayal knows that there is a cost to forgiveness. God payed the cost of forgiveness by bearing our sin in his body. God allowed himself to be wronged, unjustly condemned. God paid what he did not owe because he was willing to be wronged, to be striped naked and humiliated, because he loved us and would pay any price to get us back, even though we were his enemies.

That is I think a biblical picture of substitutionary atonement. The idea of appeasement on the other hand is one that is not found in the Bible (the word never appears once). God bears our sin, pays what he does not owe, yes. But appeasement implies that we need to bribe an estranged God into loving us through a gift or through suffering. In that sense it is the opposite of forgiveness. One takes the pain for the sake of love, the other says "I will blame you until I get satisfaction". But it was God who first loved us, God who provided the sacrifice of himself.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:

Ro 5:9 clearly states we are saved from God's wrath through him. How could you not read appeasement into that?

Because Jesus is God. Jesus is not some third party who buys the love of an angry Father. In Trinitarian terms, God was on the cross. God absorbed the wrath meant for us in His own flesh.

The mechanism here is not appeasement or placation or bribery. It is God becoming man, taking on our guilt and wretchedness, and in overcoming (our) evil, making a way for us to by dying with Christ to also join in his resurrection life. We enter into that through the new birth. That's not about a legal transaction, its about intimacy and new life: Christ becomes sin, so we can be in Christ, a new creation.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QUOTE] God absorbed the wrath meant for us in His own flesh.

You come to the point very readily Mr Shark.
How is this not saying that God 'appeased' himself in Christ?

[ 26. July 2007, 05:25: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QUOTE] God absorbed the wrath meant for us in His own flesh.

You come to the point very readily Mr Shark.
How is this not saying that God 'appeased' himself in Christ?

Because you can't appease yourself.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Ro 5:9 clearly states we are saved from God's wrath through him. How could you not read appeasement into that?

Actually, it doesn't. The original Greek does not specify from whose wrath we are saved. Alison and Girard make very powerful arguments that it is our slavery to wrath and our propensity for scapegoating from which we require delivering. We are God's enemy, He is not ours.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
I understand in part what you are saying in that God cannot ignore sin, and that there is a cost to forgiveness. When we forgive, we take that pain upon ourselves instead of insisting on getting payback. Anyone who has had to forgive a grievous wrong or betrayal knows that there is a cost to forgiveness. God payed the cost of forgiveness by bearing our sin in his body. God allowed himself to be wronged, unjustly condemned. God paid what he did not owe because he was willing to be wronged, to be striped naked and humiliated, because he loved us and would pay any price to get us back, even though we were his enemies.

Exactly so, but not only for the reasons that you state. The point about defeating sin is that forgiveness is the only weapon capable of achieving that victory. The most awesome manifestation of God's power is in the humility and death of Jesus on the cross. Nothing else, not the legions of angels, not the earthquake, wind or fire, not even the act of creation itself, comes even close. God's power is humility and self surrender. This shows how seriously God takes sin. In order to defeat it, he had to deploy His most mighty "weapon".
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Forgiveness isn't a magic wand, it is a tough transaction with a legal basis.
I'm sorry, but the two clauses of your sentence are seperate assertions, the second of which does not follow from the first. I agree that forgiveness is not a magic wand. In fact, a number of posters on here, myself included, have gone to great lengths to explain how we understand forgiveness, and, I have to say, references to Harry Potter have been few and far between! But the suggestion that forgiveness is a legal transaction is a category error. Forgiveness is relational, not legal. The fact that various writers (interestingly, excluding Jesus) use legal terminology for the atonement (which, in any case, I do not consider to be about forgiveness per se) means nothing more than that educated people of that time understood a legal metaphor. In fact, Paul's whole argument about the "law" could be summed up as "you are all so obsessed with your status under the Jewish law, but it's a different kind of law, the law of sin and death, about which you ought to be worried."
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Freddy, you wrote:
quote:
I think I agree with you. You might be over-thinking it. The whole point was to make people better, not to overcome technical or legal obstacles. I'm not sure if that is what you are saying.

Well, I'm certainly not thinking of technical or legal obstacles. Actually, I think it's my use of the (Pauline) law of sin and death that may have caused some confusion. Paul uses (as we do) the word law to refer to three, but more relevantly to this discussions, two different concepts. The first is the OT writings, but that isn't particularly germane, the second is the moral principle at the heart of (particularly Jewish) religious thinking. But the third, that is, the created order of things, is the sense in which I used the above phrase (and I believe it is the sense in which Paul uses it too.) Thus, it is more akin to "the law of gravity" rather than anything enacted by the Commons (or the House). We are, in fact, bound to decay, (spiritual entropy, if you like). It isn't a legal concept, it is an ontological state, and, undealt with, that state leads to death, whether we are forgiven or not. I see the atonement as (amongst other, cosmic purposes) God dealing with that state, rebirthing us into a new creation.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I would say that this new birth gives us the power to lead a life of Christ-like love. We are first loved, and that overflows.

I don't disagree that this is the way that it actually happens. But I think that we are at first insensible of Christ's love working within us. It works within everyone, but we can't, at first, feel it, except maybe on occasion.

As I understand it, the choice to act or not act on that love and on that power is ours. We become aware of that love, and benefit from its power, only as we think, feel, and act according to it over time. This allows it to open a channel within us, and brings about our new birth.

Alternatively, we can ignore it and refuse to act according to that love or listen to God's words. This is our choice.

So it's true that God's love and power really come first. But to all intents and purposes, in our subjective lives, we need to hear God's Word, believe it, and obey it, or nothing happens.

Fortunately, most people have a lot of time to figure this out, try out alternatives, and move along a path of their own choosing. I think that Christ made it clear, though, that there are different paths, that we need to choose among them, and that they do go different places.

I think there is a deal of sense here, Freddy, but I would still assign a greater importance to God's role and a lesser importance to our own, than I suspect you would. Part of this, I still think, is due to the different language in which these issues are discussed in our different faith traditions, but still, at heart, I believe that we can only be "good" (to put it a bit lamely, but YKWIM) through an ongoing supernatural encounter with the power of God. Now we may, or we may not, be wholly aware of that process, but I believe it is a process which is going on anyway. Of course, we should be doing all those laudible things which you mention, but, at heart, I know I'm not capable of doing those things without the power of God working in me. And, of course, I fail, but I believe that God does not give up on me because of my failures, and He meets them with a new infusion of His grace. I see our role, primarily, in putting ourselves in the place where God can meet us in this way. Of course, that involves all the usual suspects, prayer, worship, bible reading, fellowship and so on, but it's the power of God in us that changes us, that makes us even want to do the things He wants us to do.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think there is a deal of sense here, Freddy, but I would still assign a greater importance to God's role and a lesser importance to our own, than I suspect you would.

I'm not so sure. Don't get me wrong. We can do nothing. Everything is from God. I am talking about the subjective experience.

We seem to ourselves to be able to drive within the speed limit, or to exceed it, as we choose. We seem to ourselves to be able to make the choice to pay the restaurant bill or sneak out the back way.

We have no choice but to live our lives according to that appearance. We can't possibly experience God driving for us.

But I agree that the truth is that God drives, and that any ability we seem to have is actually His. So we need to drive the car, but we need to always know that any ability to drive well, and within the speed limit, is from God.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I believe that we can only be "good" (to put it a bit lamely, but YKWIM) through an ongoing supernatural encounter with the power of God. Now we may, or we may not, be wholly aware of that process, but I believe it is a process which is going on anyway.

Yes, that's it. I agree. I would vote for being less aware of that process, maybe, than you.

For example, I have just spent a good five minutes writing these words. I'm sure that God is typing for me. I'm sure that anything close to the truth in what I am saying is from Him. I can even say that I, in a sense, can feel that in my heart.

But I can also say that I might just as easily be way off the mark, listening to things that aren't God at all, but are mistaken. I can try to know whether I am right or wrong, pray about it, and look to the Bible for guidance. In the end, though, I can't know for sure whether or not the way I see it is right, wrong, or somewhere in between. And it is important for me to know, so it is important for me to do what is necessary to find out - a genuine listening to God.

I can't imagine that it is different for you. If you claim to be very sensible of God's influence, then that would also make you very sure of the rightness of your position and actions. Do you think that you can have that blessed assurance? [Confused]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
If you claim to be very sensible of God's influence, then that would also make you very sure of the rightness of your position and actions. Do you think that you can have that blessed assurance?

Well sometimes, I am reasonably confident in that way, but most of the time, just like you, I suspect, I live by faith rather than by sight, and just trust that He'll sort it out. Except when I don't [Eek!] [Ultra confused]

But the point that I was making is that, quite often, we are unaware of that influence, that it is a mystery but we are influenced by it anyway, whereas ISTM that you are sying that, in order for the process to be effective, we must be rationally engaged in it. Or have I misread you? Now I have nothing against rational engagement, but it seems, I don't know, an inadequate explanation of our interaction with God.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But the point that I was making is that, quite often, we are unaware of that influence, that it is a mystery but we are influenced by it anyway, whereas ISTM that you are sying that, in order for the process to be effective, we must be rationally engaged in it. Or have I misread you? Now I have nothing against rational engagement, but it seems, I don't know, an inadequate explanation of our interaction with God.

No, I don't think that we need necessarily to be rationally engaged in anything. I think that we just go along minding our own business, living our lives as best we can. Meanwhile, God is working inside of us without us knowing.

I'm just saying that, as far as we are concerned, everything depends on us trying to do the right thing - thinking, willing, and acting sincerely, kindly, etc. according to our best understanding. Isn't this what everyone around the world thinks? Does anyone think that we just behave randomly?

So as we go about life, doing it according to our best lights, God works secretly inside of us. But He works inside of us in a way that is directly responsive to our choices, or rather, insofar as we are directly responsive to Him.

Of course this means that people of any religion can be saved. All that matters is how we respond to God. The only advantage Christians have is knowing a little more clearly what God wants.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QUOTE] God absorbed the wrath meant for us in His own flesh.

You come to the point very readily Mr Shark.
How is this not saying that God 'appeased' himself in Christ?

Because you can't appease yourself.
Your opinion? God actually says he can and does! Christ was judged by God for our sins. Christ is the eternal word. the logic is inescapable. Who are you actually wanting to pick an argument with?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Ro 5:9 clearly states we are saved from God's wrath through him. How could you not read appeasement into that?

Actually, it doesn't. The original Greek does not specify from whose wrath we are saved. Alison and Girard make very powerful arguments that it is our slavery to wrath and our propensity for scapegoating from which we require delivering. We are God's enemy, He is not ours.
Just begging the question JJ. 'It does not specify' does not deny the probability of inference or that the scripture record is littered with egs of God's wrath. I never said God is our enemy either. sin is God's enemy and we are its victims. If we give ourselves over to sin then we incur judgement in that sin and us become inseparable.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Forgiveness isn't a magic wand, it is a tough transaction with a legal basis.
I'm sorry, but the two clauses of your sentence are seperate assertions, the second of which does not follow from the first. I agree that forgiveness is not a magic wand. In fact, a number of posters on here, myself included, have gone to great lengths to explain how we understand forgiveness, and, I have to say, references to Harry Potter have been few and far between! But the suggestion that forgiveness is a legal transaction is a category error. Forgiveness is relational, not legal. The fact that various writers (interestingly, excluding Jesus) use legal terminology for the atonement (which, in any case, I do not consider to be about forgiveness per se) means nothing more than that educated people of that time understood a legal metaphor. In fact, Paul's whole argument about the "law" could be summed up as "you are all so obsessed with your status under the Jewish law, but it's a different kind of law, the law of sin and death, about which you ought to be worried."
I too am sorry. Forgiveness has a legal aspect. I never said it is not relational as well. Of course it is. Legality is actually to do with the formalization of relationships. That is why we have contracts. Paul was a master of pilpul logic. nothing if not 'legal' in essence. The atonement IS about forgiveness. To deny that is to deny sin and its solution. The logical end of that view seems to me to abrogate the need for the cross.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
I too am sorry. Forgiveness has a legal aspect. I never said it is not relational as well. Of course it is. Legality is actually to do with the formalization of relationships.
Jamat, I appreciate the idea of legal as "formalized relationships". James Denney talks a lot about this. It is a valid and important understanding that comes up a lot in Paul's thought. The ideas of adoption or inheritance are good examples of this. It is debatable whether forgiveness would have a formal aspect to it in that sense, but let's just go with it for sake of argument: There is no indication that in God's economy of forgiveness that He requires appeasement before he will forgive. Zip. There is an indication that restitution is part of forgiveness, but as a fruit of forgiveness, not as a precondition.


quote:
The atonement IS about forgiveness. To deny that is to deny sin and its solution.
No one has claimed that it is not. We have simply said it involves more that this. For example it involves redemption.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QUOTE] There is no indication that in God's economy of forgiveness that He requires appeasement before he will forgive. Zip.

You are like a man denying his baldness in the the mirror if you deny that the scriptures I quoted above cannot be validly read as God demanding appeasement. To be clear, appeasement to me is the legal requirement that a price be paid or a penalty exacted before a benefit can accrue. In the Gospel story this price or penalty is the blood of Christ. The benefit is forgiveness which precurses reconciliation which opens the way for rejuvenation which in turn signals he possibility of true holiness. You, however, are entitled to your view. I just object to being patronisingly told my workable and consistent view of atonement is unbiblical because some Spongy scholar has declared the scrptures don't really mean what they clearly say or imply.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QUOTE] God absorbed the wrath meant for us in His own flesh.

You come to the point very readily Mr Shark.
How is this not saying that God 'appeased' himself in Christ?

Because you can't appease yourself.
Your opinion? God actually says he can and does! Christ was judged by God for our sins. Christ is the eternal word. the logic is inescapable. Who are you actually wanting to pick an argument with?
No it is not my opinion, it is the definition of the word in English. A word that incidentally never once appears in Scripture.

Perhaps we should define what the word appeasement means. Here's my defintion:

Appease: quieting insistent demands by making concessions. (from Websters)

In that sense it is nonsensical to say that a person would appease themselves. It is like saying that someone bribes themselves. Even God can't do nonsense. But perhaps you are using the word differently?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Sorry I missed that you gave a definition of appeasement earlier. Ok so as you say appeasement is "the legal requirement that a price be paid or a penalty exacted before a benefit can accrue". As you can see, I was understanding the word quite differently from how you have defined it here. I think a lot of people would, so you might consider choosing another word that better communicates what you intend and does not have the implications of placating or mollifying (synonyms of appease).

But now that I have your definition, let's explore it a bit further. It consists of two parts:

A) the legal requirement that a price be paid before a benefit can accrue
B) the legal requirement that a penalty be exacted before a benefit can accrue

"A" makes sense, you buy the ticket to get into the concert. In so far as the Atonement is like a commercial transaction (perhaps not the best metaphor one could find) it at least is understandable, and yes it would make sense to say that God pays the price that we should have paid. So I would agree with "A".

"B" is more problematic. Why is it self-evident that there must legally be a penalty exacted before a benefit ensues? What purpose would that serve? And more importantly: where does it say in the Bible that God requires punishment before he will forgive?


quote:
You are like a man denying his baldness in the the mirror if you deny that the scriptures I quoted above cannot be validly read as God demanding appeasement.

They could be read that way I suppose. I just think it is a wrong reading of them that imposes a worldly understanding of justice onto the text that distorts the writer's intent. The question is not whether it is plausible, but whether it is compelling. Looking through all your quotes we have:

1) Jesus abolishing in his flesh the law and destroying the hostility.
2) Our being justified by his blood and saved from God's wrath
3) Christ bearing our sins in his body, and healing us by his wounds
4) God canceling the written code by crucifying it, bringing us from death to life
5) Jesus as the atoning sacrifice for our sins
6) Christ being made sin for us

Pick any one of these and show me were it says anything about punishment being a prerequisite to forgiveness. If you had said that Christ's suffering was necessary for our redemption I would agree. Or if you would say Christ bore our sin so that we could be redeemed I would also agree. I have no problem with any of the above formulations. Where I do have a problem is when you bring in terms not found in Scripture (like appeasement or satisfaction) and insert them into these texts. Why should we need to improve on what Scripture says so well?

With each verse we can ask an interpretive question:
1) Jesus abolishing in his flesh the law and destroying the hostility. (Why does Paul talk about abolishing "the law" rather than our sin here? Why does he say "abolish" and "destroy" rather than "appease"?)
2) Our being justified by his blood and saved from God's wrath (What does it mean to be justified, and how would this save us from wrath? Does Paul give us any clues?)
3) Christ bearing our sins in his body, and healing us by his wounds (how can we understand both our wounds being healed AND bearing our sins through his suffering?)
4) God canceling the written code by crucifying it, bringing us from death to life (again, why does Paul speak of putting "the written code" to death rather than "satisfying the written code"?)
5) Jesus as the atoning sacrifice for our sins
(here the question is what the purpose of sacrifice was, so we would need to have other verses to inform how we read this one)
6) Christ being made sin for us (why does he need to become sin?)

To all of this I would say that Luther gives a much better answer than the PSA view you are advocating. Luther's is a perspective that is not only plausible, but fits perfectly with Paul's entire train of thought. Are you familiar with what Luther said about God's justice, ie his "theological breakthrough"?

[ 27. July 2007, 06:27: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
You are like a man denying his baldness in the the mirror if you deny that the scriptures I quoted above cannot be validly read as God demanding appeasement.

They could be read that way I suppose. I just think it is a wrong reading of them that imposes a worldly understanding of justice onto the text that distorts the writer's intent. The question is not whether it is plausible, but whether it is compelling.
Jamat, I think that Sharktacos is right about this. I think that we are all aware that those quotes can be read the way that you say, and that this is a fairly common way to see them.

The question is whether that reading is really consistent with the writer's intent and what is said elsewhere.

Your emphasis on a particular reading of Romans, and a few other passages from the epistles, appears to be leading you to ignore the value of other biblical testimony. It looks to me as though Sharktacos is seeing these passages in a wider context.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
where does it say in the Bible that God requires punishment before he will forgive?

Pick any one of these and show me were it says anything about punishment being a prerequisite to forgiveness.

1) Jesus abolishing in his flesh the law and destroying the hostility.
2) Our being justified by his blood and saved from God's wrath
3) Christ bearing our sins in his body, and healing us by his wounds
4) God canceling the written code by crucifying it, bringing us from death to life
5) Jesus as the atoning sacrifice for our sins
6) Christ being made sin for us.

In 1 the hostility is literally the hostility of God vs Gentiles since they did not keep his law as the Jews did. The hostility then becomes a metaphor for Gods anger against sin and sinners.
In 2 God's wrath is the point. It needs 'appeasing'
In 3 the sense of Christ 'bearing' our sins is found in that he bore the brunt of the judgement for them.
In 4 the code is the legal right Satan had to us before the cross event.
In 5 the sacrifice functions as a tool of appeasement.

The words price and penalty are in this context interchangeable. You are quibbling about semantics.

There is no issue with the concept of redemption only with how it is achieved.

There are lots of words we use to describe theological concepts that don't themselves appear in the Bible. That does not negate their usefulness as tools.

If you ask what purpose appeasement would serve. Hmmm! Someone murders your loved one and the judge lets them off. Why are you not happy?

Justice in the sense I refer to it is a mere human construct?
My whole issue is that it is a universal principle. Actions have moral consequences and positive or negative effects. What you sow you will reap, now or later. Jesus taught it. (There is nothing hid now that won't be shouted from the house tops.) (Your house is left unto you desolate) after they rejected his messianic claims.
God has built a need for justice into us. Everyone is aware and objects when something is 'not fair.'

The real issue is about God requiring punishment though isn't it?

God punished Adam. God punished Cain.
God punished David for his adultery and for numbering the people. God punished Michal by leaving her childless. God punished Samson for his Hedonism. God punished Saul for his disobedience.God punished Solomon's idolatry by the kingdom splitting after his death. God punished the Jewish nation by bringing the captivity. God punished the world by bringing the flood. But finally the good news. God punished sin in Christ, bringing redemption.

You have to be in strange mind space to suggest there is no Biblical punishment for sin or negative consequences for actions.
Lest you quibble that consequences are not necessarily punishments. I regard them as either and or in the cases I have quoted but you don't need to write a tomb on the difference.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[QB]

In 1 the hostility is literally the hostility of God vs Gentiles since they did not keep his law as the Jews did. The hostility then becomes a metaphor for Gods anger against sin and sinners.
In 2 God's wrath is the point. It needs 'appeasing'
In 3 the sense of Christ 'bearing' our sins is found in that he bore the brunt of the judgement for them.
In 4 the code is the legal right Satan had to us before the cross event.
In 5 the sacrifice functions as a tool of appeasement.
[QB]

You are not demonstrating that they say anything about appeasement, you are merely asserting it. It is not a given you can simply assert. I agree with you that these verses refer to the problem of God's wrath and even punishment due us. I see however no indication that God is solving this problem of wrath here through appeasement, and as far as I can see, you are simply assuming this because you cannot conceive of any other way to deal with sin. Again, show me where any idea of Christ's death being an appeasement (ie satisfaction of justice through punishment) is stated in the Bible.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:

The words price and penalty are in this context interchangeable. You are quibbling about semantics.

No, in a legal sense they are categorically different. One can pay a price for another. One cannot take a penalty for another. Any government that did this would be considered tyrannical. So the idea in a legal framework you insist on does not work. It would be a profound injustice.

As to your question of murder, in my flesh I would desire payback, just as I am liable in my flesh to be tempted by lust, but revenge no more justice than lust os love. It is a natural (carnal) desire, but it is not what God desires, and so I hope I could have the faith to be obedient and to forgive as Christ forgave his murderers.

What I would desire is real justice - having the hurt mended and the perpetrator come to repentance.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QB]
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[QB]

[QUOTE] In 1 the hostility is literally the hostility of God vs Gentiles since they did not keep his law as the Jews did. The hostility then becomes a metaphor for Gods anger against sin and sinners.
In 2 God's wrath is the point. It needs 'appeasing'
In 3 the sense of Christ 'bearing' our sins is found in that he bore the brunt of the judgement for them.
In 4 the code is the legal right Satan had to us before the cross event.
In 5 the sacrifice functions as a tool of appeasement.
[QB]

You are not demonstrating that they say anything about appeasement, you are merely asserting it.
Well I actually think that the burden of proof is on you to prove they don't.


quote:
It is not a given you can simply assert. I agree with you that these verses refer to the problem of God's wrath and even punishment due us. I see however no indication that God is solving this problem of wrath here through appeasement, and as far as I can see, you are simply assuming this because you cannot conceive of any other way to deal with sin. Again, show me where any idea of Christ's death being an appeasement (ie satisfaction of justice through punishment) is stated in the Bible.
Try Matt 20:28 then, Jesus says he 'came to give his life as a ransom for many.'
Is 53:10 Thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.
Jn 11:51 Jesus should die for the nation.
Heb 9:28 He was offered to bear the sins of many.

Now could a ransom be meaningful unless it was paid to someone for something... to 'appease' them? or let's say to pacify them and prevent them from commiting a violent act? God was in danger of being provoked to judgement. Indeed, he had been so provoked before. Christ's death 'appeased' this need in God when his anger threatened to boil over against sin.

If you are asserting another way to deal with sin is possible then you simply don't realise how seriously God views it. Sin is the cancer whose wages is death and which that can only be cut out by forgiveness on the basis that it was judged at the cross.

If you cavil so much at the word 'appeasement' then try propitiation or expiation. The concepts are not that different, only the connotations we place on them. The covering of sin, the propitiation, which is Christ crucified, hides it from God's face and in that sense removes its power and God's judgement is avoided.

Incidentally, perhaps you could show me the word 'trinity' in the Bible.

2Cor 5:21 seems to me to be fairly definitive. 'He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.'
This verse states Christ was made sin. Why was this necessary? I 'd suggest that it was that a sinless sacrifice was needed to 'appease' God's righteous judgement. Gal 3:13 reinforces this idea. It states that Christ was made a curse for us. Heb 9:28 riiterates that Christ was offered to bear the sins of many.

I'd suggest that in toto, the evidence from scripture is overwhelming that the saviour's death achieved among other things, a legal and moral avenue that enabled God to forgive and renew humanity, but only because sin was righteously judged by the cross event. This said judgement in my view, one can clearly infer, created A SITUATION WHERE GOD COULD LEGALLY AND FREELY SHOW HIS LOVE FOR US BY FORGIVING US. This situation is the one I would define as 'appeasement'. God no longer had to legally judge our sin. He could see it as judged in Christ and thus show his love while maintaining his integrity and his nature of holiness.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Well I actually think that the burden of proof is on you to prove they don't.
You can't prove a negative. But I could tell you an alternate way to interpret all of this.


quote:
Try Matt 20:28 then, Jesus says he 'came to give his life as a ransom for many.'
Is 53:10 Thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.
Jn 11:51 Jesus should die for the nation.
Heb 9:28 He was offered to bear the sins of many.

Ok, and how are any of those about appeasement (ie the idea of satisfying justice through punishment)?

quote:

Now could a ransom be meaningful unless it was paid to someone for something... to 'appease' them?

The plain meaning of ransom refers to purchasing their freedom out of slavery. So no, there is no sense of appeasement in ransom.


quote:
or let's say to pacify them and prevent them from commiting a violent act? God was in danger of being provoked to judgement. Indeed, he had been so provoked before. Christ's death 'appeased' this need in God when his anger threatened to boil over against sin.
That is an image of God that most proponents of PSA would not want to affirm because it makes God sound abusive.

quote:
If you cavil so much at the word 'appeasement' then try propitiation or expiation.

The question is, what do you think these words mean, and how does the propitiation or expiation take place? Classically, expiation and propitiation are not the same. Expiation implies the removal of sin, and propitiation implies making God favorable. I would say that God is according to Romans 3 propitiated (wrath removed) by our (cancer) of sin being expiated (removed).

The point of expiation is not merely to cover sin, as if we are putting rose colored glasses on a temperamental God, but to actually remove the cancer from us. The problem is not that God is mad. God is mad, rightly so, because of our sin, so the way that this needs to be dealt with is by solving the problem, our sin. Not by pacifying God or covering up our sin.

quote:
Incidentally, perhaps you could show me the word 'trinity' in the Bible.
I could show you the concept. But not with as much detail as they put into it in the creed of course.

quote:
2Cor 5:21 seems to me to be fairly definitive. 'He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.'
This verse states Christ was made sin. Why was this necessary?

That is the question.

quote:
I 'd suggest that it was that a sinless sacrifice was needed to 'appease' God's righteous judgement.
That's the part that is simply not in there, and you are assuming.

quote:

Gal 3:13 reinforces this idea.

Luther did not think so. It reinforces the image of Christ becoming sin, but I don't think it is compelling as far as appeasement goes. I think there are better explanations for what is going on.

quote:
I'd suggest that in toto, the evidence from scripture is overwhelming that the saviour's death achieved among other things, a legal and moral avenue that enabled God to forgive and renew humanity,
Here we agree. Although by legal I am thinking in terms of covenant rather than penal code.

quote:
but only because sin was righteously judged by the cross event.
I think if you look closer it says that judgment was held back until the justice of God could be revealed through the cross.

quote:
God no longer had to legally judge our sin. He could see it as judged in Christ and thus show his love while maintaining his integrity and his nature of holiness.
The problem with this is
A) Scripture never says this.
B) legally this would not be just.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Now could a ransom be meaningful unless it was paid to someone for something... to 'appease' them?
The plain meaning of ransom refers to purchasing their freedom out of slavery. So no, there is no sense of appeasement in ransom.
That's right. And, as I pointed out before, the Bible connects the idea of ransom with redemption, which in many cases is achieved by force or power:
quote:
Deuteronomy 7:8 The LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 9:26 Your people and Your inheritance whom You have redeemed through Your greatness, whom You have brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand.

Nehemiah 1:10 Now these are Your servants and Your people, whom You have redeemed by Your great power, and by Your strong hand.

Isaiah 50:2 Is My hand shortened at all that it cannot redeem? Or have I no power to deliver? Indeed with My rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness;

Jeremiah 50.34 Their Redeemer is strong; The LORD of hosts is His name.
He will thoroughly plead their case,
That He may give rest to the land,
And disquiet the inhabitants of Babylon.
35 “ A sword is against the Chaldeans,” says the LORD,
“ Against the inhabitants of Babylon,

Isaiah 49.25 Thus says the LORD:
“ Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away,
And the prey of the terrible be delivered;
For I will contend with him who contends with you,
And I will save your children.
26 I will feed those who oppress you with their own flesh,
And they shall be drunk with their own blood as with sweet wine.
All flesh shall know
That I, the LORD, am your Savior,
And your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.”

Isaiah 59.16 He saw that there was no man,
And wondered that there was no intercessor;
Therefore His own arm brought salvation for Him;
And His own righteousness, it sustained Him.
17 For He put on righteousness as a breastplate,
And a helmet of salvation on His head;
He put on the garments of vengeance for clothing,
And was clad with zeal as a cloak.
18 According to their deeds, accordingly He will repay,
Fury to His adversaries,
Recompense to His enemies;
The coastlands He will fully repay.
19 So shall they fear
The name of the LORD from the west,
And His glory from the rising of the sun;
When the enemy comes in like a flood,
The Spirit of the LORD will lift up a standard against him.
20 “ The Redeemer will come to Zion,
And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,”

The imagery associated with the redemption of Israel is violent and military. The people who are liberated by force are then called "the ransomed":
quote:
Isaiah 35:4 Behold, your God will come with vengeance,
With the recompense of God;
He will come and save you.” ….
8 A highway shall be there, and a road,
And it shall be called the Highway of Holiness.
The unclean shall not pass over it….
But the redeemed shall walk there,
10 And the ransomed of the LORD shall return,
And come to Zion with singing,

They are ransomed in the sense that any liberated people is ransomed by the blood of the soldiers who gave their lives to free them.

It also could be said that the lives of the enemy are the ransom:
quote:
Isaiah 43:3 For I am the LORD your God, The Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I gave Egypt for your ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in your place.
So in one sense it is the evil-doers who will be made to pay. In another sense the ones who fight for righteousness pay for freedom with their blood.

So Jesus will ransom us from hell, and He will do it by His blood, but He will do it like a soldier who overcomes the enemy, who liberates us by His efforts and destroys the enemy:
quote:
Hosea 13:14 “ I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! Pity is hidden from My eyes.”
How is He ransoming us? It doesn't sound to me like any kind of payment or appeasement.

This was also the line of thnking in the minds of Jesus' disciples. They were expecting Jesus to redeem Israel, and were greatly disappointed when that apparently didn't happen:
quote:
Luke 24:18 Then the one whose name was Cleopas answered and said to Him, “Are You the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have You not known the things which happened there in these days?”
19 And He said to them, “What things?”
So they said to Him, “The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. 21 But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel.

The disciples evidently expected redemption to happen by force. The statement here makes no sense if we think in terms of appeasement.

So what Jesus did was not about appeasing God but about overcoming God's enemies.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Now could a ransom be meaningful unless it was paid to someone for something... to 'appease' them?
The plain meaning of ransom refers to purchasing their freedom out of slavery. So no, there is no sense of appeasement in ransom.
That's right. And, as I pointed out before, the Bible connects the idea of ransom with redemption, which in many cases is achieved by force or power:


So what Jesus did was not about appeasing God but about overcoming God's enemies.

So it is the word appeasement that you cannot stomach and to eliminate it from your concept of God's justice you are prepared to redefine such tems as ransom. Ransom clearly contains more than a mere connotation of payment. It is enforced, violent, compelled payment. It is not paid as by right it is demanded as by necessity.

To me, however, you are attempting to change the nature of truth by redefining it. By asserting there is no appeasement in the cross you render it somehow more palatable. By saying ransom has no concept of appeasement by which I mean 'legal satisfaction' or sense of 'putting to rights in a cosmic sense', you manage to create a construct whereby God is not vindictive and capricious. All the scriptures I heve quoted clearly imply that Christ's death was a necessity demanded by a Holy God for our salvation. It wasn't as if he had an option.
However, you say you can have the whole salvation package and that was an act of love but God did not justly demand the blood of a perfect sacrifice for any necessary reason. It leaves the question open as what was the real purpose of the cross. It takes away the legal ground of forgiveness and it fudges the issue of how precisely sin is atoned for.

I'd rather deal with the God of the scriptures than the palatable God of someone's 21st century theology. At least you know where you stand when God is God, sin is sin and sin is atoned for at the cross enabling me to walk free of it. As stated many times previously, the CV model as I understand it softens the seriousness of sin and depersonalises the whole deal of salvation by fudging the purpose of the cross.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So it is the word appeasement that you cannot stomach and to eliminate it from your concept of God's justice you are prepared to redefine such tems as ransom.

I'm not redefining anything. I'm just quoting Scripture.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To me, however, you are attempting to change the nature of truth by redefining it.

Do you have an alternate explanation of the passages I quoted. Are they not the Bible? Are they taken out of context? Mistranslated? Misinterpreted?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I'd rather deal with the God of the scriptures than the palatable God of someone's 21st century theology.

Then why not respond to the Scripture I quoted? What do you think the disciple meant when he said that he had hoped that Jesus would redeem Israel in Luke 24? Was he hoping that Jesus would give His life to pay the price of sin and appease God's wrath? Isn't it evident that he was hoping Christ would liberate them from their enemies? [Confused]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So it is the word appeasement that you cannot stomach and to eliminate it from your concept of God's justice you are prepared to redefine such tems as ransom.

I'm not redefining anything. I'm just quoting Scripture.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To me, however, you are attempting to change the nature of truth by redefining it.

Do you have an alternate explanation of the passages I quoted. Are they not the Bible? Are they taken out of context? Mistranslated? Misinterpreted?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I'd rather deal with the God of the scriptures than the palatable God of someone's 21st century theology.

Then why not respond to the Scripture I quoted? What do you think the disciple meant when he said that he had hoped that Jesus would redeem Israel in Luke 24? Was he hoping that Jesus would give His life to pay the price of sin and appease God's wrath? Isn't it evident that he was hoping Christ would liberate them from their enemies? [Confused]

Ok Freddy Luke 24. Yes the disciples were hoping for a reinstatment of an earthly kingdom of God presided over by messiah and which would restore Jewish nationalism and drive out Rome.
However, their notion of redemption is still the reclaiming of a possession in pawn. To redeem is to restore to rightful rule or ownership. The concept is later taken, as you know, by Paul and welded to the concept of a more personal salvation.
The basis of Paul's thinking is that personal, individual redemption was achieved at the cost of a sinless sacrifice. It was appropriated by faith in Christ by the believer who was then demmed to have been subsumed into Christ at his death and again at his resurrection. The consequent transaction, triggered by the faith of the believer, resulted in a new creation.
Gal 2:20 "If anyone be in Christ he is a new creation. Old things are passed away, behold all things become new." Paul further developed the concept of redemption as an ongoing walk. There would only by a full redemption at Christ's return or the believer's death but we can meanwhile have a treasure in earthern vessels.
Redemption, then requires a transaction only possible because the messiah died for sin.

I don't object to what you quote but question its relevance to the issue. You do try to eliminate the negative overtones of 'ransom.'

[ 30. July 2007, 02:17: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
So it is the word appeasement that you cannot stomach and to eliminate it from your concept of God's justice you are prepared to redefine such tems as ransom.
I don't see how we are redefining it at all. We are using the historical biblical meaning.

quote:
Ransom clearly contains more than a mere connotation of payment. It is enforced, violent, compelled payment. It is not paid as by right it is demanded as by necessity.
You are again making assertions. You need to demonstrate what you claim, not merely assert it.

Ransom is a term that refers to being bought out of slavery, and in the Jewish context refers to God ransoming his people out of bondage which the entire messianic hopes hung on. God was not "compelled" to pay a ransom to Pharaoh.

quote:
By asserting there is no appeasement in the cross you render it somehow more palatable.
No, we make it true to what Scripture actually says.

quote:
By saying ransom has no concept of appeasement by which I mean 'legal satisfaction' or sense of 'putting to rights in a cosmic sense', you manage to create a construct whereby God is not vindictive and capricious.
Well God is not vindictive and capricious. Surely you would agree with that. However the cross DOES put things right in a cosmic sense, and it is also a legal satisfaction. Satisfaction in its original meaning means "to compensate" or "to make restitution". The cross does make things right in that sense by cleansing us of our sins through Christ's blood shed for us.


quote:

All the scriptures I heve quoted clearly imply that Christ's death was a necessity demanded by a Holy God for our salvation. It wasn't as if he had an option.

Yes, and I agree with you that it was.


quote:

However, you say you can have the whole salvation package and that was an act of love but God did not justly demand the blood of a perfect sacrifice for any necessary reason.

No I do not. Of course God justly demanded the blood of a perfect sacrifice for a necessary reason. Just not the unbiblical one you propose.

quote:
It leaves the question open as what was the real purpose of the cross.

Yes it does. Would you like to know what it is?

quote:
It takes away the legal ground of forgiveness and it fudges the issue of how precisely sin is atoned for.
You can't really claim that if you don't know what the alternative theory is, can you?

quote:

I'd rather deal with the God of the scriptures than the palatable God of someone's 21st century theology.

I could say the same to you. PSA is appealing to a fleshly desire for payback justice that is deeply rooted in our worldly western penal justice system. It makes the cross make sense to that mindset when Paul clearly says the cross is "foolishness" and a "scandal". PSA removes the scandal of the cross, and puts in its place a theory that appeals to our flesh and worldly ideas of justice.


quote:
At least you know where you stand when God is God, sin is sin and sin is atoned for at the cross enabling me to walk free of it.
Luther could say the same thing, yet did not share your view of appeasement. Neither did the vast majority of Christians for the first 1000 years of the church, nor does the entire Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church today.

quote:

As stated many times previously, the CV model as I understand it softens the seriousness of sin and depersonalises the whole deal of salvation by fudging the purpose of the cross.

Then I don't think you understand it.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
To me, however, you are attempting to change the nature of truth by redefining it. By asserting there is no appeasement in the cross you render it somehow more palatable. By saying ransom has no concept of appeasement by which I mean 'legal satisfaction' or sense of 'putting to rights in a cosmic sense', you manage to create a construct whereby God is not vindictive and capricious. It wasn't as if he had an option.

No, we are just demonstrating that what you think you see in the Bible is not really there at all.

quote:
By saying ransom has no concept of appeasement by which I mean 'legal satisfaction' or sense of 'putting to rights in a cosmic sense', you manage to create a construct whereby God is not vindictive and capricious.
Is, then, God vindictive and capricious? Of course the Cross "puts things right in a cosmic sense" (though I would argue this has nothing whatsoever to do with "legal satisfaction", which is more to do with human attempts to limit God than eternal verities). Of course the cross was necessary for this "cosmic putting right". However, all this has nothing to do with justice as you seem to understand it (ie, notions of punishimg the wrongdoer), and everything to do with rectifying the injustice. This can only be done restoratively, and if you can't see that as a thread running through Paul's writings, let alone in the Old Testament, then you are missing a serious theme of Scripture.

Of course sin must be put to death. It must be put to death in us, as, by the Holy Spirit, we die to self and live to Christ. But to talk of sin being punished is to miss the point. You can't punish in the abstract. God's desire (even, as you see it, His constraint) is not to punish sin, but to make it exist no more.

You seem to exist in a strange, dualistic world. Here are one set of people, the wicked, and over there are another set, those who, in the words of Psalm 1, are the ones who walk in the way of the Lord. But the truth is, we are both those people, we are the wicked; we are the redeemed. How could even God punish the one without punishing the other, when it is the same person. You see, it just doesn't work. Punishment doesn't defeat sin; only forgiveness can do that. And after we are forgiven, then God can go about putting things right, by recreating the universe, with us as, after Jesus, its first citizens.

You ask, "how can a God committed to justice, let sin go unpunished?" It is just this problem that Paul addresses in Romans 3:25-26. He does it by demonstrating that our definition of justice, based as it is on retribution, is just a fallen shadow of real justice ("because of the hardness of your hearts..."), which is the unmaking of sin, the removal of all the damage it has done, and the recreation of both its victims and its perpetrators. And of course, there is a cost to this. To forgiveness, it is the cost of absorbing into Himself the hurt of being sinned against, and refusing to take retributive action when He could quite justly have done so! To restoration, it is the cost of the kenosis of the Son, the subjection of the Creator to the created, and, ultimately, yes, the cross. But don't debase the Paschal event by saying it has anything to do with punishment. It is the complete abrogation of punishment, the defeat of violence by submission, the conquest of death by dying.

quote:
All the scriptures I heve quoted clearly imply that Christ's death was a necessity demanded by a Holy God for our salvation.
No they don't. That is an assertion. It may be obvious to you, but it is not obvious to those with whom you are debating, not yet to the vast majority of Christians who lived their faith and even died for their faith over the past 2000 years. A few posts ago you wrote "Ro 5:9 clearly states we are saved from God's wrath through him. How could you not read appeasement into that? (emphasis mine)" When I challenged you that, in fact, the verse did not say that at all, you responded with words to the effect, "well, that's what it means anyway". Well, I'm afraid something is either clear or it's not clear. Unfortunately, Scripture, like truth, it is seldom plain and never simple.

This seems to me to sum up how you are handling the scriptures here: you make an assertion, and when asked to back it up you then quote some verses. When your interpretation of those verses is challenged, you repeat the assertion, rather than dealing with the challenge. This makes debating with you incredibly frustrating, because it gives the impression that you are not treating the contra-arguments with sufficient seriousness. It also means that we keep going around in circles.

quote:
However, you say you can have the whole salvation package and that was an act of love but God did not justly demand the blood of a perfect sacrifice for any necessary reason. It leaves the question open as what was the real purpose of the cross. It takes away the legal ground of forgiveness and it fudges the issue of how precisely sin is atoned for.
Well, I'm quite certain that God did not demand anything, but that isn't to say that the sacrifdice was not necessary. Of course it was necessary, and I, amongst others, have gone on for 20-odd pages explaining why it was necessary. As for "the legal ground for forgiveness", forgiveness is relational. It doesn't need a "legal ground". If I offend you, you can either choose to forgive me, or decline to so choose. The question of the law does not enter into it. If I steal your car, there are consequences of my actions, which will involve the law. They will involve the law whether or not you choose to forgive me. Atonement is about dealing with those consequences, that is, our enslavement to decay, so in that sense it has legal connotations (though actually the "law" concerned is ontological rather than moral), but the only basis for forgiveness is the character of God, and, when we forgive others, how much we share in that character.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It also means that we keep going around in circles.

I've been noticing that. With that in mind, I think I might bow out for a while.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Jamat, my thinking is pretty much like Sharktacos and JJ. Here are my comments on your last post.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Ok Freddy Luke 24. Yes the disciples were hoping for a reinstatment of an earthly kingdom of God presided over by messiah and which would restore Jewish nationalism and drive out Rome.
However, their notion of redemption is still the reclaiming of a possession in pawn. To redeem is to restore to rightful rule or ownership.

Yes, that's right. I'm happy that you are willing to see redemption as any means of driving out the enemy, and not strictly as a sacrifice or transaction.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The concept is later taken, as you know, by Paul and welded to the concept of a more personal salvation.
The basis of Paul's thinking is that personal, individual redemption was achieved at the cost of a sinless sacrifice.

Your admission above means that the nature of Christ's sacrifice was not necessarily a payment, but could be a sacrifice to achieve liberation by force.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It was appropriated by faith in Christ by the believer who was then demmed to have been subsumed into Christ at his death and again at his resurrection. The consequent transaction, triggered by the faith of the believer, resulted in a new creation.
Gal 2:20 "If anyone be in Christ he is a new creation. Old things are passed away, behold all things become new."

It's not a transaction, though. It is about belief in and loyalty to a cause, which brings about change.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Paul further developed the concept of redemption as an ongoing walk.

Yes. The ongoing walk is implicit in the whole scheme, not something added on.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
There would only by a full redemption at Christ's return or the believer's death but we can meanwhile have a treasure in earthern vessels.

Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Redemption, then requires a transaction only possible because the messiah died for sin.

No. It's not that. It's a liberty that is only possible because Jesus overcame the power of darkness. Just as the disciples expected, but on a higher level.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I don't object to what you quote but question its relevance to the issue. You do try to eliminate the negative overtones of 'ransom.'

Ransom is a word that only occurs fifteen times in Scripture and only twice in the New Testament. Your use of it does not take into account the way that it is used in all the Scriptures. Like redemption it is more than a simple buying back or payment of a price. The connotation of both of these words is more military and violent, more about power, than PSA allows for.

In any case I am happy that you understand that this was the disciples' understanding of redemption. It makes much more sense to me that Jesus overcame the spiritual enemies of Israel than that He appeased God. God can only be appeased by the overcoming of His enemies. His goal is for sin to come to an end and for people to be free of it.

[ 31. July 2007, 01:47: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Interesting that when I read 'inference' you shout 'unjustified assertion'.

Let's look at Ro 3:24,5
It states: "God displayed Christ as a propitiation in his blood through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because in the forbearance of God he passed over sins previously committed" NASB

OK, God displayed Christ as a propitiation.
Unpack this as: 'God, in order to show that he didn't just forgive sin will nilly, made a display of the shed blood of his own son in order to show the created universe that he was not winking at evil. He was enforcing justice thus showing he was righteous as well as merciful. This was important because that same created universe understood that God's forgiveness of sins in the past, based on animal sacrifices, was a mere stopgap, a temporary measure. Moreover, that 'propitiation' covered the sin in the sense of dealing with its consequence, dissolving it in God's eyes. We people, can now benefit simply by believing that Christ has done this for us and committing to the substitutionary sacrifice.'

Anything wrong with this analysis or are you going to say it is mere assertion?

I think you need to be careful with asserting that "most Christians over the last 2000 years believed...whatever". How can any of us really know? And since when was the truth subject to a majority vote?
The latest scholar may well be out of fashion in 50 years and history will be rewritten again.

In my view, scripture does assert Christ's victory-of course it does. (Col 2:13-15). It seems to me that one must accept on balance as well, that Christ took the rap for us all in achieving it. Execution by crucifixion WAS a punishment though a huge miscarriage of justice since Christ was innocent. Don't we appreciate the cross more because he was punished for us? We then don't have to be. Surely that is good news?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Interesting that when I read 'inference' you shout 'unjustified assertion'.

Let's look at Ro 3:24,5
It states: "God displayed Christ as a propitiation in his blood through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because in the forbearance of God he passed over sins previously committed" NASB

OK, God displayed Christ as a propitiation.
Unpack this as: 'God, in order to show that he didn't just forgive sin will nilly, made a display of the shed blood of his own son in order to show the created universe that he was not winking at evil. He was enforcing justice thus showing he was righteous as well as merciful. This was important because that same created universe understood that God's forgiveness of sins in the past, based on animal sacrifices, was a mere stopgap, a temporary measure. Moreover, that 'propitiation' covered the sin in the sense of dealing with its consequence, dissolving it in God's eyes. We people, can now benefit simply by believing that Christ has done this for us and committing to the substitutionary sacrifice.'

Anything wrong with this analysis or are you going to say it is mere assertion?

Yes, it is mere assertion.

You are projecting onto the text an unbiblical understanding of what justice means based on a Latin mistranslation.

The Greek word for justice used throughout Romans 3 is δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosunē) which is translated as either "justice" or "righteousness".

Dikaiosunē is the same word the LXX uses to translate the Hebrew צדקה(t'sedeka) in the Old Testament which likewise can be translated either as righteousness or justice. Because the LXX was the official translation the New Testament authors used to quote from the Old Testament, it follows that Paul was thinking of t'sedeka justice in Romans when he used the word dikaiosunē . There are many words for justice in Hebrew, and among them t'sedeka justice refers specifically to setting things right. T'sedeka justice/righteousness is associated with acts of charity, and today Jewish charities are often named t'sedeka which has become synonymous with charity. Likewise, in Germany the official social justice and welfare arm of the Lutheran Evangelical church is called “die Diakonie” (www.diakonie.de) after the Greek “dikaiosunē”, which is also where the word "deakon" comes from, meaning "one who serves".

This understanding of restorative social justice was key to Martin Luther's breakthrough where he rediscovered the Gospel in Romans. Like everyone else he had been reading the Bible in Latin which for several hundred years had been the only translation available. The word for justice in Latin here is iustitio which is the word our own “justice” derives from. In Latin iustitio refers to a quid-pro-quo payback justice, so Luther (as many people today) had assumed that the passage in Romans 3 was about retributive justice. But in the original Greek, and especially considering Paul's own Jewish roots, this was not at all the sense of t'sedeka/dikaiosunē justice. Take a look at the passage, keeping in mind the meaning of dikaiosunē as restorative making-things-right justice.

"But now a dikaiosunē (loving restoration) from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify . This dikaiosunē (loving restoration) from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are dikaioō (set right) freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his dikaiosunē (loving restoration), because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his dikaiosunē (loving restoration) at the present time, so as to be dikaios(righteously loving) and the one who dikaioō (lovingly sets right) those who have faith in Jesus.

We can see that if the above is read (as it had been by Anselm and Aquinas and so many others in the Latin church who did not have access to the original Greek) as iustitio retributive justice, that one can easily read into the above text the idea of penal substitution. Which is why Luther's discovery was so earth shaking. It completely revolutionized his understanding of what grace was about: t'sedeka/dikaiosunē justice.

So again I say: your interpretation of payback justice in Romans 3 is based on a Latin mistranslation. What Romans says is that God held back punishment - the consequence of sin - until he could reveal his loving justice which sets-right in Jesus. This came "not through law" or by the way of an eye for an eye, because as Paul has been arguing through all of Romans that kind of justice only leads to death. But now a setting-things-right justice has been revealed apart from law.

The Greek word hilasterion which your version above translates as "propituation" and onto which you project your entire concept of vengeance justice can either be translated as “expiate” (which implies cleansing sin) or “propitiate” (which implies appeasing wrath). ). C.H. Dodd famously argued that in pagan Greek literature the word hilasterion referred to placating an offended person, but that in the LXX (the Greek translation of the Old Testament that the writers of the New Testament used) hilasterion was used in the sense of purifying, canceling, cleansing, and forgiving sin. In other words, the focus was not on the sacrifice changing God's attitude through mollification, but on changing us by removing or cleansing our sin. As a result of Dodd's research, the Revised Standard Version translates Romans 3:25 as "whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood".

Leon Morris challenged Dodd's linguistic argument saying that the main thrust of Paul's argument up to that point in Romans had been focused on the problem of wrath, and so the solution outlined in Romans 3:25 had to present a solution to the problem of wrath. Morris is right of course that this is the thrust of Paul's argument, but this does not undo Dodd's observations about the meaning of the Hebrew sacrifices. So how can we put this all together in view of what we know about the restorative (not retributive) justice Paul is speaking of here?

The NIV has the most accurate reading putting together first of all the sense of hilasterion being the translation of the Hebrew "kipper" referring to the mercy seat of the Arc, so that verse 25 reads "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement", but in a footnote the NIV combines both the idea of expiation and propitiation together, blending both Morris and Dodd's insights into the idea of the Temple sacrifice, "as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin".

Paul is arguing that we all have played a part in hurt and injustice. But God held back the world of hurt that we had coming to us, and instead offered himself in Christ as a sacrifice that would cleanse us of the cancer of sin in us (Dodd's expiation). With the problem of sin removed from us through Christ, the just reason for wrath is also removed. God is not appeased in the sense of someone covering his eye's or gratifying his anger (as if God's anger was a fleshly rage), rather by solving the problem of sin in us, God has removed the cause of wrath and brought us into right relationship with him, as Paul says, "so that God is just and the one who justifies sinners" (sets them aright).

This reading makes sense with the original Greek, with the Hebrew understanding of the sacrifices, and Paul's entire line of argument in Romans, where as your interpretation is completely foreign to his thinking and indeed you need to assume (on zero evidence) that all of your theory hangs on an interpretation of a single word "propitiation", that is quite a lot to hang on such a narrow thread.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Sharktacos, I am impressed with your clarity and research here. I'll buy your book when it comes out. [Overused]
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Let's look at Ro 3:24,5
It states: "God displayed Christ as a propitiation in his blood through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because in the forbearance of God he passed over sins previously committed" NASB

OK, God displayed Christ as a propitiation.
Unpack this as: 'God, in order to show that he didn't just forgive sin will nilly, made a display of the shed blood of his own son in order to show the created universe that he was not winking at evil. He was enforcing justice thus showing he was righteous as well as merciful.

I don't think anyone is too worried about God forgiving sins willy-nilly. What we're worried about is that He apparently allows the evil to triumph, and that He seems slow to rescue His people. The justice we are looking for is that He will make things right by accomplishing a rescue, or by removing sin and its power from our lives.

So Sharktacos' argument about the meaning of the word "propitiation" there, and that it is about Christ cleansing us, is correct, I think. It's not about "pay-back" but about accomplishing justice.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
. Because the LXX was the official translation the New Testament authors used to quote from the Old Testament, it follows that Paul was thinking of t'sedeka justice in Romans when he used the word dikaiosunē . Paul is arguing that we all have played a part in hurt and injustice. But God held back the world of hurt that we had coming to us, and instead offered himself in Christ as a sacrifice that would cleanse us of the cancer of sin in us (Dodd's expiation). With the problem of sin removed from us through Christ, the just reason for wrath is also removed. God is not appeased in the sense of someone covering his eye's or gratifying his anger (as if God's anger was a fleshly rage), rather by solving the problem of sin in us, God has removed the cause of wrath and brought us into right relationship with him, as Paul says, "so that God is just and the one who justifies sinners" (sets them aright).

This reading makes sense with the original Greek, with the Hebrew understanding of the sacrifices, and Paul's entire line of argument in Romans, where as your interpretation is completely foreign to his thinking and indeed you need to assume (on zero evidence) that all of your theory hangs on an interpretation of a single word "propitiation", that is quite a lot to hang on such a narrow thread. [/QB]

Well, it seems your language here gets quite close to a concept of atonement that is what I actually believe.

On the contrary I think it is quite a strong rope. The concept of propitiation or 'covering' is really the Hebrew version of the concept of atonement anyway. God covered the Edenic couple with animal skins thereby making atonement for their sins by the shedding of blood.
'Dikaiosune' is from the Greek root where we get our whole concept of justification and there are five variations on it. The primary concept is that God declares us righteous through our acceptance of the sacrifice of the Messiah's blood. I think you are asserting at least as much as I may be when you declare so boldly what Paul MUST have had in mind in his Greek rendition of a Hebrew concept. It is a pity he isn't here to clarify for us both just what his thinking is. Nevertheless, the whole raft of scriptural argument concerning justification is based around the need for shed blood. That need, I still assert, is because a life is needed to deal with sin and the only reason that this could be is that God is otherwise poised to judge it. Romans 1:18 suggests this anyway. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

Incidentally what do you make of Col 1:20 and 21. Jesus "made peace through the blood of his cross". What sort of peace if not a peace that solved the problem of God's wrath and one can infer or assert if you like to insist on that word, that there was a state of war in operation that was solved. God's wrath was somehow appeased against sin and sinners thereby.

Weren't you going to bow out incidentally?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally what do you make of Col 1:20 and 21. Jesus "made peace through the blood of his cross". What sort of peace if not a peace that solved the problem of God's wrath and one can infer or assert if you like to insist on that word, that there was a state of war in operation that was solved. God's wrath was somehow appeased against sin and sinners thereby. [/QUOTE}

[code]

[ 01. August 2007, 18:24: Message edited by: John Holding ]
 
Posted by Afghan (# 10478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Likewise, in Germany the official social justice and welfare arm of the Lutheran Evangelical church is called “die Diakonie” (www.diakonie.de) after the Greek “dikaiosunē”, which is also where the word "deakon" comes from, meaning "one who serves".

There is, as far as I'm aware, absolutely no etymological link between diakonos - 'servant' - and dikaiosune - 'righteousness'.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Sorry, my connection here in my wilderness cabin is intermittent... [Hot and Hormonal]
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally what do you make of Col 1:20 and 21. Jesus "made peace through the blood of his cross". What sort of peace if not a peace that solved the problem of God's wrath and one can infer or assert if you like to insist on that word, that there was a state of war in operation that was solved. God's wrath was somehow appeased against sin and sinners thereby.

What sort of peace? The same peace that happens whenever the power of the enemy is overcome.

It's not that God's wrath was appeased. Rather Jesus subdued the sins that were the cause of the wrath in the first place. The passage says:
quote:
Colossians 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

We were alienated from God by our wicked works. Christ made it possible for us to renounce those works. If we continue in faith in Him, and obedience to His words, we can become holy, blameless, and above reproach in His sight.

God's wrath is due to our wickedness. The only way to appease it is for us to stop being wicked. Jesus made it possible for us to change, through His "work" and His words, culminating in His death on the cross and resurrection. In this way He overcame sin and made it possible for us to be free of its power if we believe in Him and obey His words.

There is no appeasement here other than the appeasement that comes with victory. That victory was won with blood in the same sense that any victory is won with the blood of those who fight.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Afghan, You are right. I was mistaken about the deacon connection.

Jamat, I was going to bow out, but got interested again. Is that bad?

So does that mean you are agreeing with me in my interpretation of Romans 3?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:


The NIV has the most accurate reading putting together first of all the sense of hilasterion being the translation of the Hebrew "kipper" referring to the mercy seat of the Arc, so that verse 25 reads "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement", but in a footnote the NIV combines both the idea of expiation and propitiation together, blending both Morris and Dodd's insights into the idea of the Temple sacrifice, "as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin".

Paul is arguing that we all have played a part in hurt and injustice. But God held back the world of hurt that we had coming to us, and instead offered himself in Christ as a sacrifice that would cleanse us of the cancer of sin in us (Dodd's expiation). With the problem of sin removed from us through Christ, the just reason for wrath is also removed. God is not appeased in the sense of someone covering his eye's or gratifying his anger (as if God's anger was a fleshly rage), rather by solving the problem of sin in us, God has removed the cause of wrath and brought us into right relationship with him, as Paul says, "so that God is just and the one who justifies sinners" (sets them aright).

This reading makes sense with the original Greek, with the Hebrew understanding of the sacrifices, and Paul's entire line of argument in Romans, where as your interpretation is completely foreign to his thinking and indeed you need to assume (on zero evidence) that all of your theory hangs on an interpretation of a single word "propitiation", that is quite a lot to hang on such a narrow thread.

I was referring to the part of your post above which seems to me not too different to a model that works for me. I never saw God as vengeful or angry. In fact as the opposite merciful and loving which is why he has provided a way hrough the problem of sin.
Your second paragraph seems exactly right to me. The 'just reason for wrath being removed' is really the same as saying that the cross enabled God to judge sin which deflected that judgement from those who would have been under it had the cross not happened. I don't see this as a lot different to the idea of God being 'appeased'. I don't think such a concept is that foreign to what you have written here.

[ 03. August 2007, 02:55: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
The 'just reason for wrath being removed' is really the same as saying that the cross enabled God to judge sin which deflected that judgement from those who would have been under it had the cross not happened.
The difference I think is that instead of saying God judged sin (ie punishing sin) it says he averted judging sin by justifying us (making us right). In other words, instead of understanding justice as punishment, it understands justice as restoration.

Also it stresses that our problem cannot be solved by averting punishment, because the problem of sin is in us like a cancer and that cancer needs to be removed.

Another thing I think is vital is that we not limit sin to our guilt. This is part of it for sure, but there is also the hurt done to us that is a huge focus of the Gospels. Both can separate us from God, and God in Christ entered into both for us. So we need an understanding of Christ "bearing our sorrow" and being "pierced for our transgressions" that takes into account that we are both victim and perpetrator in one. Sinners and sinned against.

Still with me?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
The 'just reason for wrath being removed' is really the same as saying that the cross enabled God to judge sin which deflected that judgement from those who would have been under it had the cross not happened.
The difference I think is that instead of saying God judged sin (ie punishing sin) it says he averted judging sin by justifying us (making us right). In other words, instead of understanding justice as punishment, it understands justice as restoration.

Also it stresses that our problem cannot be solved by averting punishment, because the problem of sin is in us like a cancer and that cancer needs to be removed.

Another thing I think is vital is that we not limit sin to our guilt. This is part of it for sure, but there is also the hurt done to us that is a huge focus of the Gospels. Both can separate us from God, and God in Christ entered into both for us. So we need an understanding of Christ "bearing our sorrow" and being "pierced for our transgressions" that takes into account that we are both victim and perpetrator in one. Sinners and sinned against.

Still with me?

Well, I see where you are at. No I don't agree that justice is only restorative though it can be. Justice is a bigger idea that. It takes in the idea of payback, of revenge, of retribution and restoration and civilises them and synthesizes them. I do not agree that a concept of justice that includes a penal or retributive element is a somehow 'fallen' concept of justice which is what I think you may have argued earlier.
I see the cross as restoring and as redeeming by breaking the power of our human self-centredness which is the essential nature of 'sin'. I cannot see that sin being atoned for, paid for and covered, would have been possible without taking a life as in OT sacrifices which typified and precursed calvary. And I still see that as having an aspect of the penal about it. Death is punishment. I do not see the scapegoat argument which was discussed earlier in the thread as more than a red-herring here. It is this aspect that emphasises to me the serious nature of sin. So serious that Hell would have been the consequence for us if redemption had not occurred. I do not see PSA as teaching merely that one can avoid punishment by accepting Christ, though some might see it so, or that averting punishment solves our problem. I have never argued this way.
I would completely endorse your last paragraph above.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
It takes in the idea of payback, of revenge, of retribution and restoration and civilises them and synthesizes them.
Can you cite some passages in the NT that define justice in terms of payback, revenge, and retribution?

As I have argued, Romans 3 is not.

I'm assuming you mean theses three as synonyms rather than as 3 separate concepts. Correct me if I have misunderstood.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
It takes in the idea of payback, of revenge, of retribution and restoration and civilises them and synthesizes them.
Can you cite some passages in the NT that define justice in terms of payback, revenge, and retribution?

As I have argued, Romans 3 is not.

I'm assuming you mean theses three as synonyms rather than as 3 separate concepts. Correct me if I have misunderstood.

\

Try Ro 1:18 as a classic and in 1 Pet 2:14 suggests kings are in place for a 'punishment of evildoers' v24 states he 'bore' our sins upon the tree which suggests to me he was punished for them. 2 Pet 2:9 states that the Lord himself knows how to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgement'. Also 2 Pet 3:7 states that the present creation is being stored up for the destruction of ungodly men.'
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
It takes in the idea of payback, of revenge, of retribution and restoration and civilises them and synthesizes them.
Can you cite some passages in the NT that define justice in terms of payback, revenge, and retribution?

As I have argued, Romans 3 is not.

I'm assuming you mean theses three as synonyms rather than as 3 separate concepts. Correct me if I have misunderstood.

\

Try Ro 1:18 as a classic and in 1 Pet 2:14 suggests kings are in place for a 'punishment of evildoers' v24 states he 'bore' our sins upon the tree which suggests to me he was punished for them. 2 Pet 2:9 states that the Lord himself knows how to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgement'. Also 2 Pet 3:7 states that the present creation is being stored up for the destruction of ungodly men.'

Romans 1:18 does not contain any mention of justice. It's about wrath. Likewise 1 Pet 2:14 is about punishment not justice. 2 Pet 2:9 is about judgment not justice.

You do realize that there is a major difference between justice and judgment, right? In English the two words sound similar, but in Greek they are unrelated and really opposites of each others. Justice is "dikaiosunē" which is restorative justice (a making things right), while judgment is "krisis" from which the English word "crisis" derives. We are in a krisis because of our sin, and so God holds back the krisis until he can dikaiosunē (set aright) us. There is no concept of God's justice (dikaiosunē) being punitive in the NT. Krisis is not the means to the solution, it is the problem that God solves through dikaiosunē.

[ 04. August 2007, 08:23: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[qb] [QUOTE]It takes in the idea of payback, of revenge, of retribution and restoration and civilises them and synthesizes them.

Can you cite some passages in the NT that define justice in terms of payback, revenge, and retribution?

As I have argued, Romans 3 is not.

I'm assuming you mean theses three as synonyms rather than as 3 separate concepts. Correct me if I have misunderstood.

\

QUOTE]Romans 1:18 does not contain any mention of justice. It's about wrath. Likewise 1 Pet 2:14 is about punishment not justice. 2 Pet 2:9 is about judgment not justice.

You do realize that there is a major difference between justice and judgment, right? In

Wrong I'm afraid.
It is simply a matter of logic. 'Judgement' is the end result of 'justice.' This applies in both a positive and a negative outcome depending on the case before the judge. He might find an accused innocent or not. or for one party against another. This is the process of justice. The two terms judgement and justice are co relatives, like 'rights' and 'responsibilities'.
God's wrath in Ro 1:18 is AGAINST UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. Thus it is self evident that he is being JUST when he judges.Ro 3:8 Paul's aside regarding those who slander him
"Their condemnation is just"
shows that he, at any rate, clearly thinks of the concept of punishment in terms of just deserts.
Paul as a representative of Godly thinking on this issue is for me, definitive.

[ 06. August 2007, 02:19: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:

It is simply a matter of logic. 'Judgement' is the end result of 'justice.'

That may be true of the English words in our judicial system. It is clearly not true of the Greek words, nor does it fit with Paul's argument in Romans. Wrath and krisis is what God's justice/righteousness save us from. That's the whole point of Paul's argument: a way to escape wrath through grace.

quote:

God's wrath in Ro 1:18 is AGAINST UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. Thus it is self evident that he is being JUST when he judges.

Right, and think that all the way through: it means, Paul argues, that we are all dead. So we need some way to save us from this deserved wrath. That salvation comes Paul says through justice, which is not by nature punitive but restorative - justifying. Justice (making right) is the antidote to the crisis of judgment just as medicine heals disease.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Wrong I'm afraid.
It is simply a matter of logic. 'Judgement' is the end result of 'justice.' This applies in both a positive and a negative outcome depending on the case before the judge. He might find an accused innocent or not. or for one party against another. This is the process of justice. The two terms judgement and justice are co relatives, like 'rights' and 'responsibilities'.

Not at all! Judgement is actually, in the biblical sense "the declaring of God's mind". This can, in ordinary useage, be the announcement of the verdict of a court, and that may well be, in human terms, either conviction or acquittal, but it ain't necessarily so. To read this meaning back into scripture is to presuppose a legal, rather than a relational, framework for the interaction between God and His people. Now the fact that Paul readily uses legal terminology does not necessarily mean that he believed that there was such a real-life basis to this interaction. I believe, in the absense of any such indication from the teaching of Jesus, that he was using legal analogies to try to explain those teachings. And as such, they are effective, as long as we recognise them for what they are.

Justice, however, is quite independant of the law, though the law ought not to be independant of justice. Resort to the law is the last option available to those who have not received justice. The purpose of the law is redress, the nearest approach to justice of which human institutions are capable. But justice, in the biblical sense, can never be done by human means. That is the whole point of Paul's teaching - that the law is, in fact, ineffective, more than that, actually conterproductive, in bringing about justice (that is, in biblical terms, the restoration of all things, the bringing about of "righteousness".

Now, this is interesting:

quote:
God's wrath in Ro 1:18 is AGAINST UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. Thus it is self evident that he is being JUST when he judges.Ro 3:8 Paul's aside regarding those who slander him
"Their condemnation is just"
shows that he, at any rate, clearly thinks of the concept of punishment in terms of just deserts.
Paul as a representative of Godly thinking on this issue is for me, definitive.

Here, I think you have misunderstood my position and that of others who find PSA wanting. No-one here is saying that God is not justified in condemning unrighteousness, nor yet that he would not be totally within, if you like, his legal rights to exact punishment, under the law . But Paul's point is precisely that - God does not opewrate under those legal strictures. In Christ, He puts the law to death, for ever demonstrating by the act of Jesus' self-sacrifice, (though more than demonstrates, but YKWIM) that He is, in fact, not concerned with penal thinking, but rather with very un-legal, un fair, scandalous, undeserved grace. If anything should have brought about the immediate demise of thew human race in an act of cataclysmic "judgement", it was surely the cross. But God's defeat of evil comes not through some titanic explosion of divine fury, however justified that would be, but rather in the expression of far greater power, the power of love and forgiveness, the humility of the Father.

You see, that's my greatest concern with PSA. It "baptises" the norm of human behaviour, the propensity to find solutions in violence, the litigious spirit of demanding one's rights, the assumption that might makes right, that if we could only destroy our enemies, all woulf be well for us, and says that this is how God behaves. Well it isn't how God behaves, it is a projection of how we would behave if we were God. Jesus is how God behaves. That is the scandal of the cross, that God doesn't, in fact, care about being right, being justified. All He cares about is healing all His creatures, and restoring righteousness to creation.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Hi everyone - back from my hols. [Razz]

Managed to read The Deathly Hallows and therefore was particularly annoyed to see that OliviaG had beat me (by at least a week!) to the observation that Rowling has basically earned squillions by writing an apologetic for CV... although I'm tempted to add that obviously means that CV belongs to the world of Wizards and polyjuice potions. [Big Grin]

Glad to see that the old thread is still rumbling on.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

You see, that's my greatest concern with PSA. It "baptises" the norm of human behaviour, the propensity to find solutions in violence, the litigious spirit of demanding one's rights, the assumption that might makes right, that if we could only destroy our enemies, all woulf be well for us, and says that this is how God behaves...

We're back here again are we?

I still don't see how PSA is supposed to encourage violence. The whole point of PSA is that we are made righteous in Christ. Therefore on the one hand it is not the case of the innocent being punished (it is our sins that are found guilty) but on the other hand (and indeed the whole point of the NT) is that God does not give to us what we deserve. We are not punished ... so where is the encouragement to repay evil for evil?

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
...Well it isn't how God behaves, it is a projection of how we would behave if we were God. Jesus is how God behaves. That is the scandal of the cross, that God doesn't, in fact, care about being right, being justified. All He cares about is healing all His creatures, and restoring righteousness to creation.

The problem here, JJ, is that Romans 3: 26 makes it clear that God did care about being justified in his actions.

Indeed I was rather puzzled by the treatment that you gave Romans 5: 9 and Sharktacos gave to Romans 3: 20-26.

Romans 5: 9 - while the verse itself does not attribute 'the wrath' to God, the context of verse 10 returns to the theme of enemies being reconciled. While it may be grammatically possible it is strethching the context beyond breaking point to demand that wrath is being used in an abstract way.

Romans 3: 20-26 - I was going to draw our attention to the δικαιοσύνη word group. In English we have no way of showing that the noun and verb come from the same root word. However, Sharktacos' reading doesn't hold water. Language simply doesn't work like that. We can't go back to the OT and then import a very narrow and specific meaning to a word everytime we come acorss it (and its cognates). Righteousness is a good translation, 'righteousing' would be a good word for the verb ... if it existed in English! We also need to go to the context to see how a word is used.

And then he includes in his translation that Jesus' death removed God's wrath - I appreciate that doesn't necessarily involve punishment but it is surely what the word 'propitiation' (which we've been arguing about) means.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Punishment doesn't defeat sin; only forgiveness can do that. And after we are forgiven, then God can go about putting things right, by recreating the universe, with us as, after Jesus, its first citizens.

I realise this statement goes back a ways JJ but it interests me.
Forgiveness is a fruit or consequence of the cross right?
Is it not the cross that is the means of dealing with sin? I suspect you are placing forgiveness on some sort of platform by itself as an ultimate value when it really is dependent on something far more fundamental.
Now if we ask HOW the cross deals with sin (at the risk of going round the mountain again) we may find that it is because sin is judged there.
If we go further and ask what precisely is judged, then we must look at Christ's agony in gethsemane. Why the agony? I'd suggest that
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Wrong I'm afraid.
It is simply a matter of logic. 'Judgement' is the end result of 'justice.' This applies in both a positive and a negative outcome depending on the case before the judge. He might find an accused innocent or not. or for one party against another. This is the process of justice. The two terms judgement and justice are co relatives, like 'rights' and 'responsibilities'.

Not at all! Judgement is actually, in the biblical sense "the declaring of God's mind". This can, in ordinary useage, be the announcement of the verdict of a court, and that may well be, in human terms, either conviction or acquittal, but it ain't necessarily so. To read this meaning back into scripture is to presuppose a legal, rather than a relational, framework for the interaction between God and His people. Now the fact that Paul readily uses legal terminology does not necessarily mean that he believed that there was such a real-life basis to this interaction. I believe, in the absense of any such indication from the teaching of Jesus, that he was using legal analogies to try to explain those teachings. And as such, they are effective, as long as we recognise them for what they are.

Justice, however, is quite independant of the law, though the law ought not to be independant of justice. Resort to the law is the last option available to those who have not received justice. The purpose of the law is redress, the nearest approach to justice of which human institutions are capable. But justice, in the biblical sense, can never be done by human means. That is the whole point of Paul's teaching - that the law is, in fact, ineffective, more than that, actually conterproductive, in bringing about justice (that is, in biblical terms, the restoration of all things, the bringing about of "righteousness".

Now, this is interesting:

quote:
God's wrath in Ro 1:18 is AGAINST UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. Thus it is self evident that he is being JUST when he judges.Ro 3:8 Paul's aside regarding those who slander him
"Their condemnation is just"
shows that he, at any rate, clearly thinks of the concept of punishment in terms of just deserts.
Paul as a representative of Godly thinking on this issue is for me, definitive.

Here, I think you have misunderstood my position and that of others who find PSA wanting. No-one here is saying that God is not justified in condemning unrighteousness, nor yet that he would not be totally within, if you like, his legal rights to exact punishment, under the law . But Paul's point is precisely that - God does not opewrate under those legal strictures. In Christ, He puts the law to death, for ever demonstrating by the act of Jesus' self-sacrifice, (though more than demonstrates, but YKWIM) that He is, in fact, not concerned with penal thinking, but rather with very un-legal, un fair, scandalous, undeserved grace. If anything should have brought about the immediate demise of thew human race in an act of cataclysmic "judgement", it was surely the cross. But God's defeat of evil comes not through some titanic explosion of divine fury, however justified that would be, but rather in the expression of far greater power, the power of love and forgiveness, the humility of the Father.

You see, that's my greatest concern with PSA. It "baptises" the norm of human behaviour, the propensity to find solutions in violence, the litigious spirit of demanding one's rights, the assumption that might makes right, that if we could only destroy our enemies, all woulf be well for us, and says that this is how God behaves. Well it isn't how God behaves, it is a projection of how we would behave if we were God. Jesus is how God behaves. That is the scandal of the cross, that God doesn't, in fact, care about being right, being justified. All He cares about is healing all His creatures, and restoring righteousness to creation.

WEll I thought we dealt with the issue of legal as opposed to relational. To me, legal IS relational. It is a formalisation of relationship. The terms legal and relational are not antithetical.

God's defeat of evil is in dealing with its cause. The powerful and intrinsic selfishness inside humanity. That is why the cross makes so much sense. What cataclysmic explosion of wrath could have accomplished what it has? It is truly as you say but I would add also, through the judgement of the son as a sin offering. Is 53 states that he will give his life as a ransom for many.

PSA in my understanding in no way condones violence. What it does is provide a consistent, scriptural and very Jewish model that reconciles Christ with the Jewish worship patterns of the OT and the first century. By a scrificial, once for all sacrifical death he has forever brought to an end the sacrificial system by fuklfilling its requirements once as explained in Hebrews.
You simply can't have such fulfillment unless you see Christ as a sacrifice and unless you see God laying sin on him and then turning his face from the sinless one. God doesn't care about being right. Whoever said he did? He cares about an effective solution to the problem of sin. This involves making sinners righteous by providing a basis for forgiveness that is consistent with his nature of holiness.
I honestly think your concept of PSA is rather one dimensional.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
I suspect you are placing forgiveness on some sort of platform by itself as an ultimate value
Absolutely. Guilty as charged. That's exactly how I see forgiveness.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
I suspect you are placing forgiveness on some sort of platform by itself as an ultimate value
Absolutely. Guilty as charged. That's exactly how I see forgiveness.
Me too! But I claim the defence that Jesus had just this view of forgiveness as Himself. There is no hint in His teaching that forgiveness is in any way conditional. To make it consequent on legal satisfaction is a concept that cannot be traced to Jesus.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
I suspect you are placing forgiveness on some sort of platform by itself as an ultimate value
Absolutely. Guilty as charged. That's exactly how I see forgiveness.
Me too! But I claim the defence that Jesus had just this view of forgiveness as Himself. There is no hint in His teaching that forgiveness is in any way conditional. To make it consequent on legal satisfaction is a concept that cannot be traced to Jesus.
Well exactly. What I'm finding a little bit foreign in this debate is that anyone, given Jesus' teaching, would not see forgiveness as an inherent good, to be aspired to in all cases.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Welcome back, John. If I could just re-emphasise that I don't see PSA as justifying violence, nor am I accusing those who hold the view of being well disposed towards violence - I think that there are other things at work here independant of the atonement model. But I do think that the heart of PSA is a violent and retributive worldview, which, in fact, is at odds with the pacific and restorative worldview which is, in practice, held by the vast majority of its proponents. It's this cognitive dissonance between the practice and the theory which I find so odd.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
PSA in my understanding in no way condones violence. What it does is provide a consistent, scriptural and very Jewish model that reconciles Christ with the Jewish worship patterns of the OT and the first century. By a scrificial, once for all sacrifical death he has forever brought to an end the sacrificial system by fuklfilling its requirements once as explained in Hebrews.

Well, the Hebrews discussion is to do neither with CV nor with PSA as atonement models, but with a sacrificial model, atonement as the fulfillment of Jewish worship systems. You will find no argument from me there, but it has zilch to do with PSA. The sacrificial system is, indeed, fulfilled, but there is no penal element to that system
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
You simply can't have such fulfillment unless you see Christ as a sacrifice and unless you see God laying sin on him and then turning his face from the sinless one. God doesn't care about being right. Whoever said he did? He cares about an effective solution to the problem of sin. This involves making sinners righteous by providing a basis for forgiveness that is consistent with his nature of holiness.
I honestly think your concept of PSA is rather one dimensional.

I don't see what sacrifice has got to do with "God laying sin on him and then turning his face from the sinless one". Of course sinners need to be made righteous, but it does not require Jesus' death to make this happen from a moral point of view, (ie, for forgiveness), but from a practical (better, ontological) point of view. There is no moral problem to acquitting the guilty if the acts that made them guilty in the first place are unmade. This, istm, is the meaning of the Romans 3:25/26 passage.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
I realise this statement goes back a ways JJ but it interests me.
Forgiveness is a fruit or consequence of the cross right?

No, wrong. Salvation is the fruit of the cross, ontological change allowing us to be free of the bondage of our will to sin and death. Forgiveness is demonstrated at the cross, but its origins are in the heart of God. The cross is the consequence, not the root of forgiveness.

quote:
Now if we ask HOW the cross deals with sin (at the risk of going round the mountain again) we may find that it is because sin is judged there.

We have to make sure we distinguish between sin and the sinful nature which is the consequence of sin. Sin is a moral problem, and can only be effectively dealt with by forgiveness. The cross demonstrates God's total committment to forgiveness, in the face of the ultimate provocation, and so it is a powerful icon of forgiveness, but God does not forgive us because of the cross, rather Jesus goes to the cross because God has already forgiven us.
Sin is, indeed, judged on the cross, but not in the sense that you mean, I suspect. God declares his mind on sin by showing that, because of His forgiveness, there are no lengths to which He will not go to reescue us from the consequences of that sin. He doesn't punish sin, he destroys it, by undercutting the only power it has, that of preventing God's creation from realising the purpose that He has for it.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
The problem here, JJ, is that Romans 3: 26 makes it clear that God did care about being justified in his actions.

Perhaps I phrased it poorly. Of course, God wants us to understand how He deals with the problem of evil. That is not, to my mind, the same as saying that God is bound by any external principle such as "justice", as defined by His creatures. He has mercy on those upon whom He will have mercy. I just happen to think that that is all of us.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Romans 5: 9 - while the verse itself does not attribute 'the wrath' to God, the context of verse 10 returns to the theme of enemies being reconciled. While it may be grammatically possible it is strethching the context beyond breaking point to demand that wrath is being used in an abstract way.

I would have thought the context reinforced my exegesis. The only enemy needing reconciliation is us, humankind. God is not our enemy, we are His. Therefore we are the ones perpetuating the conflict. It isn't God who has to change; we are the ones who have to change, or rather, to have change effected on us. That does rather suggest that the wrath is ours (since it needs to cease, which is to say, to change) rather than His. Which is Girard's point, ISTM.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
There is no moral problem to acquitting the guilty if the acts that made them guilty in the first place are unmade. This, istm, is the meaning of the Romans 3:25/26 passage.

I'd like you to explain further how this 'unmaking' works.

For a start PSA has dealt with sin already, this idea of unmaking acts (and their consequences) can clearly have no basis in this life. If I hit my sister then PSA tells me that my sin has been dealt with already on the cross and that it will one day be 'unmade'. ISTM that CV pushes everything forward to the 'one day it will all be unmade'.

Also I don't see how this 'unmaking' differs from making it as if the evil deed never happened. The end of Revelation seems bring us back to Eden but with the cost of that restoration still present. The heavenly city is not just a return it is somehow better since it has been redeemed. Now what I don't see is that if 'unmaking' even removes our memory of sins then why do we need a lamb in heaven? Or put it this way, if the cross and resurrection is only about 'unmaking' then how do we know that we won't sin again in the new heaven and new earth?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Romans 5: 9 - while the verse itself does not attribute 'the wrath' to God, the context of verse 10 returns to the theme of enemies being reconciled. While it may be grammatically possible it is strethching the context beyond breaking point to demand that wrath is being used in an abstract way.

I would have thought the context reinforced my exegesis. The only enemy needing reconciliation is us, humankind. God is not our enemy, we are His. Therefore we are the ones perpetuating the conflict. It isn't God who has to change; we are the ones who have to change, or rather, to have change effected on us. That does rather suggest that the wrath is ours (since it needs to cease, which is to say, to change) rather than His. Which is Girard's point, ISTM.
Only if we agree with your suggestion that we can be God's enemies without him being our enemy. I don't think you've demonstrated this so far, merely asserted it.

I find it hard to see how you can handle the cleansing of the temple by Jesus in a way that does not attribute righteous anger.

[ 06. August 2007, 16:20: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Welcome back, John. If I could just re-emphasise that I don't see PSA as justifying violence, nor am I accusing those who hold the view of being well disposed towards violence - I think that there are other things at work here independant of the atonement model. But I do think that the heart of PSA is a violent and retributive worldview, which, in fact, is at odds with the pacific and restorative worldview which is, in practice, held by the vast majority of its proponents. It's this cognitive dissonance between the practice and the theory which I find so odd.

But societies that believe PSA tend to be more violent than those that don't.

Anselm was writing at a time when the church had already begun to practice violence against heretics.

PSA has links with Christian/European imperialism, colonialism and slavery.

The USA believes in PSA more than any other country. It also executes more prisoners than most other countries and fights more wars than most.

Penal substitution was adopted at a time when Christians stopped beng pacifists and adopted pagan notions of a ‘Just War’.

The notion of an innocent victim is bad news for women who have been abused by husbands, for blacks living under apartheid.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But societies that believe PSA tend to be more violent than those that don't.

So you've got lots of evidence for that have you?

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Anselm was writing at a time when the church had already begun to practice violence against heretics.

Sadly true but Anselm was at least 600 years after that so you'd have to work hard to demonstrate a direct connection.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
PSA has links with Christian/European imperialism, colonialism and slavery.

What on earth are you talking about? Not only is that not true but I don't see how you could demonstrate it either. Christianity has had links with imperialism, colonialism and slavery ... let's ditch Christ then?


quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The USA believes in PSA more than any other country. It also executes more prisoners than most other countries and fights more wars than most.

This gets worse and worse. I read in the paper this weekend about public hangings in Iran ... I don't think that was motivated by PSA. If you've got a thing about Americans then have it out somewhere else.


quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Penal substitution was adopted at a time when Christians stopped beng pacifists and adopted pagan notions of a ‘Just War’.

Have you read this thread? PSA was never 'adopted'. (I must have missed that lecture on the council of PSA in whatever AD. [Biased] ) Exactly when and how it arose has been debated on this thread. There is no way you can justify your claim.


quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The notion of an innocent victim is bad news for women who have been abused by husbands, for blacks living under apartheid.

Again, please read the thread and see what others have said about the notion of the 'innocent victim'.

All in all, Leo I think you have revealed your hand as to why you reject PSA - and it has little to do with reality. Others have been genuinely enaging with some valid issues here, but I don't think that unsubstantiated generalisations and guilt by association helps this discussion at all. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Johnny welcome back.

I think we can agree that the idea of God turning aside wrath in there in Romans. If that is all one means by propitiation, then yes God removed wrath. The argument is over how God did that.

The fact is, Paul does not say how in Romans 3. What he does say is what the problem is, and how God will solve it. God turns away wrath and krisis by as you say "righteousing" us through Christ's death. How exactly that works is not stated by Paul here. But it is clear that it is not through wrath or krisis or the way of just deserts. Indeed Paul's whole argument here is a way to escape from our just deserts. So he proposes a way for God to "righteous" us that is "apart from law".

What is also significant is that the heart of this way, Paul argues, has to do with a "new creation". PSA in itself focuses solely on our justification done through legal aquital (averting punishment) and says nothing about sanctification. But the word Paul uses as you have noted means justice/righteousness. The idea of justification and sanctification are in Paul's thought-world one in the same. We are justified (a positional change of identity adopted out of death and into God's sonship) by the sanctifying process of new birth.

How does Christ's death sanctify and rebirth us? We can see that the process involves substitutionary atonement in the sense that Christ died for our sins, became a curse for us, even "became sin". I think this is indisputable if we are going to take Scripture at its word. However the inference that this "for us" happens through some kind of demand for punishment in order to fulfill a legal requirement is simply not in the text anywhere. In fact there is no direct explanation of how this vicarious death works in Scripture (which ought to tell is something). The best we can do is try to pace it together from the clues we have in Scripture. From those clues in Paul and Isaiah what I see emerge quite strongly is that the cross is not something that appears as just in our eyes (the argument of PSA) but that it is a "scandal" and "foolishness" to us. This stumbling-block-ness of the cross needs to be taken into account. Any theory that is too neat and reasonable is suspect.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Welcome back, John. If I could just re-emphasise that I don't see PSA as justifying violence, nor am I accusing those who hold the view of being well disposed towards violence - I think that there are other things at work here independant of the atonement model. But I do think that the heart of PSA is a violent and retributive worldview, which, in fact, is at odds with the pacific and restorative worldview which is, in practice, held by the vast majority of its proponents. It's this cognitive dissonance between the practice and the theory which I find so odd.

But societies that believe PSA tend to be more violent than those that don't.

Anselm was writing at a time when the church had already begun to practice violence against heretics.

PSA has links with Christian/European imperialism, colonialism and slavery.

The USA believes in PSA more than any other country. It also executes more prisoners than most other countries and fights more wars than most.

Penal substitution was adopted at a time when Christians stopped beng pacifists and adopted pagan notions of a ‘Just War’.

The notion of an innocent victim is bad news for women who have been abused by husbands, for blacks living under apartheid.

While one could quibble with the specific examples here (for instance Anselm did not teach PSA), I do think there is a clear connection with a post-Constantinian mindset and PSA thinking. In the early church where the theme of CV was dominant the church saw itself as embattled and so the image of salvation as liberation from the oppression of a sinful world made sense. As the church became associated with political and military power, with legal authority, it makes sense that sin is seen in these terms and so the PSA mindset makes sense here: here capital punishment is no longer something done by oppressive and unjust pagans, it is something the church sanctions and calls for. That was the shape of the church for hundreds of years and so those assumptions die hard.

So I would say that PSA does not lead to violence, rather it found fertile ground in a world that ruled by might and force.

There are some PSAers who do not condone capital punishment and state sanctioned killing. They would argue that Christ's death puts an end to capital punishment.

[ 06. August 2007, 19:49: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
There is no moral problem to acquitting the guilty if the acts that made them guilty in the first place are unmade. This, istm, is the meaning of the Romans 3:25/26 passage.

I'd like you to explain further how this 'unmaking' works.

For a start PSA has dealt with sin already, this idea of unmaking acts (and their consequences) can clearly have no basis in this life. If I hit my sister then PSA tells me that my sin has been dealt with already on the cross and that it will one day be 'unmade'. ISTM that CV pushes everything forward to the 'one day it will all be unmade'.

Also I don't see how this 'unmaking' differs from making it as if the evil deed never happened. The end of Revelation seems bring us back to Eden but with the cost of that restoration still present. The heavenly city is not just a return it is somehow better since it has been redeemed. Now what I don't see is that if 'unmaking' even removes our memory of sins then why do we need a lamb in heaven? Or put it this way, if the cross and resurrection is only about 'unmaking' then how do we know that we won't sin again in the new heaven and new earth?

I think that you are drawing unnecessary distinctions here, or at least non-inherent distinctions. CV does not have to deal with the problem of my guilt now, because, under its schema, that guilt has already been dealt with by the grace of forgiveness. Because PSA, in its usual manifestations (I exclude Numpty's more subtle understanding from this) depends on the cross as an enabling act for forgiveness, it must include within it an explict mechanism for which CV has no need.

But the truth is that both (implicitly) CV and (explicitly) CV have consistent, and, indeed, largely identical mechanisms for dealing with sin now (forgiveness and repentance) and for dealing with sin ultimately (the new creation fulfilled at the eschaton). Both stress the need for regeneration, both say that we can taste the Kingdom now, but both accept that it is only at the end of time that we can enjoy its fulness.

Similarly, I don't think that it is necessarily true that to have the consequences of sin unmade is the same as saying that the sin, in effect, never happened. It is the negative effects of that sin, rather than the memory of it, that is undone. And, of course, the consequences of that sin (the price, or wages, if you like) have been bourne by God in Christ; even His resurrected body still bore the scars of the cross.

And, as for what is to stop us sinning in the new creation under CV, I would ask the same question about PSA. The criticism of the one is equally a criticism of the other, because both look towards a time when we will still exist as rational, if spiritual, beings, and yet sin will be no more.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
What is also significant is that the heart of this way, Paul argues, has to do with a "new creation". PSA in itself focuses solely on our justification done through legal aquital (averting punishment) and says nothing about sanctification. But the word Paul uses as you have noted means justice/righteousness. The idea of justification and sanctification are in Paul's thought-world one in the same. We are justified (a positional change of identity adopted out of death and into God's sonship) by the sanctifying process of new birth.

Hi backatcha (feeble attempt at cross-cultural communication [Big Grin] ).

Sure thing, although PSA does not claim to exclude new creation et al, it claims to complement them.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
How does Christ's death sanctify and rebirth us?... From those clues in Paul and Isaiah what I see emerge quite strongly is that the cross is not something that appears as just in our eyes (the argument of PSA) but that it is a "scandal" and "foolishness" to us. This stumbling-block-ness of the cross needs to be taken into account. Any theory that is too neat and reasonable is suspect.

Ummh. Doesn't this argument cut both ways? I have heard many PSAers use this response to those who claim that retributive justice is a 'stumbling block' to those who want to believe!

Also, it is a somewhat circular argument to reject an atonement model on the basis that it is too neat and reasonable. I agree that the atonement is a 'mystery' but I don't see how that means we need to go for the model with the most blanks. [Biased]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Romans 5: 9 - while the verse itself does not attribute 'the wrath' to God, the context of verse 10 returns to the theme of enemies being reconciled. While it may be grammatically possible it is strethching the context beyond breaking point to demand that wrath is being used in an abstract way.

I would have thought the context reinforced my exegesis. The only enemy needing reconciliation is us, humankind. God is not our enemy, we are His. Therefore we are the ones perpetuating the conflict. It isn't God who has to change; we are the ones who have to change, or rather, to have change effected on us. That does rather suggest that the wrath is ours (since it needs to cease, which is to say, to change) rather than His. Which is Girard's point, ISTM.
Only if we agree with your suggestion that we can be God's enemies without him being our enemy. I don't think you've demonstrated this so far, merely asserted it.


OK, I know it's difficult to prove a negative, but passages such as Psalm 139, and especially v11, or 2Tim 2:13 do suggest that God's committment to us is independant of our attitude, whilst Isaiah 59:2 states that our sins separate us from God, but not that they separate God from us.

I really don't see the problem you have with understanding asymmetrical relationships of this type. If you aren't keen on the analogies I have used so far, think of a blind person. The are, in some metaphorical sense, separated from those whom they cannot see, because they may be unaware of their existance. But a sighted person is able to see the blind person. Now I'm just using this as a type of asymmetric relationship, so one can take the analogy too far, but in a sense we are blind, and cannot see God, but that doesn't mean he can't see us. If we are healed of our blindness, then a fuller relationship between us and God can be experienced, with no change on God's part.

Please note, this is a bit of a crass analogy, and shouldn't be taken to imply that the relationships of people who are physically blind are any less full than those of their sighted neighbours.

quote:
I find it hard to see how you can handle the cleansing of the temple by Jesus in a way that does not attribute righteous anger.
Well I think it's a bit of a jump between scaring the horses (or, in this case, the sheep and the doves) and engaging in a bit of energetic furniture rearrangement, and the wrath of God as we have been discussing it here. But the real question is not so much whether God is angry at sin, for clearly He is, but whether that anger is directed at sinners, and, if so, how God expresses that anger.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Similarly, I don't think that it is necessarily true that to have the consequences of sin unmade is the same as saying that the sin, in effect, never happened. It is the negative effects of that sin, rather than the memory of it, that is undone. And, of course, the consequences of that sin (the price, or wages, if you like) have been bourne by God in Christ; even His resurrected body still bore the scars of the cross.

And, as for what is to stop us sinning in the new creation under CV, I would ask the same question about PSA. The criticism of the one is equally a criticism of the other, because both look towards a time when we will still exist as rational, if spiritual, beings, and yet sin will be no more.

Thanks. Although I didn't explain myself very well you are bringing out the issues that I struggle with.

You are right in that both CV and PSA have to answer the issue of potential sin in the future. I was thinking about something along these lines ...

Suppose a husband is unfaithful to his wife, he confesses and she forgives him. That forgiveness is not a one off event but a lifelong action of the will. He will regularly feel guilt pangs, she will frequently feel the terrible pain of betrayal. If the effects are removed without the memory being removed (I don't see how that is possible) then this pain will continue into the new heaven and new earth. I think that any atonement model has to be able to put the past 'behind us' once and for all but in a way that does not act as if it never happened.

If God only 'unmakes' us then why are we not trapped in groundhog day? (Except without the consciousness that we are trapped!)
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Sorry about the cross-posting, but I need to go out soon, so I'll just to continue. [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK, I know it's difficult to prove a negative, but passages such as Psalm 139, and especially v11, or 2Tim 2:13 do suggest that God's committment to us is independant of our attitude, whilst Isaiah 59:2 states that our sins separate us from God, but not that they separate God from us.

I totally agree with you about God's commitment to us being independent of our attitude. However, all that means is that God is not our enemy in the same way that we are his enemy.


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well I think it's a bit of a jump between scaring the horses (or, in this case, the sheep and the doves) and engaging in a bit of energetic furniture rearrangement, and the wrath of God as we have been discussing it here. But the real question is not so much whether God is angry at sin, for clearly He is, but whether that anger is directed at sinners, and, if so, how God expresses that anger.

True, but my point is that Jesus (by definition of being a person) directed his anger at the sinners rather than the sin.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
I totally agree with you about God's commitment to us being independent of our attitude. However, all that means is that God is not our enemy in the same way that we are his enemy.

Or merely, that we are God's enemy, but he is not our enemy. You obviously don't like this option, but would you care to develop why you think God is our enemy in some different way to that in which we are His enemy, if, indeed, that is what you think?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Actually, on reflection, I suspect the language I've used is a bit unhelpful. For enemy, read "in need of being reconciled with", as in, "we are in need of being reconciled with God, but He is not in need of being reconciled with us". the word "enemy" carries waay to much baggage!
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Similarly, I don't think that it is necessarily true that to have the consequences of sin unmade is the same as saying that the sin, in effect, never happened. It is the negative effects of that sin, rather than the memory of it, that is undone. And, of course, the consequences of that sin (the price, or wages, if you like) have been bourne by God in Christ; even His resurrected body still bore the scars of the cross.

And, as for what is to stop us sinning in the new creation under CV, I would ask the same question about PSA. The criticism of the one is equally a criticism of the other, because both look towards a time when we will still exist as rational, if spiritual, beings, and yet sin will be no more.

Thanks. Although I didn't explain myself very well you are bringing out the issues that I struggle with.

You are right in that both CV and PSA have to answer the issue of potential sin in the future. I was thinking about something along these lines ...

Suppose a husband is unfaithful to his wife, he confesses and she forgives him. That forgiveness is not a one off event but a lifelong action of the will. He will regularly feel guilt pangs, she will frequently feel the terrible pain of betrayal. If the effects are removed without the memory being removed (I don't see how that is possible) then this pain will continue into the new heaven and new earth. I think that any atonement model has to be able to put the past 'behind us' once and for all but in a way that does not act as if it never happened.

If God only 'unmakes' us then why are we not trapped in groundhog day? (Except without the consciousness that we are trapped!)

Well, I suppose the answer is that God re-creates us, not merely unmakes the effects of sin. The unmaking thing is really germane to the problem of how the cross satisfies God's justice and deals with sin. It isn't the totality of CV, which also streses regeneration and union with Christ, as does PSA. In the end, I suspect that the answer to the question that you pose lies in no particular model of the atonement, but rather hidden in faith within the mystery of God.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
would you care to develop why you think God is our enemy in some different way to that in which we are His enemy, if, indeed, that is what you think?

Okay, let's not talk of enemies. But carrying on the example of the unfaithful husband ...

Reconciliation between the two involves changing both even though one side was completely guiltless. If the wife was not hurt by the infidelity we would question her love for her husband in the first place. Is that not what the bible means by a 'jealous love'? Even if she is completely innocent and forgives and loves her husband equally afterwards, the hurt (etc.) on her side of the relationship needs to be dealt with too.

The above analogy is an example where sin has in some sense made both parties 'enemies' of each other but not in an asymmetrical way.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But societies that believe PSA tend to be more violent than those that don't.

So you've got lots of evidence for that have you?

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Anselm was writing at a time when the church had already begun to practice violence against heretics.

Sadly true but Anselm was at least 600 years after that so you'd have to work hard to demonstrate a direct connection.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
PSA has links with Christian/European imperialism, colonialism and slavery.

What on earth are you talking about? Not only is that not true but I don't see how you could demonstrate it either. Christianity has had links with imperialism, colonialism and slavery ... let's ditch Christ then?


quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The USA believes in PSA more than any other country. It also executes more prisoners than most other countries and fights more wars than most.

This gets worse and worse. I read in the paper this weekend about public hangings in Iran ... I don't think that was motivated by PSA. If you've got a thing about Americans then have it out somewhere else.


quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Penal substitution was adopted at a time when Christians stopped beng pacifists and adopted pagan notions of a ‘Just War’.

Have you read this thread? PSA was never 'adopted'. (I must have missed that lecture on the council of PSA in whatever AD. [Biased] ) Exactly when and how it arose has been debated on this thread. There is no way you can justify your claim.


quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The notion of an innocent victim is bad news for women who have been abused by husbands, for blacks living under apartheid.

Again, please read the thread and see what others have said about the notion of the 'innocent victim'.

All in all, Leo I think you have revealed your hand as to why you reject PSA - and it has little to do with reality. Others have been genuinely enaging with some valid issues here, but I don't think that unsubstantiated generalisations and guilt by association helps this discussion at all. [Disappointed]

I argued at some length against PSA on the thread about it. Tis thread is supposed to be about the classic, Christus Victor theiry.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Tis thread is supposed to be about the classic, Christus Victor theiry.

[Confused] So why does your last post consist entirely of an attack on PSA then?

Let's discuss CV - it seems pretty legitimate to me to compare it with other atonement models. And since this thread is mostly about removing PSA entirely and replacing it with CV as the dominant metaphor it seems obvious that the argument is going to be mainly about why Cv can replace PSA ... or CV vs. PSA.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Johnny,

quote:

Sure thing, although PSA does not claim to exclude new creation et al, it claims to complement them.

PSA claims to be a prerequisite to sanctification that deals solely with God's wrath being appeased. So it is about that legal appeasement. What I am saying is that biblically it is not that case that God must first be appeased and then we can be sanctified, but that God acts to sanctify us and this has the effect of removing the cause of wrath.

quote:
Doesn't this argument cut both ways? I have heard many PSAers use this response to those who claim that retributive justice is a 'stumbling block' to those who want to believe!
No it does not because the goal is to arrive a biblical theology. So we cannot simply say "Hey look my theory is also foolish", rather we need to examine exactly what Paul was talking about and why he said the cross was a scandal and foolishness.

quote:
Also, it is a somewhat circular argument to reject an atonement model on the basis that it is too neat and reasonable. I agree that the atonement is a 'mystery' but I don't see how that means we need to go for the model with the most blanks. [Biased]
of course not. I am saying we need to listen to what Paul is saying. He goes on to talk about how in this foolishness is the wisdom of God. So it is not nonsensical, but it is the kind of upsidedown logic of the kingdom that appears first to be counter intuitive. Die to live, the greatest are the least, to lead you must serve, etc.

PSA does not fit into that line of thinking. It fits with a very basic human idea of payback justice. The part that people are appauled by is not the illogic of it, but its profound injustice. Specifically the idea that punishing the innocent in place of the guilty would be just, when in fact it would be a grave injustice. If a leader executed innocent people because of the crimes of others no one would say "look how seriously they take sin" they would gasp at how tyranical that ruler is.

I don't think that is at all what the NT is saying. Rather it is more like a firefighter who rushes into a burning building to save people. Christ does not demand appeasement, he comes as a servant and acts in humility giving his life for the outcast and the forsaken. God is humiliated, weak, woundable, forsaken, cursed, killed. God was "afflicted" and "taken away by oppression and injustice" Isaiah tells us. That was the scandal that Paul was refering to historically.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Tis thread is supposed to be about the classic, Christus Victor theiry.

[Confused] So why does your last post consist entirely of an attack on PSA then?

Let's discuss CV - it seems pretty legitimate to me to compare it with other atonement models. And since this thread is mostly about removing PSA entirely and replacing it with CV as the dominant metaphor it seems obvious that the argument is going to be mainly about why Cv can replace PSA ... or CV vs. PSA.

Because much of this thread has been derailed by PSA.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Because much of this thread has been derailed by PSA.

So talk about CV or become a Host of Purgatory then. How can a criticism of PSA do anything other than encourage further discussion of PSA?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
How can a criticism of PSA do anything other than encourage further discussion of PSA?

Good point. I've actually been happy to discuss PSA because I do see it as largely a CV versus PSA discussion.

But I do agree that we haven't gone into the implications of CV as much as I would have liked.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
the goal is to arrive a biblical theology. So we cannot simply say "Hey look my theory is also foolish", rather we need to examine exactly what Paul was talking about and why he said the cross was a scandal and foolishness.

Well put... it was what I was trying [Disappointed] to say.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I am saying we need to listen to what Paul is saying. He goes on to talk about how in this foolishness is the wisdom of God. So it is not nonsensical, but it is the kind of upsidedown logic of the kingdom that appears first to be counter intuitive. Die to live, the greatest are the least, to lead you must serve, etc.

... showing grace to the guilty? (...which is the opposite of?)

Indeed Paul says that it is foolishness to people in different ways - to the Jews in that they look for miracles and the Greeks in their pursuit of wisdom.

In Galatians 3 Paul picks up on the way Jews viewed people executed 'on a tree'. Whatever else we draw out from it, surely Paul is saying that Jews found the crucifixion 'foolishness' precisely because innocent kings don't get executed for treason the cross. There is a counter-intuitive act happening of an innocent man receiving the punishment due for someone who is guilty. I'm not saying that this proves PSA but it demonstrates that it fits equally with Paul's 'foolishness' pattern.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
PSA does not fit into that line of thinking. It fits with a very basic human idea of payback justice. The part that people are appauled by is not the illogic of it, but its profound injustice.

Why aren't we equally appalled by the profound injustice of grace and mercy?

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Specifically the idea that punishing the innocent in place of the guilty would be just, when in fact it would be a grave injustice. If a leader executed innocent people because of the crimes of others no one would say "look how seriously they take sin" they would gasp at how tyranical that ruler is.

Yet again ... No one on this thread has described PSA like that. In Christ our sin is punished. There is no injustice.

Otherwise the arguments of Romans 5 and Hebrews 2 seem rather tortuous and unnecessary. The point seems to be that it is our sinful humanity that is being punished in Christ. Indeed Hebrews 2 seems to deliberately combine CV with PSA in verses 14-18.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Johnny S,

quote:
"Die to live, the greatest are the least, to lead you must serve, etc."... showing grace to the guilty?
Yes, grace is also counter intuitive. Spurgeon has a very good sermon on this called "all of grace". Loving your enemies is counter intuitive.

quote:
Indeed Paul says that it is foolishness to people in different ways - to the Jews in that they look for miracles and the Greeks in their pursuit of wisdom.

In Galatians 3 Paul picks up on the way Jews viewed people executed 'on a tree'.

There is a very good study on this by the historian Martin Hengel called "Crucifixion". He looks at Jewish and Greek writing at the time on crucifixion as well as critique of primitive Christianity by Greeks and Jews. From that he brings insight into what Paul is talking about. The idea of being "accursed" is of central importance. I would highly recommend it.

quote:
Whatever else we draw out from it, surely Paul is saying that Jews found the crucifixion 'foolishness' precisely because innocent kings don't get executed for treason the cross.
Right, the cross is a symbol of failure and pagan oppression.

quote:
There is a counter-intuitive act happening of an innocent man receiving the punishment due for someone who is guilty.
Here is were we part. Historically this is not how they would have seen it. It was not a picture of state justice, it was more like the holocaust. It was about oppression and terrible injustice. It was a curse. The shock for them was the idea that God would suffer and be shamed like that.

Now it gets complex because there is the idea of our guilt in there. But the big picture is one of God entering into our brokenness and injustice.

quote:
Why aren't we equally appalled by the profound injustice of grace and mercy?
Because it is not unjust to forgive. That is why in the story Jesus tells of forgiving debts it is not seen as unjust, but generous and good.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Specifically the idea that punishing the innocent in place of the guilty would be just, when in fact it would be a grave injustice. If a leader executed innocent people because of the crimes of others no one would say "look how seriously they take sin" they would gasp at how tyranical that ruler is.


Yet again ... No one on this thread has described PSA like that. In Christ our sin is punished.

I don't see the difference. You cannot legally punish someone else for another's crimes. That would be a great justice. Thus I say that thinking of this in terms of our punitive justice system is the wrong way to understand what is happening because in that system it would be unjust.

I would suggest that rather than thinking of this in legal terms that are no where in Scripture we use the way that Scripture uses to understand it. A good place here is Isaiah 53. There is no other chapter that is quoted so much in the NT then this one so it would seem a good source. In Isaiah 53 what is said over and over is that this is not just. It is a grave injustice that God uses to bring about justice somehow. Paul echoes this saying it is accursed and a scandal, and yet God has turned it around. As Peter says too in Acts

"you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him."

The death of Jesus was in everyone's eyes not just, it was a tragedy, a horror. But God brought about salvation through it. God did that by entering into the horror of sin and overcoming it. That is the scandal - God enters our horror.


quote:

Otherwise the arguments of Romans 5 and Hebrews 2 seem rather tortuous and unnecessary. The point seems to be that it is our sinful humanity that is being punished in Christ. Indeed Hebrews 2 seems to deliberately combine CV with PSA in verses 14-18.

We can go over this, but you will need to be more specific. Can you quote the parts you are referencing here? Here is Heb 2:14-16

"Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement forthe sins of the people. 18Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted."

I do see in here what I was saying about God entering into our humanity in all of its lostness and wretchedness and hurt combined with CV. I do not see anything here about punishment.

I could even see agreeing with Christ taking on our punishment, but only if we say simultaneously that he in the same way and at the same time took our pain, suffering, and injustice too. This is precisely what Isa 53 says.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
There is a very good study on this by the historian Martin Hengel called "Crucifixion". He looks at Jewish and Greek writing at the time on crucifixion as well as critique of primitive Christianity by Greeks and Jews. From that he brings insight into what Paul is talking about. The idea of being "accursed" is of central importance. I would highly recommend it.

I've read his trilogy The Cross of the Son of God which includes The Son of God and The Atonement as well. That is where I got my ideas about 'curse' from. I read it because It was recommended by Don Carson. Something tells me, call it a hunch [Razz] , that he wouldn't recommend something that undermined PSA.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Here is were we part. Historically this is not how they would have seen it. It was not a picture of state justice, it was more like the holocaust. It was about oppression and terrible injustice. It was a curse. The shock for them was the idea that God would suffer and be shamed like that.

Freddy and I discussed Luke 23 at some length. Whether or not Luke intends us to see PSA there is a different matter, however, he does go out of his way to depict Jesus as an innocent man receiving a punishment that he does not deserve. I don't disagree with you about the extra shame of Roman oppression but I think it is rather weak to appeal to 'historically the Jews would have thought' when all I have to do is to turn to one of the gospels.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I would suggest that rather than thinking of this in legal terms that are no where in Scripture we use the way that Scripture uses to understand it. A good place here is Isaiah 53. There is no other chapter that is quoted so much in the NT then this one so it would seem a good source. In Isaiah 53 what is said over and over is that this is not just. It is a grave injustice that God uses to bring about justice somehow...The death of Jesus was in everyone's eyes not just, it was a tragedy, a horror. But God brought about salvation through it. God did that by entering into the horror of sin and overcoming it. That is the scandal - God enters our horror.

Right. Let's get this straight. You think Isaiah 53 teaches that God uses an injustice to bring about his justice. But your problem with PSA is that it is an injustice used by God to bring about his purposes. [Ultra confused]

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
We can go over this, but you will need to be more specific.

My reference to Romans 5 and Hebrews 2 was to do with the mechanics of CV. Please note Leo and Freddy - this is solely about CV. [Big Grin] It is essential (according to the NT) that Jesus shares our flesh for the atonement to 'work'. Right at the beginning of this thread (2nd post) Karl explains CV as Christ being a champion who fights for us against sin and evil. Why does Jesus have to be fully human to do this? In Greek mythology the sons of gods are champions precisely because they are half god and half man, but are not fully human.

Why does Jesus have to be fully human in order to fight for us? After all, Jesus himself said that a shepherd can lay down his life for his sheep.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I could even see agreeing with Christ taking on our punishment, but only if we say simultaneously that he in the same way and at the same time took our pain, suffering, and injustice too. This is precisely what Isa 53 says.

I completely agree with your above statement, so don't see what the problem is.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Freddy and I discussed Luke 23 at some length. Whether or not Luke intends us to see PSA there is a different matter, however, he does go out of his way to depict Jesus as an innocent man receiving a punishment that he does not deserve. I don't disagree with you about the extra shame of Roman oppression but I think it is rather weak to appeal to 'historically the Jews would have thought' when all I have to do is to turn to one of the gospels.
I'm not following you here. I agree that Jesus was an innocent man receiving a punishment that he does not deserve. I don't see how that changes my point.

quote:
Right. Let's get this straight. You think Isaiah 53 teaches that God uses an injustice to bring about his justice. But your problem with PSA is that it is an injustice used by God to bring about his purposes.
That's clever. But not what I am saying. The Bible claims that the cross is an injustice. PSA says that it was the requirement of justice. That's the opposite.

quote:
I could even see agreeing with Christ taking on our punishment, but only if we say simultaneously that he in the same way and at the same time took our pain, suffering, and injustice too. This is precisely what Isa 53 says.

I completely agree with your above statement, so don't see what the problem is.

Maybe we agree then.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Right. Let's get this straight. You think Isaiah 53 teaches that God uses an injustice to bring about his justice. But your problem with PSA is that it is an injustice used by God to bring about his purposes.
That's clever. But not what I am saying. The Bible claims that the cross is an injustice. PSA says that it was the requirement of justice. That's the opposite.
Nice point!
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Right. Let's get this straight. You think Isaiah 53 teaches that God uses an injustice to bring about his justice. But your problem with PSA is that it is an injustice used by God to bring about his purposes.
That's clever. But not what I am saying. The Bible claims that the cross is an injustice. PSA says that it was the requirement of justice. That's the opposite.

Well put. I would also chime in by noting the difference between an injustice God uses and an injustice God causes.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Well put. I would also chime in by noting the difference between an injustice God uses and an injustice God causes.

Or even an injustice that God requires , which is my understanding of PSA.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Right. Let's get this straight. You think Isaiah 53 teaches that God uses an injustice to bring about his justice. But your problem with PSA is that it is an injustice used by God to bring about his purposes.
That's clever. But not what I am saying. The Bible claims that the cross is an injustice. PSA says that it was the requirement of justice. That's the opposite.
Okay, I think we are getting somewhere here. I'm not trying to be clever - this strikes at the heart of all atonement models. AFAIK everyone agrees that the cross is an injustice, the question (put differently by JJ, Freddy and infinite_monkey) is how God brings his purposes about through it.

According to 1 Peter 2 the cross was an injustice, but the way Jesus was able to face it was by trusting himself to God's justice (verse 23).

Hence a lot of this is to do with how we view God's sovereignty. The scriptures teach (e.g. Ephesians 1) that the cross was always part of God's plan from the beginning. Therefore any atonement model has to come up with an explanation of how God can use an injustice to bring about his purpose of salvation. PSA has an answer to that. I realise that you guys don't like it, but PSA is precisely an explanation of how the cross can be an injustice and still used by God.


BTW - Where is an answer to my question about CV? (Why does our champion have to be fully human?) Where are all the people complaining about this thread not being about CV? [Big Grin] I gave you a chance to talk about CV and all I get are four replies about PSA! [Razz]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Our champion has to be fully human, or he's not our champion. If he's not human, then humanity is not taken into the Godhead at the Ascension. A non-human champion could conceivably defeat sin for us, but would not enable theosis; this is getting a bit beyond the cross itself, but you need to take a holistic view. This is the package - God the Son becomes man, uniting the estranged human and divine natures, defeats evil in one person with two combined natures, and then returns to heaven with His humanity intact. It's by identifying ourselves with His humanity rather than our own that we become partakers of the victory and the return to heaven - hence all this dying to self and living to Christ, counting ourselves dead to sin and alive to Christ, being baptised into Him, being His body and all the other metaphors based on this concept.

It's not so much CV which requires the humanity of Christ (although it does) as the entire package of which CV is a part.

Incidently, does this also answer the "I don't see how CV works?" questions? It doesn't try to "work" in and of itself - it works as a stage in the Incarnation which leads to the possibility of our theosis.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Why does Jesus have to be fully human in order to fight for us?

Because the "power of darkness" is a problem for humans, not for God. Demons could not even begin to approach God to attack Him. But they could approach and attack Jesus, and He could respond to them, overcome them, and take away their power. [Angel]

From the moment the fall took place, God foresaw that He would have to come down in human form to encounter and overcome the power of hell among people on earth.

You would think that He could snap His fingers and destroy it completely if He chose - and He could have done that. [Paranoid]

But this would have not have recognized what evil essentially is, and it would have gone against the principle of leaving humanity in freedom. [Frown]

It was therefore more in accord with His love to provide means for humans to overcome evil as if of themselves. He did this by coming into the world as a human, doing things to provide those means, and fighting against the hells even to the point of giving His life. This way He restored the spiritual order, and set people free to follow Him or not according to their own free will.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Hence a lot of this is to do with how we view God's sovereignty. The scriptures teach (e.g. Ephesians 1) that the cross was always part of God's plan from the beginning. Therefore any atonement model has to come up with an explanation of how God can use an injustice to bring about his purpose of salvation. PSA has an answer to that. I realise that you guys don't like it, but PSA is precisely an explanation of how the cross can be an injustice and still used by God.

I didn't realise that we had a problem with how God could use injustice to bring about His justice (aka salvation). The whole point about the cross is that, by submitting to the power of sin and death, Christ defeats that power. God's strength is most perfectly expressed in humility and weakness. It is that humility and weakness (included in that being the acceptance of injustice in order to right that injustice) which alone is powerful enough to do what all the heavenly host in battle array (as it were), could not. Not might is right, but rather, right is might! I submit that, whatever the shortcomings of CV might be, failing to give an account of the reason for the injustice of the cross is not one of them.

The problem is not so much that the cross is unjust, not that God uses that injustice, but rather the mechanism by which God brings about justice, and what form that justice takes, (ie penal or restorative).

quote:
BTW - Where is an answer to my question about CV? (Why does our champion have to be fully human?) Where are all the people complaining about this thread not being about CV? I gave you a chance to talk about CV and all I get are four replies about PSA!
Well, the classic answer is "What He does not assume, He cannot redeem!" I also think that there might be other dynamics at work here. I might even venture a quasi-heretical view that God needed to know, in his experience, what it was like to be fully human, to lay aside all the characteristics of Divinity, in his desire for identification with His beloved creatures. But I'm sure our Orthodox brethren will have a much more systematic answer.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Our champion has to be fully human, or he's not our champion. If he's not human, then humanity is not taken into the Godhead at the Ascension. A non-human champion could conceivably defeat sin for us, but would not enable theosis; this is getting a bit beyond the cross itself, but you need to take a holistic view. This is the package - God the Son becomes man, uniting the estranged human and divine natures, defeats evil in one person with two combined natures, and then returns to heaven with His humanity intact. It's by identifying ourselves with His humanity rather than our own that we become partakers of the victory and the return to heaven - hence all this dying to self and living to Christ, counting ourselves dead to sin and alive to Christ, being baptised into Him, being His body and all the other metaphors based on this concept.

It's not so much CV which requires the humanity of Christ (although it does) as the entire package of which CV is a part.

Incidently, does this also answer the "I don't see how CV works?" questions? It doesn't try to "work" in and of itself - it works as a stage in the Incarnation which leads to the possibility of our theosis.

Karl, this is superb! Absolutely brilliant!! [Overused] [Overused] [Overused]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A non-human champion could conceivably defeat sin for us, but would not enable theosis; this is getting a bit beyond the cross itself, but you need to take a holistic view. This is the package - God the Son becomes man, uniting the estranged human and divine natures, defeats evil in one person with two combined natures, and then returns to heaven with His humanity intact. It's by identifying ourselves with His humanity rather than our own that we become partakers of the victory and the return to heaven - hence all this dying to self and living to Christ, counting ourselves dead to sin and alive to Christ, being baptised into Him, being His body and all the other metaphors based on this concept.

Karl, this is superb! Absolutely brilliant!! [Overused] [Overused] [Overused]
Yes, thank you Karl.

It seems as though the difficult part to understand, and the thing that makes PSA appealing, is the part about how His dying is a victory over sin.

It makes sense to me that having the part of us that longs for worldly and self-centered goals die, so that higher goals may live, is what the struggle is all about. It makes sense to me that Jesus would have gone through this same process, but with cosmic effects, because of His divinity.

To me this is the essence of CV. It is in no way compatible with PSA - at least not that I can see.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Come on guys, you can do better than this. All three of you have done nothing more than restate the question.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's by identifying ourselves with His humanity rather than our own that we become partakers of the victory and the return to heaven - hence all this dying to self and living to Christ, counting ourselves dead to sin and alive to Christ, being baptised into Him, being His body and all the other metaphors based on this concept.

That's the only bit that refers to why Jesus had to be fully human and all it does it link to various metaphors in a rather nebulous way. I could identify myself with Hercules if you want me to, but he wasn't fully human.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It was therefore more in accord with His love to provide means for humans to overcome evil as if of themselves.

You give the game away here Freddy. If you don't know an answer just say so.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, the classic answer is "What He does not assume, He cannot redeem!"

That certainly isn't an answer to my question, it is the considered answer to the question - did Jesus have to be fully human in order to save humanity? ... i.e. YES.

Right, let's start again. We've established that orthodox Christianity affirms that it was essential for Jesus to be fully human in order to save humanity. Why, in the CV model, was that necessary?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It was therefore more in accord with His love to provide means for humans to overcome evil as if of themselves.

You give the game away here Freddy. If you don't know an answer just say so.
[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
We've established that orthodox Christianity affirms that it was essential for Jesus to be fully human in order to save humanity. Why, in the CV model, was that necessary?
recapitulation and theosis.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Another thing that CV brings to the table is that any model of substitutionary atonement including PSA, expressed in the best light focuses on salvation in individual and personal terms. While this is good, CV broadens this focus to a larger understanding of salvation and redemption of all creation including the systems, structures, and powers.

As long as this is not seen as an either/or but a both/and thing, I think that here CV gives us some gret insights into the depth of sin that a personal individual focus can miss.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

Right, let's start again. We've established that orthodox Christianity affirms that it was essential for Jesus to be fully human in order to save humanity. Why, in the CV model, was that necessary?

For those orthodox Christians who don't see salvation in terms of getting into heaven v damned to hell and who see mankind as inherently good and with free will to turn to God, perhaps, because in exercising our free will we in general keep going too far from God thereby losing touch with Him as in the Prodigal Son scenario, but with God coming to the errant son to remind him of what he was missing.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:


[QUOTE] PSA does not fit into that line of thinking. It fits with a very basic human idea of payback justice. The part that people are appauled by is not the illogic of it, but its profound injustice. Specifically the idea that punishing the innocent in place of the guilty would be just, when in fact it would be a grave injustice. If a leader executed innocent people because of the crimes of others no one would say "look how seriously they take sin" they would gasp at how tyranical that ruler is.

This is straw man territory. You are criticising a travesty of what people who live PSA actually believe. The fact though is that justice, by definition, though you continually refuse to acknowledge it, contains a payback or retributive aspect. It is not all about that but wrong cannot be addressed without a penal element and spare me the diatribe on forgiveness..we've been through that. In terms of the cross, Christ volunteered to take on the punishment for our sins. have a squiz at Is 53:4,5 "The chastening of our well-being fell upon him...He bore our griefs and carried our sorrows.."

quote:
I don't think that is at all what the NT is saying. Rather it is more like a firefighter who rushes into a burning building to save people. Christ does not demand appeasement, he comes as a servant and acts in humility giving his life for the outcast and the forsaken. God is humiliated, weak, woundable, forsaken, cursed, killed. God was "afflicted" and "taken away by oppression and injustice" Isaiah tells us. That was the scandal that Paul was refering to historically
Christ does never demand appeasement. It is the Father's holiness that cannot abide sin. Christ came certainly as you state, but he also came to bear the iniquities of many as stated in Is 53 11
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
This is straw man territory. You are criticising a travesty of what people who live PSA actually believe.
How so?

1) You say that justice demands retribution.
2)You propose that Christ was retributively punished instead of us.
3)It is in any legal system profoundly immoral to punish the innocent in place of the guilty.
4) Quod erat demonstrandum: PSA is rooted in a miscarriage of justice that can only be described as tyrannical.

The options open are
A) justify tyranny
...or...
B) acknowledge that the penal justice system is simply the wrong way to understand the cross, and look for a better way rooted in the motifs found in Scripture.

I pick "B"


quote:
The fact though is that justice, by definition, though you continually refuse to acknowledge it, contains a payback or retributive aspect.
whose definition?

This is a debate, and in a debate you need to argue your side. You can't just assume it as a given and declare victory.


quote:
It is not all about that but wrong cannot be addressed without a penal element and spare me the diatribe on forgiveness..we've been through that.
"Diatribe on forgiveness"? Wow. That sounds pretty cynical. Is the Sermon on the Mount a diatribe on forgiveness?

And (big surprise I say this)... of course wrong can be addressed without a penal element.

quote:
In terms of the cross, Christ volunteered to take on the punishment for our sins. have a squiz at Is 53:4,5 "The chastening of our well-being fell upon him...He bore our griefs and carried our sorrows.."
You need to read the context of these passages, not just cherry pick verses. The context is one of saying what a horrible injustice it all was.

quote:
Christ does never demand appeasement. It is the Father's holiness that cannot abide sin.
Jesus says: "if you have seen me you have seen the Father". Jesus reveals the Father to us.

To separate the two as if the Father and Son had conflicting motivations and ways is highly unorthodox. It is something even most Calvinists would disagree with you on.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
We've established that orthodox Christianity affirms that it was essential for Jesus to be fully human in order to save humanity. Why, in the CV model, was that necessary?

I agree with what Sharktacos said.

I would also add that Christ had to be human because hell cannot approach and attack God. He needed to overcome the power of hell at the human level.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
We've established that orthodox Christianity affirms that it was essential for Jesus to be fully human in order to save humanity. Why, in the CV model, was that necessary?
recapitulation and theosis.
And what you think my next question is going to be?

...

...

... why does Jesus have to be fully human for recapitulation and theosis? [Biased]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Another thing that CV brings to the table is that any model of substitutionary atonement including PSA, expressed in the best light focuses on salvation in individual and personal terms. While this is good, CV broadens this focus to a larger understanding of salvation and redemption of all creation including the systems, structures, and powers.

As long as this is not seen as an either/or but a both/and thing, I think that here CV gives us some gret insights into the depth of sin that a personal individual focus can miss.

I understand the bit about 'personal' terms (which I think is essential). However, I don't see how PSA can ever be accussed of being a model that is individualistic. Jesus died once for all of us. I may say that he died for me but that has to be a subset of he died for us all ... how can it not be corporate if we are saved 'in him'?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, the classic answer is "What He does not assume, He cannot redeem!"

That certainly isn't an answer to my question, it is the considered answer to the question - did Jesus have to be fully human in order to save humanity? ... i.e. YES.

Right, let's start again. We've established that orthodox Christianity affirms that it was essential for Jesus to be fully human in order to save humanity. Why, in the CV model, was that necessary?

OK, I'm clearly not understanding the question. Clearly, if Jesus had to be fully human in order to save humanity, as you accept, and if CV is the mechanism by which that salvation is enabled, then it follows that, in order for CV to accomplish its purpose, Christ would have to be fully human (and, of course, fully divine). It may not be the answer you want, (not sure what that answer is) but it is no less valid. I really don't get the distinction you are driving at. It's not as if PSA doesn't pose the same questions and give the same answers.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, the classic answer is "What He does not assume, He cannot redeem!"

That certainly isn't an answer to my question, it is the considered answer to the question - did Jesus have to be fully human in order to save humanity? ... i.e. YES.

Right, let's start again. We've established that orthodox Christianity affirms that it was essential for Jesus to be fully human in order to save humanity. Why, in the CV model, was that necessary?

OK, I'm clearly not understanding the question. Clearly, if Jesus had to be fully human in order to save humanity, as you accept, and if CV is the mechanism by which that salvation is enabled, then it follows that, in order for CV to accomplish its purpose, Christ would have to be fully human (and, of course, fully divine). It may not be the answer you want, (not sure what that answer is) but it is no less valid. I really don't get the distinction you are driving at. It's not as if PSA doesn't pose the same questions and give the same answers.
JJ, I think that Johnny is just saying that your answer "What He does not assume, He cannot redeem!" is an assertion, not an answer - ie. "He had to be fully human because He had to be fully human."
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Another thing that CV brings to the table is that any model of substitutionary atonement including PSA, expressed in the best light focuses on salvation in individual and personal terms. While this is good, CV broadens this focus to a larger understanding of salvation and redemption of all creation including the systems, structures, and powers.

As long as this is not seen as an either/or but a both/and thing, I think that here CV gives us some gret insights into the depth of sin that a personal individual focus can miss.

I understand the bit about 'personal' terms (which I think is essential). However, I don't see how PSA can ever be accussed of being a model that is individualistic. Jesus died once for all of us. I may say that he died for me but that has to be a subset of he died for us all ... how can it not be corporate if we are saved 'in him'?
OK, if you don't do individualistic, try anthropocentric. PSA is about the human condition, our sin, our salvation, which, in itself is all right and proper. CV covers that same ground, but also addresses structural and cosmic concerns. It addresses, as a matter of centrality, not only the sin done by us, but also the sin done to us, and, indeed, the effect of sin on the whole of the cosmic order. This cosmic dimension seems more like an add-on to PSA, a sort of "Oh, and by the way...". CV, rather, starts from the cosmic reordering of the universe, and then works outwards from that towards the consequences of that re-ordering for the individual.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, the classic answer is "What He does not assume, He cannot redeem!"

That certainly isn't an answer to my question, it is the considered answer to the question - did Jesus have to be fully human in order to save humanity? ... i.e. YES.

Right, let's start again. We've established that orthodox Christianity affirms that it was essential for Jesus to be fully human in order to save humanity. Why, in the CV model, was that necessary?

OK, I'm clearly not understanding the question. Clearly, if Jesus had to be fully human in order to save humanity, as you accept, and if CV is the mechanism by which that salvation is enabled, then it follows that, in order for CV to accomplish its purpose, Christ would have to be fully human (and, of course, fully divine). It may not be the answer you want, (not sure what that answer is) but it is no less valid. I really don't get the distinction you are driving at. It's not as if PSA doesn't pose the same questions and give the same answers.
JJ, I think that Johnny is just saying that your answer "What He does not assume, He cannot redeem!" is an assertion, not an answer - ie. "He had to be fully human because He had to be fully human."
Well that may be so, but he seems to accept that premise, so I concluded he must be looking for some other distinction.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I really don't get the distinction you are driving at. It's not as if PSA doesn't pose the same questions and give the same answers.

If Jesus is receiving the punishment for sinful humanity then, by definition, he must be fully human. (Otherwise, as we have said ad infinitum, it would be unjust.) Equally, for Jesus to live a perfect life which can be credited to us, then he had to be fully human (and I would argue even have a sinful human nature, if not be a sinner) so that it really can become 'our righteousness'. (It is meaningless for Jesus to 'fulfil the law' unless he does it the hard way, the way we have to try to.)

This is all basic substitute stuff that, I think, most of us are agreed on (if not the imputed righteousness bit). Anyway, most CVers seem to agree on substitution. My question is, why does CV need substitution of humanity for humanity? PSA falls down completely if it isn't.

I play for a church football team. In the past CV has been compared to (e.g.) Steven Gerrard coming to play for us so that we win (we do sometimes without his help but that is not part of the analogy). But that would only work if SG was already a member of our team, otherwise it is not fair. Where is the equivalent 'bit' for CV?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK, if you don't do individualistic, try anthropocentric. PSA is about the human condition, our sin, our salvation, which, in itself is all right and proper. CV covers that same ground, but also addresses structural and cosmic concerns. It addresses, as a matter of centrality, not only the sin done by us, but also the sin done to us, and, indeed, the effect of sin on the whole of the cosmic order. This cosmic dimension seems more like an add-on to PSA, a sort of "Oh, and by the way...". CV, rather, starts from the cosmic reordering of the universe, and then works outwards from that towards the consequences of that re-ordering for the individual.

Great - I like that.

... mind you, that is why I want CV + PSA. [Big Grin] (So that the personal aspect is emphasises too!)
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
The fact though is that justice, by definition, though you continually refuse to acknowledge it, contains a payback or retributive aspect. It is not all about that but wrong cannot be addressed without a penal element and spare me the diatribe on forgiveness..we've been through that. In terms of the cross, Christ volunteered to take on the punishment for our sins. have a squiz at Is 53:4,5 "The chastening of our well-being fell upon him...He bore our griefs and carried our sorrows.."

Jamat, you have yet to give any backing to your assertions that "The Father's holiness cannot abide sin" (which I understand to be code meaning "God cannot accept into his presence sinners") and "Justice must have a retributive element"(emphasis mine). I just don't accept either of these two premises, and you have done nothing to demonstrate to me that they come from the Bible, rather than from personal opinion.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Steven Gerrard coming to play for us so that we win (we do sometimes without his help but that is not part of the analogy). But that would only work if SG was already a member of our team, otherwise it is not fair. Where is the equivalent 'bit' for CV?

How about the fact that he would have to be human to play football, since non-humans aren't allowed to play. Usually. [Paranoid]

So in CV God had to take on a human form in order to overcome sin, because sin is a human characteristic that is meaningless outside of humanity. Hell could not attack God Himself, but it could, and would, attack His humanity - so He could defeat it.

You can't win without being a player.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK, if you don't do individualistic, try anthropocentric. PSA is about the human condition, our sin, our salvation, which, in itself is all right and proper. CV covers that same ground, but also addresses structural and cosmic concerns. It addresses, as a matter of centrality, not only the sin done by us, but also the sin done to us, and, indeed, the effect of sin on the whole of the cosmic order. This cosmic dimension seems more like an add-on to PSA, a sort of "Oh, and by the way...". CV, rather, starts from the cosmic reordering of the universe, and then works outwards from that towards the consequences of that re-ordering for the individual.

Great - I like that.

... mind you, that is why I want CV + PSA. [Big Grin] (So that the personal aspect is emphasises too!)

You obviously missed the bit that said "CV covers the same ground", then [Snigger] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
If Jesus is receiving the punishment for sinful humanity then, by definition, he must be fully human. (Otherwise, as we have said ad infinitum, it would be unjust.)
Well, I think that most CVers would say that an innocent person being punished for the sins of humanity is pretty unjust, whether or no that person is fully human. But it isn't so much the injustice of the idea, as the fact that, under PSA God requires that injustice, and then pretends that, really, it is to satisfy justice.

quote:
Equally, for Jesus to live a perfect life which can be credited to us, then he had to be fully human (and I would argue even have a sinful human nature, if not be a sinner) so that it really can become 'our righteousness'. (It is meaningless for Jesus to 'fulfil the law' unless he does it the hard way, the way we have to try to.)

Agreed!

quote:
I play for a church football team. In the past CV has been compared to (e.g.) Steven Gerrard coming to play for us so that we win (we do sometimes without his help but that is not part of the analogy). But that would only work if SG was already a member of our team, otherwise it is not fair. Where is the equivalent 'bit' for CV?
Surely, that is (part of) the equivalent bit of CV. Jesus is, indeed, already a member of our team, Humanity United! (reasonably priced strip available by request, somewhat tuneless beery anthem due for Christmas release!)
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Surely, that is (part of) the equivalent bit of CV. Jesus is, indeed, already a member of our team, Humanity United! (reasonably priced strip available by request, somewhat tuneless beery anthem due for Christmas release!)

Yes, but that is just an analogy. My point is that, in order to work, an analogy has to explain something in reality. There has to be 'contact' points.

As Freddy's [Paranoid] indicates the FA might be unhappy with aliens playing the beautiful game but I can't see what similar rules CV has to appeal to.

The 'Champion' metaphor only needs the idea of subsitute (fighting on our behalf) - he has to fight for us, but he doesn't have to be one of us. I'm not saying that we should ditch CV because of it (because it is only an analogy [Yipee] ), just pointing out weaknesses in CV too - I think it fails the test of being an 'umbrella' model.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As Freddy's [Paranoid] indicates the FA might be unhappy with aliens playing the beautiful game but I can't see what similar rules CV has to appeal to.

I keep saying. Hell cannot approach and engage God. God does not play football. You have to be human.

Similarly Hell cannot enter into a conflict with God and be overcome at the human level unless God is at the human level. This was accomplished by His being born a human.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Johnny:

quote:
But that would only work if SG was already a member of our team, otherwise it is not fair. Where is the equivalent 'bit' for CV?
Incarnation. That gives Him the residence requirements to play for us.

Like I said, you have to see the whole Incarnation holistically to make sense of it. One problem with PSA is that it leads to a Christ who was only incarnated to die. I've heard it preached by PSA oriented preachers - "Jesus was born just to die". I often wondered why He bothered with the 30 years or so He spent here. He could have just appeared in human form on Palm Sunday to satisfy PSA, the way they explained it. That wouldn't work for CV.

It's layers within layers. The Cross makes no sense without the Resurrection. The Resurrection makes no sense without the Ascension. The Ascension makes no sense without the Incarnation. Which is why Christmas is as important as Easter. Without Christmas, there is no Easter. Without Easter, Christmas loses some of its significance.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Karl, is this a real dispute or just down to rhetoric?

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've heard it preached by PSA oriented preachers - "Jesus was born just to die".

Did you really hear that? Exactly?

I have frequently heard, "Jesus was born to die." The difference is signficant. If you read, e.g. Mark 8: 31-34, Jesus has to teach Peter that his death is essential to his ministry.

Jesus was not only born to die, but he was born to die.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I often wondered why He bothered with the 30 years or so He spent here. He could have just appeared in human form on Palm Sunday to satisfy PSA, the way they explained it. That wouldn't work for CV.

It wouldn't work for PSA either. E.g. Jesus had to live a perfect life (overcoming temptation) for it to 'work'. I can't see a week covering 'tempted in every way like us' somehow!

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's layers within layers.

So now Jesus is an ogre is he? [Big Grin] That'll do donkey, that'll do.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The Cross makes no sense without the Resurrection. The Resurrection makes no sense without the Ascension. The Ascension makes no sense without the Incarnation. Which is why Christmas is as important as Easter. Without Christmas, there is no Easter. Without Easter, Christmas loses some of its significance.

I couldn't agree more. Now, what were we arguing about again?

The irony is that PSA sees it all as one coordinated whole. The problem you speak of comes about because when speaking of the Christ event PSAers must link incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension and out pouring of the Spirit together into one purpose. If the death is stressed then the one coordinated 'event' can sound like it is just the death.

It is those who do not see Christmas, Easter, Pentecost as all about the same thing who will speak more about them separately.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
He could have just appeared in human form on Palm Sunday to satisfy PSA, the way they explained it. That wouldn't work for CV.


It contradicts PSA - Passover has nothing to do with sin offerings. If PSA was the real meaning of Christ's incarnation then surely God would have chosen Yom Kippur which is the most important day in Judaism's Temple relationship with God, the Day of Atonement for all the sins of the people in the preceding year. The only day of the year when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies to, as was explained to me in a tunnel tour when we stopped at the nearest point to the Holy of Holies to pray, the priest took onto himself all the knowledge of the people to ask for God's forgiveness for each and the nation, a time of spiritual danger for the priest because of the enormity of this profound act.

By contrast, Passover was God's instruction to the people to free them from slavery. Sure, atonement for sin can be read into this without controversy, but it's not a sacrifice specifically for sins. It's a much greater idea.

Of course, that still doesn't deal with the intrinsic controversy which PSA presents, that we worship a God who requires blood sacrifice to appease his wrath...


Myrrh
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Johnny,

quote:
why does Jesus have to be fully human for recapitulation and theosis?
It is inherent in the definition of recapitulation. Recapitulation says that God became human entering into our lives including our weakness and corruption (i.e. our vulnerability to starvation, violence, sickness, etc). This includes entering into our sin, but it adds a lot more too. Not just our sin, but our being sinned against, our suffering through doubt, depression, tragedy, injustice, cancer, AIDS, terror, all of that. Christ by entering into that brokenness overcomes it, and as we die to our old life, we can take on his new life. Jesus takes on our life so we can take on his. That's recapitulation. A good treatise on this is "On The Incarnation" by Athanasius. Also Luther talks about the same idea in his commentary on Galatians which I've quoted here a few times.

quote:
I understand the bit about 'personal' terms (which I think is essential). However, I don't see how PSA can ever be accussed of being a model that is individualistic.
By individualistic I do not mean selfish, but simply focused on persons. I do not mean as opposed to "corporate" because that is still a focus on persons.

What CV adds is the redemption of structures and systems. So the law is judged and redeemed, hurtful religion is judged and redeemed, wrath is judged and redeemed. So CV goes beyond seeing only people's sin, and sees the sins of authority, the sins of institutions and governments and corporations. It deals with the "authority and powers" that masquerade as being on the side of God and justice and freedom when really they belong to the god of this world. So in this way it deals with a much larger scope of sin then a position can that only focuses on our personal sins(or even corporate, meaning all of us added up).

Now the idea of vicarious substitutionary atonement is crucial here as the linchpin of how CV works, but the penal aspect - even if we think of it in a nuanced and sophisticated way that we all might agree on - is only one small aspect of even the personal dimension of the Atonement, let alone the larger systemic and cosmic dimentions.

Once you understand this larger picture it becomes clear that PSA does not work in that framework, similar to how one may be able to explain some aspects of physics with Newton, but when we get on a scale that takes us into the cosmos the Newtonian model becomes inadequate.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
This is straw man territory. You are criticising a travesty of what people who live PSA actually believe.
How so?

1) You say that justice demands retribution.
2)You propose that Christ was retributively punished instead of us.
3)It is in any legal system profoundly immoral to punish the innocent in place of the guilty.
4) Quod erat demonstrandum: PSA is rooted in a miscarriage of justice that can only be described as tyrannical.

.

your comment under three really does QED your problem to me.
You are judging God's way of doing things by interposing human thinking and judgements on them then swearing black is white by denying that the scripture teaches a substitutionary death which is in fact the reason any of us can have a relationship with God.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
The fact though is that justice, by definition, though you continually refuse to acknowledge it, contains a payback or retributive aspect. It is not all about that but wrong cannot be addressed without a penal element and spare me the diatribe on forgiveness..we've been through that. In terms of the cross, Christ volunteered to take on the punishment for our sins. have a squiz at Is 53:4,5 "The chastening of our well-being fell upon him...He bore our griefs and carried our sorrows.."

Jamat, you have yet to give any backing to your assertions that "The Father's holiness cannot abide sin" (which I understand to be code meaning "God cannot accept into his presence sinners") and "Justice must have a retributive element"(emphasis mine). I just don't accept either of these two premises, and you have done nothing to demonstrate to me that they come from the Bible, rather than from personal opinion.
Which shows that your concept of salvation does not have a scriptural base at all.
Let's start with Eden. Why did God clothe them in skins? why weren't fig leaves good enough? He had to kill an animal to get skins right? Similarly, why was Abel peferred above Cain? Same deal. He provided blood sacrifice. Why did he have to? Because sin could not be covered even temporarily any other way. Jesus was the ultimate blood sacrifice, Why did he offer himself? Because God needed a once and for all way to deal with sin. Why? BECAUSE HE CAN"T ABIDE IT! In you, in me in anyone. The wages of sin is death but the gift of God in Christ is eternal life..now there's a thought!

You are the one incidentally trying to rewrite the definition of justice. I've never seen a working model that doesn't have a penal element. Weren't you ever put on detention in school to 'atone' for a misdemeanour? Mr JJ! Write that out 100 times!

[ 10. August 2007, 03:22: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
I've never seen a working model that doesn't have a penal element.
That might explain why you cannot imagine anything else
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Jamat, my problem with all this, beside PSA reducing God to any number of old primitive ideas which claimed God needed blood shed for one reason or another, is that this simply doesn't gel for me as being the God Christ taught.

Be ye therefore perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect", "Neither do I condemn you, go sin no more", "If you would enter into life keep the commandments", and so on.

Now, when I work from Christ's teaching about God and search the OT for Him I find the God that doesn't require sacrifice, that first weaned Abraham away from human sacrifice, that loves mercy and taught this through his prophets as Christ reminds us:

quote:
"Matthew 9:13
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


Matthew 12:7
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Mark 12:33
And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

Hebrews 10:6
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Psalm 40:6
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Psalm 51:16
For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.

Psalm 51:17
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Proverbs 21:3
To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

Isaiah 1:11
To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

Isaiah 66:3
He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.

Jeremiah 6:20
To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.

Jeremiah 7:22
For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
23But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

Hosea 6:6
For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.


Micah 6:8
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

What I see in the Bible is the usual mix in history even as played out today, there are still those who claim it is a God ordained right for them to kill others for one reason or another, which is a type of sacrifice. But Christ didn't teach this - he made it very clear that those who think this 'don't know which spirit they are of'.

The Jeremiah quote above is particularly interesting I think, he says that none of the sacrificial laws were given by God - was he wrong? He was closer to the time than we are now, but if he was right about the history many had forgotten it. If he was right, where did it come from?

I find it illogical to think the same God who was trying to fashion a nation under the moral guidelines of the commandments which specifically taught not to kill/murder would then command the genocide, the mass slaughter of all the men, women and children, of the Canaanites. It just doesn't make sense.

The most rational explanation I can come up with is that claims of God demanding murder are human constructs, (to justify getting land, for destroying other beliefs etc.). Ditto for requiring blood sacrifice.

Now, if one believes in a God who requires blood sacrifice as Aztecs did for example, Christ is the perfect answer to put a stop to such barbarity, as the final sacrifice. It's obvious that many Jews still thought blood sacrifice was necessary and related to Christ from that, there's nothing wrong in doing this, Christ came because God so loved all the world and is the perfect solution here as the substitution given to Abraham. But from this surely we must go on to Christ and His teaching about God? Christ taught the commandments, thou shalt not kill; Christ taught that God loved all regardless of whether they were sinners or righteous...; and we're instructed to love as Christ's God loves.

The Bible is first of all a history of a people and of that people's finding God and this includes when they got it wrong and the excuses they made, and Christ pointed out the differences when he argued with the teachers of the day who insisted their man-made laws took priority over the commandments - His gripe with them was that their teachings stopped people getting into heaven.

And now I'm beginning to ramble, so I'll stop [Snore]


Myrrh
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QUOTE]
3)It is in any legal system profoundly immoral to punish the innocent in place of the guilty.


.

your comment under three really does QED your problem to me.
You are judging God's way of doing things by interposing human thinking and judgements on them then swearing black is white by denying that the scripture teaches a substitutionary death which is in fact the reason any of us can have a relationship with God.

He's doing no such thing. He's stating the bloody obvious. I cannot for the life of me imagine how anyone can get their concept of "justice" so severed from any concept of absolute morality, reason or their own conscience to deny that punishing innocent A for the sins of person B is unjust.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Johnny,

quote:
why does Jesus have to be fully human for recapitulation and theosis?
It is inherent in the definition of recapitulation. Recapitulation says that God became human entering into our lives including our weakness and corruption (i.e. our vulnerability to starvation, violence, sickness, etc). This includes entering into our sin, but it adds a lot more too. Not just our sin, but our being sinned against, our suffering through doubt, depression, tragedy, injustice, cancer, AIDS, terror, all of that. Christ by entering into that brokenness overcomes it, and as we die to our old life, we can take on his new life. Jesus takes on our life so we can take on his. That's recapitulation. A good treatise on this is "On The Incarnation" by Athanasius. Also Luther talks about the same idea in his commentary on Galatians which I've quoted here a few times.
I get this. It is a bit like Jesus being injected with the 'disease' of sin so that once his antibodies have fought it off we can benefit from the innoculations. I would include this other stuff under a very broad understanding of 'sin'.

However, like the others, you are explaining what Jesus did without giving a reason why. It is clear that the early church fathers thought it essential for Jesus to be fully human. I'm sorry if I'm a stuck record here, but PSA has a reason, I don't see where it 'fits' in CV. Again, this doesn't make me want to ditch CV just another reason why I want to keep PSA.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

What CV adds is the redemption of structures and systems. So the law is judged and redeemed...

That's funny, since Paul specifically states that there was nothing wrong with the law (e.g. Romans 7: 12). It did not need redeeming.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Once you understand this larger picture it becomes clear that PSA does not work in that framework, similar to how one may be able to explain some aspects of physics with Newton, but when we get on a scale that takes us into the cosmos the Newtonian model becomes inadequate.

[Confused] Obviously 'punishment' is an inappropriate word for the cosmic stuff but I thought that the legal transaction model of Jesus taking all the bad stuff onto himself fitted perfectly in such a framework.

I'm not sure how appealing to scientific models help you. The problems you refer to arise because (currently) it is impossilbe to reconcile macro and micro physics. Models fail to cohere. However, scientists do not ditch one or the other. If we were to follow your analogy through the conclusion would be that we need both CV and PSA. [Big Grin] I think I've said that somewhere before. [Big Grin] [Big Grin] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Now, when I work from Christ's teaching about God and search the OT for Him I find the God that doesn't require sacrifice, that first weaned Abraham away from human sacrifice, that loves mercy and taught this through his prophets as Christ reminds us:

As it happens my bible reading for this morning (I'm a day behind [Disappointed] ) was Nahum 1.

E.g. verse 2, "The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies."

I'm not trying to dismiss all your OT quotes. Of course we need to come up with an intergrated answer. My point is simply that it is easy to cherry pick according to what we want to see.
 
Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :
 
If you (collectively) don't mind someone wandering in at this late stage (I have read the thread)...

One thing I am wondering about is Aulen's view of CV as being "continuous" versus the Latin and subjective views of atonement as being "discontinuous". As far as I can understand his argument, this "continuity" is because CV emphasises the action of God all the way through (because Christ is divine as well as human), and seeing Christ as taking the initiative (fighting the powers of darkness throughout his incarnation, and going to the cross knowingly and willingly, versus perhaps his view of other models as God the Father sending a more passive Son). So Christ as God has to reach out to God the Father, but also Christ has to be human for this activity to affect human fate. I like the incarnational aspects of it, but can't see how this "continuity" is so much less present in the other models.

To me the positives of CV include the taking seriously of the entire incarnation and life, teachings and healings of Jesus *as part of the model* (not saying proponents of other models purely focus on the death) and how well it integrates forgiveness and non-violence (OK, so can models like Abelard's). Is that all there is to it or does the continuity thing really matter as much as Aulen thought it did?

(Personally I guess that to the extent I have a model it includes elements of CV, elements of Abelard, ideas of accepting multiple metaphors and not shutting down metaphor prematurely into bald single meanings, and a concern that somehow cultural relevance changes over time and place but the core aspects of the divine are unchangeable and can still be understood.)
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

I'm not trying to dismiss all your OT quotes. Of course we need to come up with an intergrated answer. My point is simply that it is easy to cherry pick according to what we want to see.

Not so much cherry picking as in the same thread as Christ's teaching about God - seems to me if someone believes in the wrathful God who insists on blood to appease him then it's also cherry picking to exclude what is most definitely Christ's God - the perfection He taught us to strive for was to love all whether friend or foe in emulation of His God. Perhaps you can live with the 'schizophrenia' of believing these two descriptions are of one and same God, but I find it creates an irrational God. Christ is logos - logic, reason, rationality, wisdom, commonsense, speech - not gobbledegook. Order not disorder in the universe.

As I see it, it's either an irrational God - who would insist on keeping the commandment to "not kill", (which Christ understood as "evil", is it better to do good or to do evil on the Sabbath, to save lives or to kill?), but also insists on murdering others for one reason or another (to get Canaanite land, to impose 'his' belief system on others, to kill for breaking a commandment as stoning for adultery) or a rational God who means what he says and the 'other God' actually man's well practiced excuse for blood lust.

From the first we end up with the complete, as I see it, 'insanity' of those who quote 'vengeance is mine says the Lord' while murdering those objecting to the acts of the followers of a murdering God or belief in him.

Anyway, so how do you account for the difference in the God who doesn't require blood sacrifice, who thinks it an abomination, with the God who gave detailed instructions for it? For the difference between the God who loves his enemies equally with his friends and the God who demands slaughtering even innocent children and stealing property so shortly after giving strict instruction not to murder and not to steal..?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Hi Joan_of_Quark. Good question - I'll leave it to the 'CV experts'.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Anyway, so how do you account for the difference in the God who doesn't require blood sacrifice, who thinks it an abomination, with the God who gave detailed instructions for it? For the difference between the God who loves his enemies equally with his friends and the God who demands slaughtering even innocent children and stealing property so shortly after giving strict instruction not to murder and not to steal..?

I didn't say it was easy. I just said it had to be done.

Jesus specifically stated that he did not come to abolish any part of the OT, but rather to fulfil it. (Matthew 5: 17)

I wrestle with all the same problems and apparent contradictions that you do. However, Jesus does not give us the option of deciding which bits we can jettison.

Who gets to decide which bits we keep and which bit we reject? (I thought that the church had already done that at least 1600 years ago.) Unless you want to start a new denomination it seems we are stuck with all the scriptures.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Anyway, so how do you account for the difference in the God who doesn't require blood sacrifice, who thinks it an abomination, with the God who gave detailed instructions for it? For the difference between the God who loves his enemies equally with his friends and the God who demands slaughtering even innocent children and stealing property so shortly after giving strict instruction not to murder and not to steal..?

I didn't say it was easy. I just said it had to be done.

Jesus specifically stated that he did not come to abolish any part of the OT, but rather to fulfil it. (Matthew 5: 17)

Not quite, He said don't even think he came to abolish the law or the prophets - and he didn't, he continued teaching to obey the law as given to Moses on Mt Sinai - 'if you love me keep my commandments', 'if you would enter into life, keep the commandments', - not to call the righteous (they're already as Zacharias and Elizabeth righteous in the face of God), but sinners to repentance. This is the law Paul discusses re Gentiles, that which is already written in their hearts even though they hadn't received it as teaching as had the Jews, and by which their own conscience convicts them and by which they'll be judged at the end. For those who see Christ as the "Word of God", the Logos, all Scripture is useful, not just the OT, but the OT particularly because fulfilling the prophets re Christ himself - 'salvation is of the Jews'.

As I said earlier, Christ's gripe with the teachers of the day was for creating man-made laws which shackle and putting these above the commandments (Matthew 23) - they would rather dishonour starving parents against the commandment then give them sacrificial bread to eat to save them, the stoning of the woman taken in adultery is of this line of thinking, a man-made law to murder is against God's commandment to not kill.


quote:
I wrestle with all the same problems and apparent contradictions that you do. However, Jesus does not give us the option of deciding which bits we can jettison.

Who gets to decide which bits we keep and which bit we reject? (I thought that the church had already done that at least 1600 years ago.) Unless you want to start a new denomination it seems we are stuck with all the scriptures.

Christ insists we decide! Is it better to do good or to do evil? What is good and what is evil? To save lives is good, to kill is evil.

Which Christian Church jettisoned the commandments?! That's been with us from the very beginning.


Myrrh
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Johnny S:
quote:
you are explaining what Jesus did without giving a reason why. It is clear that the early church fathers thought it essential for Jesus to be fully human. I'm sorry if I'm a stuck record here, but PSA has a reason, I don't see where it 'fits' in CV. Again, this doesn't make me want to ditch CV just another reason why I want to keep PSA.
Can you be more specific of what reason you are looking for? I could answer the "why?" with "because God so loved the world" but I doubt that is what you are after. Are you looking for mechanics or something?

Why what?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Can you be more specific of what reason you are looking for? I could answer the "why?" with "because God so loved the world" but I doubt that is what you are after. Are you looking for mechanics or something?

Why what?

Sorry, I wasn't that clear. [Hot and Hormonal] 'Why?' Does have so many different answers.

I meant mechanics.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Christ insists we decide! Is it better to do good or to do evil? What is good and what is evil? To save lives is good, to kill is evil.

Nope, you've completely lost me. In Mark 3 v 4 what OT law is Jesus 'setting aside'?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:


I meant mechanics. [/QB]

JI Packer has said that what is important is not the mechanics but the meaning. In other words, we do not need to know how exactly things work (like how does God incarnate, or how can God be 3 in 1) but rather the meaning this has for our lives, how these truths effect us and tell us about ourselves and God. We need to hear the "kerygma".

So I can tell you about the meaning of CV. I can also comment on the necessity and efficacy of CV. Is that what you are after?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
I've never seen a working model that doesn't have a penal element.
That might explain why you cannot imagine anything else
Neither have you! Come on admit it!
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Christ insists we decide! Is it better to do good or to do evil? What is good and what is evil? To save lives is good, to kill is evil.

Nope, you've completely lost me. In Mark 3 v 4 what OT law is Jesus 'setting aside'?
The law which men created to enforce their view of the commandment "remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" by making it illegal to work on that day, which men had corrupted to such an extent that they thought God's commandment "thou shalt not kill" lesser than their law which in their judgement gave the death penalty to any breaking it.

It's of the same theme as his other arguments with them, that they had removed themselves so far from God's commandments with their own laws that, how sarky can you get, they'd rather see their own parents starve etc.

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Sure it was a day of rest, unique idea as far as I know, but "is it better to do good or to do evil" on this day? How does not healing someone on this day if one can be seen as keeping the Sabbath holy? Is it holy to leave someone in pain on this day if you're a doctor or a nurse because it's your work?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QUOTE]
3)It is in any legal system profoundly immoral to punish the innocent in place of the guilty.


.

your comment under three really does QED your problem to me.
You are judging God's way of doing things by interposing human thinking and judgements on them then swearing black is white by denying that the scripture teaches a substitutionary death which is in fact the reason any of us can have a relationship with God.

He's doing no such thing. He's stating the bloody obvious. I cannot for the life of me imagine how anyone can get their concept of "justice" so severed from any concept of absolute morality, reason or their own conscience to deny that punishing innocent A for the sins of person B is unjust.
The whole sacrificial system is based on substitution. The sacrifice animal takes the place of the guilty one.
If you want a human model try 'A Tale of Two Cities'
You are demonstrating that you are blind to the obvious if you suggest God hasn't operated this way in the cross event.
You are entitled to your view of course. My point was that God's view is quite a lot different to ours. We tend to impose our view on scripture to make it conform to our sensibilities aka 'A true version of justice has to be restorative only.' Why ? Because we don't like it any other way. Where's the objectivity in that?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QUOTE]
3)It is in any legal system profoundly immoral to punish the innocent in place of the guilty.


.

your comment under three really does QED your problem to me.
You are judging God's way of doing things by interposing human thinking and judgements on them then swearing black is white by denying that the scripture teaches a substitutionary death which is in fact the reason any of us can have a relationship with God.

He's doing no such thing. He's stating the bloody obvious. I cannot for the life of me imagine how anyone can get their concept of "justice" so severed from any concept of absolute morality, reason or their own conscience to deny that punishing innocent A for the sins of person B is unjust.
The whole sacrificial system is based on substitution. The sacrifice animal takes the place of the guilty one.
If you want a human model try 'A Tale of Two Cities'
You are demonstrating that you are blind to the obvious if you suggest God hasn't operated this way in the cross event.
You are entitled to your view of course. My point was that God's view is quite a lot different to ours. We tend to impose our view on scripture to make it conform to our sensibilities aka 'A true version of justice has to be restorative only.' Why ? Because we don't like it any other way. Where's the objectivity in that?

Jamt, you are becoming merely polemic.

I don't think anyone here is denying substitution (I certainly am not), I/we are merely objecting the imposing an extra-biblical interpretation on it, especially when that extra-biblical interpretation would lead to the logical conclusion that God is unjust. I think that ought to be a big clue that there is something wrong with an interpretation.

I am not saying black is white, but just the opposite. It is unjust to punish the innocent. What could be more basic than that?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
JI Packer has said that what is important is not the mechanics but the meaning.

That would be in his paper The logic of Penal substitution would it? [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
In other words, we do not need to know how exactly things work (like how does God incarnate, or how can God be 3 in 1) but rather the meaning this has for our lives, how these truths effect us and tell us about ourselves and God. We need to hear the "kerygma".

[Confused] You won't be surprised to hear that I agree with Packer. However, once you have an atonement model you are beginning to explain how it works. That's the point. The problems you have with PSA are to do with how you think it works. If you want to appeal to mystery (which is fair enough) then how you can start complaining about the mechanics of PSA?

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
So I can tell you about the meaning of CV. I can also comment on the necessity and efficacy of CV. Is that what you are after?

Sure thing. Go ahead.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Anyway, so how do you account for the difference in the God who doesn't require blood sacrifice, who thinks it an abomination, with the God who gave detailed instructions for it? For the difference between the God who loves his enemies equally with his friends and the God who demands slaughtering even innocent children and stealing property so shortly after giving strict instruction not to murder and not to steal..?

I didn't say it was easy. I just said it had to be done.

Jesus specifically stated that he did not come to abolish any part of the OT, but rather to fulfil it. (Matthew 5: 17)

Not quite, He said don't even think he came to abolish the law or the prophets - and he didn't, he continued teaching to obey the law as given to Moses on Mt Sinai - 'if you love me keep my commandments', 'if you would enter into life, keep the commandments', - not to call the righteous (they're already as Zacharias and Elizabeth righteous in the face of God), but sinners to repentance. This is the law Paul discusses re Gentiles, that which is already written in their hearts even though they hadn't received it as teaching as had the Jews, and by which their own conscience convicts them and by which they'll be judged at the end. For those who see Christ as the "Word of God", the Logos, all Scripture is useful, not just the OT, but the OT particularly because fulfilling the prophets re Christ himself - 'salvation is of the Jews'.

As I said earlier, Christ's gripe with the teachers of the day was for creating man-made laws which shackle and putting these above the commandments (Matthew 23) - they would rather dishonour starving parents against the commandment then give them sacrificial bread to eat to save them, the stoning of the woman taken in adultery is of this line of thinking, a man-made law to murder is against God's commandment to not kill.


quote:
I wrestle with all the same problems and apparent contradictions that you do. However, Jesus does not give us the option of deciding which bits we can jettison.

Who gets to decide which bits we keep and which bit we reject? (I thought that the church had already done that at least 1600 years ago.) Unless you want to start a new denomination it seems we are stuck with all the scriptures.

Christ insists we decide! Is it better to do good or to do evil? What is good and what is evil? To save lives is good, to kill is evil.

Which Christian Church jettisoned the commandments?! That's been with us from the very beginning.


Myrrh

So you are really suggesting two Gods Jesus' God and the OT God?
Doesn't work for me I'm afraid.
God never weaned Abraham off human sacrifice either.
Jesus' teachings were all to be read in the context of the pharisaic interpretation of the Mosaic law. He challenged that but never contradicted the OT in fact continuously quoted it to support his statements.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Myrrh,

I can't even see you using a telescope now. [Biased]

This rather bizarre tangent arose in a discussion about reconciling the OT with the NT.

I assume that you are now going on about Talmudic additions to the OT Torah. Surely you know that Protestants do not accept anything apart from the OT and NT as scripture. In fact I'm not aware of any branch of Christendom that would view the additions to Sabbath observance that you are talking about as scripture.

Hence, what is the issue here?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Anyway, so how do you account for the difference in the God who doesn't require blood sacrifice, who thinks it an abomination, with the God who gave detailed instructions for it? For the difference between the God who loves his enemies equally with his friends and the God who demands slaughtering even innocent children and stealing property so shortly after giving strict instruction not to murder and not to steal..?

I didn't say it was easy. I just said it had to be done.

Jesus specifically stated that he did not come to abolish any part of the OT, but rather to fulfil it. (Matthew 5: 17)

Not quite, He said don't even think he came to abolish the law or the prophets - and he didn't, he continued teaching to obey the law as given to Moses on Mt Sinai - 'if you love me keep my commandments', 'if you would enter into life, keep the commandments', - not to call the righteous (they're already as Zacharias and Elizabeth righteous in the face of God), but sinners to repentance. This is the law Paul discusses re Gentiles, that which is already written in their hearts even though they hadn't received it as teaching as had the Jews, and by which their own conscience convicts them and by which they'll be judged at the end. For those who see Christ as the "Word of God", the Logos, all Scripture is useful, not just the OT, but the OT particularly because fulfilling the prophets re Christ himself - 'salvation is of the Jews'.

As I said earlier, Christ's gripe with the teachers of the day was for creating man-made laws which shackle and putting these above the commandments (Matthew 23) - they would rather dishonour starving parents against the commandment then give them sacrificial bread to eat to save them, the stoning of the woman taken in adultery is of this line of thinking, a man-made law to murder is against God's commandment to not kill.


quote:
I wrestle with all the same problems and apparent contradictions that you do. However, Jesus does not give us the option of deciding which bits we can jettison.

Who gets to decide which bits we keep and which bit we reject? (I thought that the church had already done that at least 1600 years ago.) Unless you want to start a new denomination it seems we are stuck with all the scriptures.

Christ insists we decide! Is it better to do good or to do evil? What is good and what is evil? To save lives is good, to kill is evil.

Which Christian Church jettisoned the commandments?! That's been with us from the very beginning.


Myrrh

So you are really suggesting two Gods Jesus' God and the OT God?
Doesn't work for me I'm afraid.
God never weaned Abraham off human sacrifice either.
Jesus' teachings were all to be read in the context of the pharisaic interpretation of the Mosaic law. He challenged that but never contradicted the OT in fact continuously quoted it to support his statements.

Not at all suggesting two Gods, that's some heresy or other don't recall the name, we believe as Christ taught, that God is one and good. Since we know what is good and what is evil, the commandments, Christ reminding us that to kill is evil, to save lives is good, etc., then that can't be the same God who commanded genocide and theft when he'd only just commanded not to kill and thieve. Either God is schizo, irrational or, as I see it in the history book of a nation which we have Christ's teaching to show us that men did make up their own laws making void the commandments of God. He called them hypocrites and worse:

Matthew 23:15
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Sorry, not too clear.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Either God is schizo, irrational or, as I see it in the history book of a nation which we have Christ's teaching to show us that men did make up their own laws making void the commandments of God, a God of man's making. He called them hypocrites and worse:

Matthew 23:15
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.


Myrrh


 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[[/qb]

Jamat, you are becoming merely polemic.

I don't think anyone here is denying substitution (I certainly am not), I/we are merely objecting the imposing an extra-biblical interpretation on it, especially when that extra-biblical interpretation would lead to the logical conclusion that God is unjust. I think that ought to be a big clue that there is something wrong with an interpretation.

I am not saying black is white, but just the opposite. It is unjust to punish the innocent. What could be more basic than that? [/QB][/QUOTE]

And you are not polemic in your denial of a penal element in justice?

Further to that, I read just this morning in 2 Sam 21 about how David gave seven sons of Saul to the Gibeonites to hang as an 'atonement' for Saul's treatment of them. This was so God would stop a 3 year famine in Israel.

Now what do we do with a God like this?

One who told David to deal with the issue of injustice vs the Gibeonites (who were not even Jews) this way?

I'd suggest we seek to understand what his issues are rather than try to deny and redefine this apparently barbaric event by remaking him in our own image which I think is the tendency.

Incidentally, you are saying a lot more than that 'it is unjust to punish the innocent'. By implication you are stating that if God allowed innocent Jesus to 'bear ' our sins, then this is unjust, ergo, God is unjust.
I, on the other hand, am saying that God was just in allowing sin to be punished in Christ,
(because a price needed to be paid for sin. You deny this , hence my charge that you deny the seriousness of sin,) and merciful, in allowing sin to be dealt with this way in order that the rest of us can be, as Paul states in Romans, 'dead to sin but alive to God.'Romans 6:11.

Also though some of your posts do condone substitution, the one above that I was responding to,(Your three points,) do cast doubts on the need for it, in point one, from memory.

Above, someone stated that the Passover had nothing to do with sin. It was a sign of deliverance? However, a lamb was killed. Its blood covered the households of the Hebrews from judgement and exposed the Egyptians to the angel of death who was sent as a punishment for their sin among other things.

Passover is often seen as typological of the NT salvation experience. Jesus died in the feast of Passover showing an association with the event. He chose the time of his own arrest and trial in my view. I say this since it would have been exceedingly inconvenient for the Sanhedrin to try him at this time yet he forced their hand with his confrontation of Judas at the last supper.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Originally posted by Jamat:
[/QUOTE]
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[[/qb]

Jamat, you are becoming merely polemic.

I don't think anyone here is denying substitution (I certainly am not), I/we are merely objecting the imposing an extra-biblical interpretation on it, especially when that extra-biblical interpretation would lead to the logical conclusion that God is unjust. I think that ought to be a big clue that there is something wrong with an interpretation.

I am not saying black is white, but just the opposite. It is unjust to punish the innocent. What could be more basic than that? [/QUOTE]
And you are not polemic in your denial of a penal element in justice?

Further to that, I read just this morning in 2 Sam 21 about how David gave seven sons of Saul to the Gibeonites to hang as an 'atonement' for Saul's treatment of them. This was so God would stop a 3 year famine in Israel.

Now what do we do with a God like this?

One who told David to deal with the issue of injustice vs the Gibeonites (who were not even Jews) this way?

I'd suggest we seek to understand what his issues are rather than try to deny and redefine this apparently barbaric event by remaking him in our own image which I think is the tendency.

Incidentally, you are saying a lot more than that 'it is unjust to punish the innocent'. By implication you are stating that if God allowed innocent Jesus to 'bear ' our sins, then this is unjust, ergo, God is unjust.
I, on the other hand, am saying that God was just in allowing sin to be punished in Christ,
(because a price needed to be paid for sin. You deny this , hence my charge that you deny the seriousness of sin,) and merciful, in allowing sin to be dealt with this way in order that the rest of us can be, as Paul states in Romans, 'dead to sin but alive to God.'Romans 6:11.

Also though some of your posts do condone substitution, the one above that I was responding to,(Your three points,) do cast doubts on the need for it, in point one, from memory.

Above, someone stated that the Passover had nothing to do with sin. It was a sign of deliverance? However, a lamb was killed. Its blood covered the households of the Hebrews from judgement and exposed the Egyptians to the angel of death who was sent as a punishment for their sin among other things.

Passover is often seen as typological of the NT salvation experience. Jesus died in the feast of Passover showing an association with the event. He chose the time of his own arrest and trial in my view. I say this since it would have been exceedingly inconvenient for the Sanhedrin to try him at this time yet he forced their hand with his confrontation of Judas at the last supper. [/QB][/QUOTE]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:


I meant mechanics.

JI Packer has said that what is important is not the mechanics but the meaning. In other words, we do not need to know how exactly things work (like how does God incarnate, or how can God be 3 in 1) but rather the meaning this has for our lives, how these truths effect us and tell us about ourselves and God. We need to hear the "kerygma".

So I can tell you about the meaning of CV. I can also comment on the necessity and efficacy of CV. Is that what you are after? [/QB]

Excuse me, but is this an admission that you don't really know how atonement works?

[ 11. August 2007, 02:13: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
That would be in his paper The logic of Penal substitution would it? [Big Grin]
Yes. It is a wonderful paper.

quote:
You won't be surprised to hear that I agree with Packer. However, once you have an atonement model you are beginning to explain how it works.
Yes and no. Following Packer, the only "explaining how it works" that we need is in how it works relationally, the "meaning" of what that perspective tells us about God and ourselves, etc.

quote:
That's the point. The problems you have with PSA are to do with how you think it works.

No, I'd say my problem is with its meaning, the implications it has for our trusting in God's character, its understanding of sin and justice. All of that has to do with the notion of God needing to be placated or mollified.


quote:

So I can tell you about the meaning of CV. I can also comment on the necessity and efficacy of CV. Is that what you are after? Sure thing. Go ahead.

There are a lot of motifs found in Scripture that each touch on different aspects of what the cross means, so I am hesitant to try and cram them all into one motif. But that would be one little poem I could write.

God did not demand the cross. God demanded obedience to love. And so Jesus (read God) humbled himself as a servant and loved us in our wretchedness and helplessness. But as God loved us, and did not back down from that, it was inevitable that we would unjustly kill him, because that love was a threat to our oppressive power and religion. So as Peter says, in God's sovereign purpose, Christ was killed by unjust and wicked men, but God raised him from the dead.

The necessity was God entering into our brokenness and loving us, being us, living as us. In entering into our death, that death in us tried to drag him under, but love was stronger, and he rose from the grave. In this our sin was conquered, as was condemnation, hate, blame, and all that would keep us from life.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
God did not demand the cross. God demanded obedience to love. And so Jesus (read God) humbled himself as a servant and loved us in our wretchedness and helplessness. But as God loved us, and did not back down from that, it was inevitable that we would unjustly kill him, because that love was a threat to our oppressive power and religion. So as Peter says, in God's sovereign purpose, Christ was killed by unjust and wicked men, but God raised him from the dead.

The necessity was God entering into our brokenness and loving us, being us, living as us. In entering into our death, that death in us tried to drag him under, but love was stronger, and he rose from the grave. In this our sin was conquered, as was condemnation, hate, blame, and all that would keep us from life.

This is a very nice description, Sharktacos. [Overused]

I especially like the fact that you do not hang blame on the particular people to whom Jesus came, but collectively on all of us. I like that you say "it was inevitable that we would unjustly kill him" because this was something that God foresaw, not that He caused.

I like that you say "In entering into our death, that death in us tried to drag him under, but love was stronger, and he rose from the grave." I think that it is important to understand that the "forces of death" were vast and cosmic, and that in overcoming them in Himself He overcame them for everyone.

I would only add that the Scriptures place an emphasis on the words that Jesus spoke, or the message of His teachings, as an essential tool, or weapon, in His victory. He overcame sin from love, but using the divine truth as means. He then passed these same means on to us, so that we have power from Him by applying His words to our lives.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
That's a good point Freddy. I would want to add to it that it was is words and actions, and say that how he lived his life - in word and deed - culminated in the cross.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
God did not demand the cross. God demanded obedience to love. And so Jesus (read God) humbled himself as a servant and loved us in our wretchedness and helplessness. But as God loved us, and did not back down from that, it was inevitable that we would unjustly kill him, because that love was a threat to our oppressive power and religion. So as Peter says, in God's sovereign purpose, Christ was killed by unjust and wicked men, but God raised him from the dead.

The necessity was God entering into our brokenness and loving us, being us, living as us. In entering into our death, that death in us tried to drag him under, but love was stronger, and he rose from the grave. In this our sin was conquered, as was condemnation, hate, blame, and all that would keep us from life.

This is a very nice description, Sharktacos. [Overused]

I especially like the fact that you do not hang blame on the particular people to whom Jesus came, but collectively on all of us. I like that you say "it was inevitable that we would unjustly kill him" because this was something that God foresaw, not that He caused.

I like that you say "In entering into our death, that death in us tried to drag him under, but love was stronger, and he rose from the grave." I think that it is important to understand that the "forces of death" were vast and cosmic, and that in overcoming them in Himself He overcame them for everyone.

I would only add that the Scriptures place an emphasis on the words that Jesus spoke, or the message of His teachings, as an essential tool, or weapon, in His victory. He overcame sin from love, but using the divine truth as means. He then passed these same means on to us, so that we have power from Him by applying His words to our lives.


 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Been out of this thread for some time due to family holiday and so on. Would like to re-join and argue the PSA position a bit more fully.

However, (this is aside) may I ask you, sharktacos, why you didn't open or reply to my pm?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
That's a good point Freddy. I would want to add to it that it was is words and actions, and say that how he lived his life - in word and deed - culminated in the cross.

Yes, that's right.

As I understand it, the gospel descriptions of His actions actually narrate a series of contests in which He repeatedly encounters His foes and overcomes them.

Not that those who challenged or disbelieved Him were actually His foes, but that each encounter and incident represented and actually embodied a spiritual roadblock, which Jesus overcame.

This would be true of every argument, every healing, every miracle of any kind, every journey, and every other kind of action reported in the gospels.

I don't know if others see it that way.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Yes and no. Following Packer, the only "explaining how it works" that we need is in how it works relationally, the "meaning" of what that perspective tells us about God and ourselves, etc.

You are going in circles now. You just said that you thought PSA was too 'personal' and you wanted to stress the 'cosmic' aspect. (Although, as a tangent, I find it hard to hear the word 'cosmic' without thinking of hippies, but then (according to Fowler) I'm trapped as an adolescent [Big Grin] )

If by 'relationally' you include our relationship with everything there is then 'how it works' covers a huge area and still demands an answer.

How does it work (in our relationship with God) that Jesus had to be fully human in order to redeem us in the CV drama?

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
my problem is with its meaning, the implications it has for our trusting in God's character, its understanding of sin and justice. All of that has to do with the notion of God needing to be placated or mollified.

If you were being interviewed on BBC Radio 4 John Humphrey's would say that it was 'like trying to nail jelly to the wall.' [Biased]

You don't like the mechanism of PSA. (You might guess from that I don't buy your distinction between mechanism and meaning. They are not synonymous, but in this instance any differences are redundant.) As soon as you use the word 'implications' you are conceding that it is the implications of the mechanism that bothers you.

It is fair game to criticise PSA but any attempt I make in putting CV under the microscope suddenly becomes invalid.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
There are a lot of motifs found in Scripture that each touch on different aspects of what the cross means, so I am hesitant to try and cram them all into one motif. But that would be one little poem I could write.

God did not demand the cross. God demanded obedience to love. And so Jesus (read God) humbled himself as a servant and loved us in our wretchedness and helplessness. But as God loved us, and did not back down from that, it was inevitable that we would unjustly kill him, because that love was a threat to our oppressive power and religion. So as Peter says, in God's sovereign purpose, Christ was killed by unjust and wicked men, but God raised him from the dead.

The necessity was God entering into our brokenness and loving us, being us, living as us. In entering into our death, that death in us tried to drag him under, but love was stronger, and he rose from the grave. In this our sin was conquered, as was condemnation, hate, blame, and all that would keep us from life.

But how is sin conquered?

I agree with your 'poem' but it is only half the story. If, according to your story, it was inevitable that we would kill Jesus, why won't we kill him again? And again? And again? What has changed?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But how is sin conquered?

Jesus overcame and subjugated its agents, namely hell itself, and specifically each individual inhabitant of hell, namely the evil spirits, devils, satans, demons, or whatever we wish to call them, who collectively are called the devil, satan, the ruler or prince of this world, and other names.

He says in several places that He is doing or has done this:
quote:
John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.

Luke 11:20 If I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. 21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. 22 But when a stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him all his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoils.

Jesus is saying that He is bringing hell under control, so that its power to lead people into evil practices is reduced. He came to bring light into the world, so that evil could be seen for what it is, and avoided.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I agree with your 'poem' but it is only half the story. If, according to your story, it was inevitable that we would kill Jesus, why won't we kill him again? And again? And again? What has changed?

Isn't this the point? We can learn. Jesus came to change us.

It wasn't everyone who wanted to kill Him. It is not inevitable that everyone wishes to destroy God. But we all have that tendency in ourselves. He pointed it out, taught us how to turn away from it, and gave us the power, by His grace, to do so.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't this the point? We can learn. Jesus came to change us.

Which is it? Is Jesus our teacher or our Saviour?

If he came to change us how does he do it? (I know that it is the work of the Spirit but He must be applying something objective about Christ's ministry or it is just more 'hand waving'.)

I know how important sex education in schools is, but it is also obvious that merely education is not enough. We cannot learn how to live like Christ, we need to be redeemed, made new.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't this the point? We can learn. Jesus came to change us.

Which is it? Is Jesus our teacher or our Saviour?
I think the phrase is Lord and Savior. Can't He be Teacher and Savior at the same time? Otherwise why would He stress so strongly the need to obey His words?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If he came to change us how does he do it? (I know that it is the work of the Spirit but He must be applying something objective about Christ's ministry or it is just more 'hand waving'.)

He changes us by filling us with His Spirit as we choose to obey Him and put His words into practice. This is not hand waving, it is the normal process of change and improvement common to all human activity. The power to change is from God.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I know how important sex education in schools is, but it is also obvious that merely education is not enough. We cannot learn how to live like Christ, we need to be redeemed, made new.

Didn't Christ say that this is what happens as we learn to obey His word? I'm sure you know the passages.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
Very late, I am, to be curious about this thread. But right from the getgo, I run into "PSA", and am stumped what it stands for. By this blatant admission of ignorance, y'all can tell what a heathen I must be. Actually, in Mormonism, nothing signifies for "PSA". And I am sure it doesn't stand for the airline, or the cancer test, or a public service announcement. (right: "Listen up you earthlings: this is God speaking: I am about to come down and save all your collective kiesters: get ready, here I come!")

To the first one to answer this puzzle for me, thanks a million.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Penal Substitutionary Atonement
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
God did not demand the cross. God demanded obedience to love. And so Jesus (read God) humbled himself as a servant and loved us in our wretchedness and helplessness. But as God loved us, and did not back down from that, it was inevitable that we would unjustly kill him, because that love was a threat to our oppressive power and religion. So as Peter says, in God's sovereign purpose, Christ was killed by unjust and wicked men, but God raised him from the dead.

The necessity was God entering into our brokenness and loving us, being us, living as us. In entering into our death, that death in us tried to drag him under, but love was stronger, and he rose from the grave. In this our sin was conquered, as was condemnation, hate, blame, and all that would keep us from life.

This is a very nice description, Sharktacos.
I also think that this is well stated. And it is entirely consistent with PSA. However, it does not describe the modus operandi of the atonement. Lest you say this is 'love', I would remind you that love in the scriptures is more aptly described as a motive and an outcome. rather than a tool. God loved us so he sent Christ. Christ loved the Father so he submitted to his will in going to the cross. It is only PSA that in my view, describes the 'how' of the cross as well as the 'why'. Christ was, in fact, the ultimate sin offering, the ultimate sacrifice. This is the 'how'. As Paul states in 1 Cor 5:7 "Christ our passover, has also been sacrificed."
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is only PSA that in my view, describes the 'how' of the cross as well as the 'why'.

Maybe you missed the part in my post about how Christ's struggles enabled Him to encounter and conquer sin.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

Myrrh [/qb]

So you are really suggesting two Gods Jesus' God and the OT God?
Doesn't work for me I'm afraid.
God never weaned Abraham off human sacrifice either.
Jesus' teachings were all to be read in the context of the pharisaic interpretation of the Mosaic law. He challenged that but never contradicted the OT in fact continuously quoted it to support his statements. [/qb][/QUOTE]Not at all suggesting two Gods, that's some heresy or other don't recall the name, we believe as Christ taught, that God is one and good. Since we know what is good and what is evil, the commandments, Christ reminding us that to kill is evil, to save lives is good, etc., then that can't be the same God who commanded genocide and theft when he'd only just commanded not to kill and thieve. Either God is schizo, irrational or, as I see it in the history book of a nation which we have Christ's teaching to show us that men did make up their own laws making void the commandments of God. He called them hypocrites and worse:

Matthew 23:15
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.


Myrrh [/QB][/QUOTE]

Yet is God not within his rights to take life as well as give it. If he were a man we could judge his actions by our standards but he isn't and we cant.

We can approach it two ways. We can say 'God ordered the Hebrews to commit genocide, he sure must have had a good reason.' Or, we can say the OT God who ordered genocide is not the same 'Father' whom Jesus was connected to. If we take the latter stance , as you seem to, you are saying the OT God is a different God to Jesus' God.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jamat:
I read just this morning in 2 Sam 21 about how David gave seven sons of Saul to the Gibeonites to hang as an 'atonement' for Saul's treatment of them. This was so God would stop a 3 year famine in Israel.

Now what do we do with a God like this?

One who told David to deal with the issue of injustice vs the Gibeonites (who were not even Jews) this way?

I'd suggest we seek to understand what his issues are rather than try to deny and redefine this apparently barbaric event by remaking him in our own image which I think is the tendency.

Incidentally, you are saying a lot more than that 'it is unjust to punish the innocent'. By implication you are stating that if God allowed innocent Jesus to 'bear ' our sins, then this is unjust, ergo, God is unjust.
I, on the other hand, am saying that God was just in allowing sin to be punished in Christ,
(because a price needed to be paid for sin. You deny this , hence my charge that you deny the seriousness of sin,) and merciful, in allowing sin to be dealt with this way in order that the rest of us can be, as Paul states in Romans, 'dead to sin but alive to God.'Romans 6:11.

Also though some of your posts do condone substitution, the one above that I was responding to,(Your three points,) do cast doubts on the need for it, in point one, from memory.

Above, someone stated that the Passover had nothing to do with sin. It was a sign of deliverance? However, a lamb was killed. Its blood covered the households of the Hebrews from judgement and exposed the Egyptians to the angel of death who was sent as a punishment for their sin among other things.

Passover is often seen as typological of the NT salvation experience. Jesus died in the feast of Passover showing an association with the event. He chose the time of his own arrest and trial in my view. I say this since it would have been exceedingly inconvenient for the Sanhedrin to try him at this time yet he forced their hand with his confrontation of Judas at the last supper.

Sorry to quote myself but I really would like to see what others think of this story from Samuel. Are thes sons of Saul unjustly hanged? If not so why did God seem to approve of David's action?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is only PSA that in my view, describes the 'how' of the cross as well as the 'why'.

Maybe you missed the part in my post about how Christ's struggles enabled Him to encounter and conquer sin.
The struggle Christ had to remain sinless enabled him to stay Godly. However, what could it possibly do for me? The problem is that the mechanism of substitution is not accounted for in your model.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The struggle Christ had to remain sinless enabled him to stay Godly. However, what could it possibly do for me?

Are you even reading the posts?

Christ, by His struggles, overcame and subjugated the inhabitants of hell who were exerting a strong influence on people. He reduced their power, and this which affects everyone. He also, in these struggles, shone a light on the nature of evil, which also affects everyone.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The problem is that the mechanism of substitution is not accounted for in your model.

Sure it is. He is the Savior who fought, and who continues to fight, for each one of us.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
The bottom line with the mechanics is that we dont know. How did God make the universe? How did God created the first humans from dust? How did God incarnate in Jesus? None of us know and we don't need to know. It is not a science test. What we do need to know is what it means that God has incarnated in Jesus. In that respect we can also ask what the meaning of the cross is, what God's purpose was in it.

Part of that involved substitution. Christ did not just die on his own but "for us". What does that mean? The answer CV gives is that the problem was with us and our sin which it understands not primarily in terms of a transgression, but as a bondage. That means that God cannot merely forgive or acquit us because we also need to be "healed" of our "sin cancer". So what God is doing on the cross is about becoming us and entering into our bondage and Hell and overcoming death.

Now how exactly does God enter into our estate? How does God overcome Death and Hell? I have no idea. Just as I have no idea how God can rise from the dead. I doubt any of us know. But the point here is that the above expresses a different meaning of the cross, of the nature of our problem, and the nature of God's solution than the model that says our problem was primarily one of needing to avert punishment. If I am rotten to the core, if don't punish me this will not make me good (and if you do punish me this will also not make me good). What needed to be removed was not the punishment, but our cancer. The death in us needed to be put to death so that we could live in Christ. It is by God healing our cancer of death and giving us new life in him that justice is truly satisfied.

So even if we allow that PSA is not about punishing the innocent because Christ literally became us on the cross, still there needs to be more to the salvic nature of the cross then God merely taking the blow meant for us, because that alone would not make us good, it would not free us from the prison of sin and death. We need to have a model that can take into account these "medical" aspects and not merely a legal one that deals with crime and punishment. This legal lens at best only a small fraction of what is going on.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The struggle Christ had to remain sinless enabled him to stay Godly. However, what could it possibly do for me?

Are you even reading the posts?

Christ, by His struggles, overcame and subjugated the inhabitants of hell who were exerting a strong influence on people. He reduced their power, and this which affects everyone. He also, in these struggles, shone a light on the nature of evil, which also affects everyone.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The problem is that the mechanism of substitution is not accounted for in your model.

Sure it is. He is the Savior who fought, and who continues to fight, for each one of us.

Ah but how did he do it? Paul in Col would seem to say that Christ prclaimed to the powers of Hell, in th hours before his resurrection, that the price for sin had been paid. Col 2:13,15. v 14 is particularly interesting in this regard.
"having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us:and he has taken it out of the way having nailed it to the cross."

Am I reading the posts? Sorry if it is not to your satisfaction I am a bit time-constrained.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QB] [QUOTE] The bottom line with the mechanics is that we dont know. How did God make the universe? How did God created the first humans from dust? How did God incarnate in Jesus? None of us know and we don't need to know. It is not a science test. What we do need to know is what it means that God has incarnated in Jesus. In that respect we can also ask what the meaning of the cross is, what God's purpose was in it.

Apples and oranges. We sure don't know how God created the universe but the Bible clearly reveals the mechanism by which he has saved us.

quote:
Part of that involved substitution. Christ did not just die on his own but "for us". What does that mean? The answer CV gives is that the problem was with us and our sin which it understands not primarily in terms of a transgression, but as a bondage. That means that God cannot merely forgive or acquit us because we also need to be "healed" of our "sin cancer". So what God is doing on the cross is about becoming us and entering into our bondage and Hell and overcoming death.
Agreed. And this is perfectly consistent with a PSA model. I, too, see sin as a cancer needing to be healed. However, our sin is both to do with bondage and transgression. We sin (transgress) because we are sinners (have the sin cancer).
Transgression needs proptiating etc. But we've been over that. On what authority do you pronounce we are to see sin more as a bondage than as transgression when the scriptures do not weigh the importannce of one above the other but treat both equally?

quote:
Now how exactly does God enter into our estate? How does God overcome Death and Hell? I have no idea. Just as I have no idea how God can rise from the dead. I doubt any of us know. But the point here is that the above expresses a different meaning of the cross, of the nature of our problem, and the nature of God's solution than the model that says our problem was primarily one of needing to avert punishment. If I am rotten to the core, if don't punish me this will not make me good (and if you do punish me this will also not make me good). What needed to be removed was not the punishment, but our cancer. The death in us needed to be put to death so that we could live in Christ. It is by God healing our cancer of death and giving us new life in him that justice is truly satisfied.
I know you deny the need for punishment. It would be nice if God agreed with you. Unfortunately he doesn't. Ro 1:18 comes to mind but let's look at a Gospel ref: Jesus' comment on the fate of Judas Lk 22:22 "woe to that man by whom he is betrayed." A few pages back the condemnation of the vinyard growers Lk 20:15. And in Lk 19:42-44 Jesus pronounces judgement upon Jerusalem because the generation alive then did not recognise the time of their visitation. My point is that judgement or punishment is intrinsic to the way God operates and it is evident in the Gospels, not just the OT and the epistles.
quote:
So even if we allow that PSA is not about punishing the innocent because Christ literally became us on the cross, still there needs to be more to the salvic nature of the cross then God merely taking the blow meant for us, because that alone would not make us good, it would not free us from the prison of sin and death. We need to have a model that can take into account these "medical" aspects and not merely a legal one that deals with crime and punishment. This legal lens at best only a small fraction of what is going on.
I agree. The cross is about more than one idea and I think you state what it achieves very well. But it is meaningless without the 'Christ being punished as our sin substitute idea.' The reason, you touch on yourself here. We cannot be made good without it. God, you see, could never see us as justified without it. We would have no potential for holiness without it. We would be merely tryhards trying to somehow emulate the perfect model provided by Christ.
I think this is at the centre of Paul's thinking when he wrote:
Ro 6:6 Our old self was crucified with him that our body of sin might be done away wit..For he that is died is freed from sin... Evenso consider yourselves dead to sin."

He postulates here, the identification of the sinner with Christ in such a way that we can take on Christ's new life. Remember that he writes this the chapter after he has pronounced that we are justified by his blood Ro 5:9. To me the understanding that Christ was a sin offering is essential to Paul's argument and in turn, it demonstrates the 'mechanics' of the atonement . We can know not only why we are saved , but how as well. PSA is the only model that enables this and it is consistent with all the benefits that you so eloquently claim for the CV model as well.

Could I just add one other thing. The things we are discussing here are not academic to me. I have lived them for 30 years. I know what I believe and why and I am starting to get just slightly miffed at the patronising 'there there you don't really understand the issues' tone of some posts. This proves of course that I am still far from holy but you knew that anyway.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The problem is that the mechanism of substitution is not accounted for in your model.

Sure it is. He is the Savior who fought, and who continues to fight, for each one of us.
Ah but how did he do it?
Do you mean what does "fight" look like? How does He fight?

The gospels describe the mechanism repeatedly:
quote:
Luke 4:18 “ The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.”
20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

Luke 7:20 When the men had come to Him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to You, saying, ‘Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?’” 21 And that very hour He cured many of infirmities, afflictions, and evil spirits; and to many blind He gave sight.
22 Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard: that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them. 23 And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me.”

These words and actions, along with everything else that He said and did, subdued Jesus' enemies. They continue to do so - but only insofar as people hear them and apply them to their lives.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Paul in Col would seem to say that Christ prclaimed to the powers of Hell, in th hours before his resurrection, that the price for sin had been paid. Col 2:13,15. v 14 is particularly interesting in this regard.
"having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us:and he has taken it out of the way having nailed it to the cross."

I read the passage differently:
quote:
NKJV Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
When Paul says "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us" he is saying that Jesus, having fulfilled the ritual law, no longer requires it. As Paul says in the next verses:
quote:
Colossians 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ... 20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
This makes it clear that the "handwriting of requirements" are the ritual laws that say “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” or that are about "food or drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths," which are of no value in actually turning away from sin.

So when Paul says:
quote:
And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
he means that the ritual law was nailed to the cross, or that the fulfilled reality makes these symbolic practices into mere "shadows." The reality is that Jesus "disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it."

In other words, I think that you are misreading Paul. The price Jesus paid was in the sense of having disarmed the enemy through His self-sacrifice and by His mighty power.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The cross is about more than one idea and I think you state what it achieves very well. But it is meaningless without the 'Christ being punished as our sin substitute idea.'

This is simply not true. Jesus never says this. He made many statements about how He was saving humanity, but He didn't say this.

He was not punished as our substitute. He took on our burdens and overcame them for us.

[ 12. August 2007, 10:57: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Thanks shartacos, that was a very helpful post.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The answer CV gives is that the problem was with us and our sin which it understands not primarily in terms of a transgression, but as a bondage. That means that God cannot merely forgive or acquit us because we also need to be "healed" of our "sin cancer". So what God is doing on the cross is about becoming us and entering into our bondage and Hell and overcoming death.

I fully agree that we need to be healed. However, you have come a long way from your comments about making Isaiah 53 programmatic. Isaiah 53 is littered with 'transgressions'. Indeed 'Pierced for our transgressions' - that would make a good title for a book! [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
But the point here is that the above expresses a different meaning of the cross, of the nature of our problem, and the nature of God's solution than the model that says our problem was primarily one of needing to avert punishment.

This is where you lose me. If you have no idea how it 'works', how can you be so adamant that PSA is wrong? There is mystery here but you appear to be starting from your doctrine of God and then simply reading that into your view of the atonement. I would rather a sort of two-way feedback between what the bible teaches about God and about the atonement.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
This legal lens at best only a small fraction of what is going on.

Does this mean that you want to keep hold of the lens at all? (Others on this thread have agreed that the debate over CV is whether or not it should replace PSA completely in the sense of confining it to the dustbin.)
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Johnny,

quote:
I fully agree that we need to be healed. However, you have come a long way from your comments about making Isaiah 53 programmatic. Isaiah 53 is littered with 'transgressions'.
I think the medical model still fits with Isa 53. We have in there language of wounded, suffering, sickness. The point is not that sin=sickness literally. But that our transgressions are symptomatic of a deeper inner sin that needs to be healed. I see Isa 53 being about that larger work of addressing our hurtful behavior, but also our brokenness, our suffering, and our affliction. All in the context of a shocking injustice.

quote:
This is where you lose me. If you have no idea how it 'works', how can you be so adamant that PSA is wrong?
Because I understand the meaning.


quote:
]Does this mean that you want to keep hold of the lens at all? (Others on this thread have agreed that the debate over CV is whether or not it should replace PSA completely in the sense of confining it to the dustbin.)
My sole problem is with the idea of appeasement as the means to avoiding punishment. I do not deny the problem of punishment. I would even agree that God bears our punishment. But not as an appeasement.
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Penal Substitutionary Atonement

"Penal substitution is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, especially associated with the Reformed tradition. It means that Christ is punished (penal) in our place (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice, so God can justly forgive. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus` death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment. It is also a specific form of satisfaction doctrine which focuses on God's justice being satisfied by Christ's bearing the punishment meant for sinners."

Wow. That's the Mormon doctrine to a tee. Never heard of it referred to that way, however.

Christ is our Savior, but only when we repent first. Unrepented sins must be paid for by the sinner first, before Christ's atonement finally bring's the Father's forgiveness. Christ's atonement only paid for sins repented of: and, for all sickness, imperfection and misery caused by the fallen world. His life provided the ultimate sacrifice for paying for all of these things.

I don't feel comfortable with this belief. It smacks of selfishness on my part: I agreed to let Christ be flogged and curcified to death so that I wouldn't have to go through it myself. That's how I saw the imagery in "The Passion of the Christ" movie: it disturbed me greatly, to think that I would go along with such a "plan of salvation." (You see, Mormons believe also, that each of us is an eternal "spirit" or "intelligence", as eternal in nature as God himself: that implies that in the "council of heaven", where the plan of salvation was first broached to us for our "vote" of approval, that we all heard it and shouted for joy. But I cannot put up with that kind of belief without positive proof of the same: to me, it is merely another imaginative mortal explanation of what is going on, without any proof of its reality whatsoever.)

[ 12. August 2007, 17:29: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Sorry to quote myself but I really would like to see what others think of this story from Samuel. Are thes sons of Saul unjustly hanged? If not so why did God seem to approve of David's action?
They were unjustly hanged, as you'd be the first to argue if the police came round to execute you for something someone else did, unless you're a complete idiot. God did not approve of it, because God is not an evil and unjust monster. If He did approve, I want no part of this God. He's a bastard.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
(Actually, if push comes to shove, I'll probably end up jumping through God's hoops if He does turn out to be a genocidal bastard. But that's because I'm a moral coward; a better man than me would go to Hell before worshipping such a being.)
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I think the medical model still fits with Isa 53. We have in there language of wounded, suffering, sickness. The point is not that sin=sickness literally. But that our transgressions are symptomatic of a deeper inner sin that needs to be healed. I see Isa 53 being about that larger work of addressing our hurtful behavior, but also our brokenness, our suffering, and our affliction. All in the context of a shocking injustice.

But is that a fair handling of the passage? The medical 'healing' is only referred to directly once and alluded to once. However, 'something happening for our transgressions' is littered throughout the chapter. Surely the text warrants (if anything) subsuming the medical metaphor into the trangressions one, and not the other way round?

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
This is where you lose me. If you have no idea how it 'works', how can you be so adamant that PSA is wrong?
Because I understand the meaning.
[Big Grin] I guess we both use 'work' and meaning in different ways.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
My sole problem is with the idea of appeasement as the means to avoiding punishment. I do not deny the problem of punishment. I would even agree that God bears our punishment. But not as an appeasement.

I'll have to think about that a bit more.

If you do not deny punishment then how can od bear our punishment without it being appeasement? The only ways I can think of involve some kind of dualism or world where God is not God because there are 'rules' that he must submit to because they are somehow 'above' him.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The cross is about more than one idea and I think you state what it achieves very well. But it is meaningless without the 'Christ being punished as our sin substitute idea.'

This is simply not true. Jesus never says this. He made many statements about how He was saving humanity, but He didn't say this.

He was not punished as our substitute. He took on our burdens and overcame them for us.

What about.."The son of man came to give his life a ransom for many Matt 20:28.
Freddy your can read this quite reasonably as a prediction of penal substitution.
I reject your reading of Col 2 as a way of making it fit your preconceptions. To me the import is quite plain in that it fits with Paul's statement, "He that ascended is also he that descended." Christ marched into Hell's throneroom sinless and having been accepted as a substitute foe our sin and he legally disarmed Satan. Now those who are jstified by faith can appropriate what he did as a teral reality, not just a metaphor.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
But is that a fair handling of the passage? The medical 'healing' is only referred to directly once and alluded to once. However, 'something happening for our transgressions' is littered throughout the chapter. Surely the text warrants (if anything) subsuming the medical metaphor into the trangressions one, and not the other way round?
I think to answer that properly I'd have to go into more detail. I'll try to get to that later when I have a bit more time.


{QUOTE]If you do not deny punishment then how can God bear our punishment without it being appeasement? [/QUOTE]

How about in the same way he "carries our sorrow" as Isa 53 also says?

"Surely our griefs he himself bore, and our sorrows he carried"

Also notice that when it says

"But he was pierced through for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities"

that it goes on to say if you keep reading that

"the chastening for our well-being fell upon him, and by his scourging we are healed."

So we have his pain and unjust punishment for the purpose of "our well being" and "healing" of our "iniquities" as well as for our "grief" and "sorrows".

I'm trying to find a way to understand that that takes all of this into account, and the idea of appeasing punishment just does not fit the big picture here. Its somehow that through taking on this injustice that the Servant heals us of our sin, sorrow, sickness, and affliction. That sounds crazy to me, but I also hear Isaiah saying over and over "Who has believed our message?" and "we thought this, but really it wasn't that way" and "he was despised, and we did not esteem him". As if to say (along with Paul) "this will sound crazy to you, and be a huge shock, but listen..."
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[QB]
[QUOTE] If you have no idea how it 'works', how can you be so adamant that PSA is wrong? There is mystery here but you appear to be starting from your doctrine of God and then simply reading that into your view of the atonement. I would rather a sort of two-way feedback between what the bible teaches about God and about the atonement.

Precisely what we all do really. Start from our non-negotiables. Mine is that Christ substituted for my sin on the cross. I share it with millions of Christians world wide. It is in my view what Paul believed. I reject Sharktacos' reading of Romans 3:25 as a highly speculative linguistic argument that is a mere possible alternative reading. In the total weight of scripture, the evidence for Christ as a penal substitute is significant when the concept of sacrifice is considered. The issue earlier on in the thread was whether a sacrifice is 'punished'. I do not think it possible for one to avoid the obvious reading that it is a penal substitute however much one would like to think differently.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Christ marched into Hell's throneroom sinless and having been accepted as a substitute foe our sin and he legally disarmed Satan. Now those who are jstified by faith can appropriate what he did as a teral reality, not just a metaphor.
Jamat I think this a correct statement above. Where we disagree is the means to our salvation.

You say it was through appeasement, God was mad and needed to be appeased, so he punishes Jesus (or if you prefer, punishes himself) and is no longer mad.

I say that the means was through God setting us right by living our life (note the incarnation here) so that we could live in Christ.

Your model deals with wrath, but not with the source of the wrath, which is our sin.

My model deals directly with our inner sin, and with the source of wrath removed, the wrath problem is solved too.

Both take into account judgment and substitution.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
The issue earlier on in the thread was whether a sacrifice is 'punished'.
I would say that biblically the clear purpose of sacrifices is not punishment but purification, cleansing, sanctification. (Again note the medical model).

This reading is all over both the OT and the book of Hebrews.

"without blood there is no forgiveness"

why? Because it is through blood that we are cleansed. The entire verse reads

"In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be {b}cleansed with blood[/b], and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

verse 23 continues:
"It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."

If you read on you see he is continually taking about the sacrifices as purification, cleansing, sanctifying. We are "washed in the blood".

Is death in involved? Yes. But why? Not for appeasement, but for cleansing. The pure unblemished blood purifies and sanctifies.

Do I get why blood would cleanse? Not really honestly. But that is what it the Bible says the sacrifices were about and that this pointed to the reality in Christ that somehow his death can cleanse us of our sin.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What about.."The son of man came to give his life a ransom for many Matt 20:28.
Freddy your can read this quite reasonably as a prediction of penal substitution.

Yes, that passage has often been read that way. But the Old Testament notion of "ransom", as I have pointed out before, is quite different than simply the payment of a price. In the messianic prophecies it usually includes the idea of a redemption brought about by force:
quote:
Isaiah 35:4 Behold, your God will come with vengeance,
With the recompense of God;
He will come and save you.” ….
8 A highway shall be there, and a road,
And it shall be called the Highway of Holiness.
The unclean shall not pass over it….
But the redeemed shall walk there,
10 And the ransomed of the LORD shall return,
And come to Zion with singing,

Jeremiah 31:10 ‘ He who scattered Israel will gather him,
And keep him as a shepherd does his flock.’
11 For the LORD has redeemed Jacob,
And ransomed him from the hand of one stronger than he.

Isaiah 43:3 For I am the LORD your God, The Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I gave Egypt for your ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in your place.

Hosea 13:14 “ I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! Pity is hidden from My eyes.”

This is a more likely understanding of "ransom" than the idea of Christ being punished as our sin substitute.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I reject your reading of Col 2 as a way of making it fit your preconceptions.

I'm making it fit the actual statements, which yours does not. Your explanation makes no sense of verse 15 "Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it." Or if it does, what is the meaning of this statement?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This is a more likely understanding of "ransom" than the idea of Christ being punished as our sin substitute.


This brings up another insight of CV that is important. On the one hand the devil had "rights" over us because in our sin we can put ourselves into his legal bondage. But at the same time the devil was a "tyrant" we we needed to be "redeemed" from similar to Pharaoh holding the Israelites in captivity. This is an idea that Paul brings up with the law which on the one hand he says is "holy and good" but on the other hand describes as a "slave master" that has "produced death" in him.

This is the idea that not only we as people can become fallen and in need to redemption, but that our laws, our religion, the very idea of authority can also become fallen and need to be redeemed. In a pre-Constantine world under pagan oppression both in the New Testament time and of the primitive church this perspective makes total sense, but as the Catholic church began to have more of a total (and violent) dominance over all religious authority, this position of course fell out of popularity, and a view of salvation as the individual coming back into the fold became dominant.

I think however we can now appreciate how not only we need to be redeemed, but also how false authority and a focus on law or doctrine that "produces death" also needs to be nailed to the cross.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[QB]
[QUOTE] If you have no idea how it 'works', how can you be so adamant that PSA is wrong? There is mystery here but you appear to be starting from your doctrine of God and then simply reading that into your view of the atonement. I would rather a sort of two-way feedback between what the bible teaches about God and about the atonement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precisely what we all do really. Start from our non-negotiables. Mine is that Christ substituted for my sin on the cross. I share it with millions of Christians world wide. It is in my view what Paul believed. I reject Sharktacos' reading of Romans 3:25 as a highly speculative linguistic argument that is a mere possible alternative reading. In the total weight of scripture, the evidence for Christ as a penal substitute is significant when the concept of sacrifice is considered. The issue earlier on in the thread was whether a sacrifice is 'punished'. I do not think it possible for one to avoid the obvious reading that it is a penal substitute however much one would like to think differently.

You see, Jamat, this is the why I find debating with you so frustrating. You are arguing about PSA from the point of view that PSA is non-negotiable. And yet, it is not (I believe) an undisputably biblical doctrine, (and you have been given chapter and verse for that)nor it is the doctrine held by most Christians today, nor, as far as we can tell, by most Christians in the past.

The fact is that many people do not see the Bible as teaching what you see it teaching. In fact, PSA was the default teaching of the church in which I came to faith and I rejected it precisely because I could not reconcile it with the scriptures!

quote:
Could I just add one other thing. The things we are discussing here are not academic to me. I have lived them for 30 years. I know what I believe and why and I am starting to get just slightly miffed at the patronising 'there there you don't really understand the issues' tone of some posts. This proves of course that I am still far from holy but you knew that anyway.

Now I don't actually think that the following fact means anything, but I also have been a Christian for a very long time, (born in 1953, came to faith in 1969) and I along with you I try, in as much as God gives me grace, to live the truths that I believe. The gospel is the power of God for salvation to me as well! So believe me, I'm not being patronising when I say that I believe that you have it wrong. As, I assume, you believe that I have it wrong. I just don't think that retreating into "this is a non-negotiable" is terrificly helpful for the debate.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
If you do not deny punishment then how can God bear our punishment without it being appeasement? The only ways I can think of involve some kind of dualism or world where God is not God because there are 'rules' that he must submit to because they are somehow 'above' him.
Well, you'd probably guess that, unlike possibly sharktacos, I'd take issue with the punishment issue, but the answer to your question here is, basically, the seriousness of sin. Sin is not a problem because it is morally offensive to God (though it is morally offensive to God) but because it is destroying His creation, (and us humans, as part of that creation). Therefore sin (as in, the law of sin and death) itself must, from His point of view, be destroyed. And, furthermore, it must be destroyed in such a way that the new creation which will replace it has sufficient continuity with the old such that sentient creatures such as ourselves can be at home there. In other words, re-creation must be by redemption rather than by starting again from scratch.

If we accept those two premises, then we are left with the "how" question. How can God destroy sin. Of course, He could (we speculate) abolish it, as it were, by fiat (not sure what that would look like, but, hey, we're speculating here). But that would not be redemption, because redemption implies a process of, if you like, purification and refinement, rather than giving up and starting again. The process that God chose to use was to absorb into Himself all the forces of evil and chaos, in the person of the One who was both creator and creature, to overwhelm and exhaust them in the Divine love, and demonstrate by the resurrection that sacrifice and surrender is indeed more powerful than death. You see, I think that, up to that time, Satan, who never really understood God (even in the way it was possible for any finite being to understand God) thought that he could use God's weakness (as he saw it) to overthrow Him, at least in the realm of space-time. He saw love as God's achilles heel, when actually it was His very strength. Satan really did see his opportunity to maybe force God to retire from the physical universe, leaving him as master. He gambled all on slaying the Son, and the die was cast, and, inconceivably to him, he lost. And, at the moment of the resurrection, he knew that he had lost. Love really was the strongest strength, humility was more powerful than pride, surrender than self-interest.

Now this is, as I have said, speculation, but it is no more speculative, no more hand-waving, than the idea that, in some way, punishment is redemptive. We know from our experience that punishment is not redemptive, or our prisons would not be filled with recidivists, just as we know from our experience that love is redemptive.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Sin is not a problem because it is morally offensive to God (though it is morally offensive to God) but because it is destroying His creation, (and us humans, as part of that creation). Therefore sin (as in, the law of sin and death) itself must, from His point of view, be destroyed. And, furthermore, it must be destroyed in such a way that the new creation which will replace it has sufficient continuity with the old such that sentient creatures such as ourselves can be at home there. In other words, re-creation must be by redemption rather than by starting again from scratch.

Agreed. To use sharktacos beloved 'medical' metaphor, we are shot through with cancer, it is everywhere, liver, lungs, bowels, brain, blood, blasting it with Chemo or radiotherapy would destroy us. Purification is part of it, but it needs something deeper. A transference of the disease to another who dies with it so that it can no longer be passed on.

All you now have to do is say that 'death is the wages of sin' and voila, you have PSA [Big Grin]


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
We know from our experience that punishment is not redemptive, or our prisons would not be filled with recidivists, just as we know from our experience that love is redemptive.

We've been through this before. To be consistent then I assume that you never punished your children when they were growing up. [Razz]

[ETA - poor French [Disappointed] ]

[ 13. August 2007, 09:56: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
We know from our experience that punishment is not redemptive, or our prisons would not be filled with recidivists, just as we know from our experience that love is redemptive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We've been through this before. To be consistent then I assume that you never punished your children when they were growing up.

Well I hope I never did, though I do have to confess to disciplining them from time to time, but that's a very different thing. Punishment is about me, and isn't redemptive, disciplining is about them and hopefully is.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
All you now have to do is say that 'death is the wages of sin' and voila, you have PSA

I'm not sure that even adding that would be classic PSA, though it maybe would approach Numpty's more nuanced view. I think, to qualify as PSA, you would have to insert something about volitional punishment, as opposed to the consequential thrust of Romans 6:23
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well I hope I never did, though I do have to confess to disciplining them from time to time, but that's a very different thing. Punishment is about me, and isn't redemptive, disciplining is about them and hopefully is.

I admit that I need to think about this more, but here is my initial reaction.

Punishment is only about me if I am trying to impose morality onto someone else. What if punishment is about God, an objective morality and his honour?

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not sure that even adding that would be classic PSA, though it maybe would approach Numpty's more nuanced view. I think, to qualify as PSA, you would have to insert something about volitional punishment, as opposed to the consequential thrust of Romans 6:23

Obviously I'm not a spokesman for PSA [Biased] , but I'm not so sure.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Punishment is only about me if I am trying to impose morality onto someone else. What if punishment is about God, an objective morality and his honour?

As I see it, what makes the difference between punishment and discipline is not the nature of the action which has brought that punishment about, but rather the motivation of the response. The objective or otherwise nature of the offence is irrelevant. Punishment is, at heart, about the punisher feeling better. We feel affronted, so we must teach the affronter "a lesson they'll never forget". Discipline is about growing the offender out of the offensive behaviour, by "realising" the consequences which are actually present, but may be unseen by the perp. This can be either a direct consequence (child reaching out to touch a fire, or running accross the road) or an indirect consequence (child is mean towards peers, which, if unchecked, could harm social development). The point is to apply the minimum correction necessary to acheive the outcome (not saying that's easy!)
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As I see it, what makes the difference between punishment and discipline is not the nature of the action which has brought that punishment about, but rather the motivation of the response. The objective or otherwise nature of the offence is irrelevant. Punishment is, at heart, about the punisher feeling better. We feel affronted, so we must teach the affronter "a lesson they'll never forget". Discipline is about growing the offender out of the offensive behaviour, by "realising" the consequences which are actually present, but may be unseen by the perp. This can be either a direct consequence (child reaching out to touch a fire, or running accross the road) or an indirect consequence (child is mean towards peers, which, if unchecked, could harm social development). The point is to apply the minimum correction necessary to acheive the outcome (not saying that's easy!)

But it does make a difference. If, in some sense, I punish my child because God has been affronted, then it has little to do how I feel.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
But it does make a difference. If, in some sense, I punish my child because God has been affronted, then it has little to do how I feel.
Are you not being affronted on God's behalf (possibly unjustifiably)? Why would you want to punish him or her? Why would disciplining be insufficient? Why the need for retribution rather than rectification.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Are you not being affronted on God's behalf (possibly unjustifiably)?

Surely whether it is justified or not is the whole point?

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Why would you want to punish him or her? Why would disciplining be insufficient? Why the need for retribution rather than rectification.

I don't like the word retribution since it carries the connotation of revenge. However, what I think (in this context) punishment adds to discipline is a sense of authority. If God is God then we either submit to him willingly or unwillingly. I agree that mostly this is about rectification, but ultimately there is an element of acknowledging the godness of God.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, you'd probably guess that, unlike possibly sharktacos, I'd take issue with the punishment issue

JJ, While I acknowledge the presence of the idea of wrath, punishment and judgment as problems presented in the NT, I do not associate them with the "justice from God" that Paul speaks of. They are the sucky consequences of our brokenness that God in his justice wants to spare us from by making us well.

A doctor will acknowledge in a sense the "rightness" of you having a broken leg when you fell from the window. This is a part of the "law of medicine" that falls break legs. Heck maybe you were even careless and it was your fault that you fell. The doctor however will do everything in her power to make you well, using those same laws of medicine, and then tell you afterwards to be more careful around windows.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
A doctor will acknowledge in a sense the "rightness" of you having a broken leg when you fell from the window. This is a part of the "law of medicine" that falls break legs.

Thank you for explaining that, Sharky. I am feeling like JJ and was not comfortable with your recognition of punishment. But your explanation, if I understand you, is exactly how I see it.

God is not the source of punishment. But the world that He created does include consequences for disorder. A fall results in a broken bone - which is painful. God did not cause the pain, He is not angry at you for falling, it is just what happens according to the physical laws of the created world.

The same is true spiritually. Humanity's brokenness results in painful consequences. These can be seen as punishments, but they are really just the direct result of the brokenness.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
This is a part of the "law of medicine" that falls break legs.

Unfortunate turn of phrase. Laws mean the imposition of authority. Who made those laws in the first place? [Razz]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
The same is true spiritually. Humanity's brokenness results in painful consequences. These can be seen as punishments, but they are really just the direct result of the brokenness.
Exactly so, Freddy. I'm not comfortable with describing the effects of sin as punishment because it implies volitional input from God which I believe to be absent. We may perceive a set of circumstances as punishment, but that set will be the consequences of our actions, not God's. The use of the word punishment obscures rather than illuminates that process.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
This is a part of the "law of medicine" that falls break legs.

Unfortunate turn of phrase. Laws mean the imposition of authority. Who made those laws in the first place? [Razz]
Not necessarily the imposition of authority. Actually, there is a difference between natural laws and "legal" laws, something that Paul is at pains to emphasise, with his contrast between the "legal" law and the law of sin and death.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Are you not being affronted on God's behalf (possibly unjustifiably)?

Surely whether it is justified or not is the whole point?

I disagree. If we punish for "good reason" we do a bad thing for a (possibly) good reason. If we punish unjustifiably, we do a bad thing for a bad reason. Either way, punishment is a bad response to a situation.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
I don't like the word retribution since it carries the connotation of revenge. However, what I think (in this context) punishment adds to discipline is a sense of authority. If God is God then we either submit to him willingly or unwillingly. I agree that mostly this is about rectification, but ultimately there is an element of acknowledging the godness of God.
Is that what you see to be the difference between discipline and punishment? Because I don't believe that the exercise of discipline can be divorced from authority, in this or any other situation.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Not necessarily the imposition of authority. Actually, there is a difference between natural laws and "legal" laws, something that Paul is at pains to emphasise, with his contrast between the "legal" law and the law of sin and death.

Quit stalling. [Big Grin]

I know there is a difference but God stands behind all of them and therefore 'cause and effect' must come down (eventually) to his instigation.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Is that what you see to be the difference between discipline and punishment? Because I don't believe that the exercise of discipline can be divorced from authority, in this or any other situation.

Maybe I'm hair-splitting.

Discipline, to me, implies voluntarily submitting to said authority.

Punishment is more a matter of fact. It is what happens when someone refuses to submit to authority.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Not necessarily the imposition of authority. Actually, there is a difference between natural laws and "legal" laws, something that Paul is at pains to emphasise, with his contrast between the "legal" law and the law of sin and death.

Quit stalling. [Big Grin]

I know there is a difference but God stands behind all of them and therefore 'cause and effect' must come down (eventually) to his instigation.

Well Paul seemed to think the difference was significant. Most of us do not lay the blame for earthquakes at God's door, in spite of His sustaining of the physical laws which allow them to happen.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Is that what you see to be the difference between discipline and punishment? Because I don't believe that the exercise of discipline can be divorced from authority, in this or any other situation.

Maybe I'm hair-splitting.

Discipline, to me, implies voluntarily submitting to said authority.


Punishment is more a matter of fact. It is what happens when someone refuses to submit to authority.

Maybe you ought to explain that to my kids! [Big Grin] [Ultra confused] (Actually they were all little angels. Honest!)
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Most of us do not lay the blame for earthquakes at God's door, in spite of His sustaining of the physical laws which allow them to happen.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I do think that modern apologetics is a bit weak here.

I do not 'blame' God for earthquakes, but I do think (somehow) he must be responsible for them. God does not stand behind bad things in the same way that he stands behind good things, but he nevertheless stands behind them all.

Bertrand Russell, “I can imagine a sardonic demon producing us for his amusement, but I cannot attribute to a being who is wise and omnipotent the terrible weight of cruelty and suffering of what is best that has marred the history of man.”

I agree with Russell. Faced with a God who is all loving and all powerful I just can't reconcile earthquakes.... and everything else. Either he is not all loving or he is not omnipotent. That is, unless he is also just and holy and 'the wrath of God is being revealed' (Romans 1: 18). I certainly do not mean that this is a direct cause and effect relationship of bad people getting squished by a volcano. (It would be monstrous to suggest that with all the innocent suffering that happens.) But I do think there is some sense in which bad stuff happens as a way of showing that God is angry with sin. Otherwise I think Russell was right to ridicule Christians for the weakness of their thinking.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Faced with a God who is all loving and all powerful I just can't reconcile earthquakes.... and everything else. Either he is not all loving or he is not omnipotent. That is, unless he is also just and holy and 'the wrath of God is being revealed' (Romans 1: 18). I certainly do not mean that this is a direct cause and effect relationship of bad people getting squished by a volcano. (It would be monstrous to suggest that with all the innocent suffering that happens.) But I do think there is some sense in which bad stuff happens as a way of showing that God is angry with sin.

This is actually a pretty revealing statement, Johnny. Are you sure that there aren't other ways out of it?

My version of this same idea is that disorder begets disorder, causing the innocent to suffer. By contrast, if theoretically there was no sin, there would also be no disease, no hunger or poverty, and no accident or earthquake victims.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My version of this same idea is that disorder begets disorder, causing the innocent to suffer. By contrast, if theoretically there was no sin, there would also be no disease, no hunger or poverty, and no accident or earthquake victims.

Perhaps I'm not being clear.

I think the same as you above. However, if God created a world where these things are the consequences of sin then that must also reflect his nature.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My version of this same idea is that disorder begets disorder, causing the innocent to suffer. By contrast, if theoretically there was no sin, there would also be no disease, no hunger or poverty, and no accident or earthquake victims.

Perhaps I'm not being clear.

I think the same as you above. However, if God created a world where these things are the consequences of sin then that must also reflect his nature.

God also created a world with suffering and evil and disease in it, but we would not say this is part of his nature.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think the same as you above. However, if God created a world where these things are the consequences of sin then that must also reflect his nature.

He created a reality that includes opposition. If it would have been better for Him to create a reality that did not include opposites, then He would have done it.

But this is really a consequence of His love, not His nature in the sense that opposition is punished. His love requires that people be free to love or not love in return. Freedom is an essential aspect of love. But the reality is that opposition necessarily deprives a person of the benefits of conjunction with God.

So God does not punish, nor does He wish for punishment. He did create a reality that includes the possibility of opposites, and the consequences of this are that there are such things as harmful choices. But this is not punishment, nor does it indicate that God's nature includes anger or punishment.

These things are described in the Bible as anger and punishment because this is the subjective appearance. But it's not the reality attributable to the God of love.
 
Posted by craigb (# 11318) on :
 
Hi sharktacos

quote:
God also created a world with suffering and evil and disease in it, but we would not say this is part of his nature.

I don't think this is sustainable - for Genesis tells us that God created a world that was good. Suffering, evil, and disease came about from sin.

An interesting point I would like to see addressed by PSAers and in the subject of CV is that God created humans with the ability to sin, knowing full well that humans would sin and yet called his creation GOOD. Why do we call bad what God calls good?

Also in regards to the subject on Christs humanity a few pages back, I think we often look at the humanity of Christ from the wrong perspective.

We humans are made in the image of God and therefore by default Christ has to be fully human and fully God as we represent his humanity.

I'm also reading this thread with interest as I am studying Christology at the moment and need to look and know about the various theories of the atonement.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
this brings up another insight that CV gives us:

PSA frames the world in terms of a righteous angry God and a sinful humanity.

CV broadens that picture to include the biblical emphasis on Satan.

In doing so it is able to not only address our problem of guilt and shame, but also the more contemporary issues of alienation, despair, and unjust suffering. In other words, the issue of theodicy (How can an all powerful and loving God allow evil and unjust suffering?) is addressed by CV's understanding of the world being under demonic rule, while it is exacerbated by the two party view of PSA.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Craig, if you will recall, the original statement by Johnny was that "if God created a world where these things are the consequences of sin then that must also reflect his nature." by that logic we would be forced to conclude that sickness and disease, which are also as you say the result of sin, would necessarily be in God's nature as well. Which is why I conclude the the entire line of reasoning is flawed. Wrath is no more in God's nature then sickness is.

Nowhere is wrath described as an attribute of God. God's wrath is a consequence of his righteousness, just as God's sorrow comes from his compassion. God gets angry and sad because he loves. His nature is not anger or sadness.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Craig, if you will recall, the original statement by Johnny was that "if God created a world where these things are the consequences of sin then that must also reflect his nature." by that logic we would be forced to conclude that sickness and disease, which are also as you say the result of sin, would necessarily be in God's nature as well. Which is why I conclude the the entire line of reasoning is flawed. Wrath is no more in God's nature then sickness is.

I think my argument was rather more sophisticated than you are making out. (But I would say that. [Big Grin] )

I didn't say that God creating the world means that everything that happens (incl. sin and sickness) is part of his nature. What I said was if God created the 'laws' of nature (e.g. that sickness is a result of sin) then that reflects something about his nature. Otherwise we collapse into some kind of dualism where there are parts of creation that are outside of his control. God made the 'rules' in the first place, that must tell us something about him. I don't see any other way to understand verses 18-20 of Romans 1.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:

Also in regards to the subject on Christs humanity a few pages back, I think we often look at the humanity of Christ from the wrong perspective.

We humans are made in the image of God and therefore by default Christ has to be fully human and fully God as we represent his humanity.

Yes, but CV needs a 'Victor' to fight on our behalf. No one has come up with a convincing reason why our 'champion' has to be fully human to defeat sin and death. Why can't he just fight on our behalf like one of the Greek gods?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:

Also in regards to the subject on Christ's humanity a few pages back, I think we often look at the humanity of Christ from the wrong perspective.

We humans are made in the image of God and therefore by default Christ has to be fully human and fully God as we represent his humanity.

Yes, but CV needs a 'Victor' to fight on our behalf. No one has come up with a convincing reason why our 'champion' has to be fully human to defeat sin and death. Why can't he just fight on our behalf like one of the Greek gods?
I thought we had covered this, but I'll have another go.

I think that there are a number of different aspects to this.

Firstly, the means by which the victory is acheived requires the authority which can only come from God. Only God can forgive sins in an ontological way. The cross/resurrection is the proof of the efficacy of that forgiveness, and so, whilst, from this narrow point, this is only a reason for Jesus to be divine in his ministry, and not necessarily in His death, it would be a very contrived theology that separated the two.

Secondly, there is the fact that God is, in fact, an offended party in this. I have never disputed that God would be perfectly within His rights to punish sin. That I don't think that punishing sin would be conducive to His aims is irrelevant. If we take this right as a given, then the surrendering of this right, even under the most extreme provocation, is indicative of His commitment to humanity. It is one thing to send someone not Us (ie, not one of the Trinity, if I can speak of mysteries in such a crass way) to suffer and die, it is quite another to surrender Ourselves, to surrender the Creator to the creation.

Thirdly, you cannot separate the cross fdrom the resurrection. The Son was the agent of the first creation. Only the Son could be the agent of the new creation initiated on the first Easter Sunday. Whilst it might be possible for an only human Messiah to defeat sin (though I find it hard to imagine such a thing), that non-God man could not accomplish the re-creation. Of course, I would speculate that something of the nature of that re-creation would have been lost had Jesus not been fully human as well, but it would, IMV, be inconceivable that a mere human could accomplish the remaking of creation.

Just a few thoughts.

[ 14. August 2007, 09:13: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
No one has come up with a convincing reason why our 'champion' has to be fully human to defeat sin and death. Why can't he just fight on our behalf like one of the Greek gods?

Johnny, you should have mentioned this before. Christ had to be human to defeat sin and death because sin and death are human, not divine, problems.

The problem of sin is not a cosmic one, with a great and powerful devil opposing a great and powerful God. The problem of sin is specific to humans, for whom it has an appeal that is connected primarily with the desires of their senses.

So the problem of sin for God is not about how to overcome a powerful cosmic force, but how to re-orient the priorities of a weak humanity, so that they value heavenly over worldly things.

Christ needed to be human to do this because the problem only makes sense, or only exists, in a human context. As a human He could be attacked by sin, or by the spiritual forces that represent it, and overcome them. He overcame them by resisting their appeal, or through obedience to the Father, which is represented in all of Christ's miracles, words, actions and struggles.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:

Also in regards to the subject on Christs humanity a few pages back, I think we often look at the humanity of Christ from the wrong perspective.

We humans are made in the image of God and therefore by default Christ has to be fully human and fully God as we represent his humanity.

Yes, but CV needs a 'Victor' to fight on our behalf. No one has come up with a convincing reason why our 'champion' has to be fully human to defeat sin and death. Why can't he just fight on our behalf like one of the Greek gods?
You're concentrating on the one aspect and ignoring the wider context again Johnny. It's not that Christ has to be human solely as our champion, but he does have to be human for us to self-identify with Him, for His life to be our life, and for our humanity to be taken into the Godhead at His ascension. Asking why Jesus had to be human for one small part of the whole makes as much sense as asking why Jesus had to be human to perform miracles.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Sorry, John, misread your question, or rather misremembered it.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
No one has come up with a convincing reason why our 'champion' has to be fully human to defeat sin and death. Why can't he just fight on our behalf like one of the Greek gods?

As I have said before: because our problem is internal, we need to God to live as us so that we can live in God.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
So, Johnny, within an hour you had four responses to your question. I doubt that you find any of them convincing. Am I right?

I expect that the reason is that you are completely convinced of the rightness of the need for Christ's humanity according to PSA - that Christ needed to be human to take humanity's punishment and pay the price of sin with human blood. Is this right?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Paul in Col would seem to say that Christ prclaimed to the powers of Hell, in th hours before his resurrection, that the price for sin had been paid. Col 2:13,15. v 14 is particularly interesting in this regard.
"having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us:and he has taken it out of the way having nailed it to the cross."

I read the passage differently:
quote:
NKJV Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
When Paul says "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us" he is saying that Jesus, having fulfilled the ritual law, no longer requires it. As Paul says in the next verses:
quote:
Colossians 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ... 20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
This makes it clear that the "handwriting of requirements" are the ritual laws that say “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” or that are about "food or drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths," which are of no value in actually turning away from sin.

So when Paul says:
quote:
And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
he means that the ritual law was nailed to the cross, or that the fulfilled reality makes these symbolic practices into mere "shadows." The reality is that Jesus "disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it."

In other words, I think that you are misreading Paul. The price Jesus paid was in the sense of having disarmed the enemy through His self-sacrifice and by His mighty power.

Along the lines of this discussion, I noticed an article by Simons Gathercole in this week's Christianity Today which mentions this point as part of the new perspective on Paul:
quote:
According to the new perspective, Paul is only focusing on these aspects of Jewish life (Sabbath, circumcision, food laws) when he mentions "works of the law." His problem isn't legalistic self-righteousness in general. Rather, for Jews these works of the law highlighted God's election of the Jewish nation, excluding Gentiles. Called by God to reach the Gentiles, Paul recognizes that Jews wrongly restricted God's covenant to themselves.
Doesn't this "new perspective" indicate that it is the ritual law that is nailed to the cross in Colossians 2:14?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Asking why Jesus had to be human for one small part of the whole makes as much sense as asking why Jesus had to be human to perform miracles.

I'm asking it because it was a very big deal to the early church fathers.

I can't dismiss key aspects of church history to the dustbin of 'insignifcant part' quite as easily as you. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So, Johnny, within an hour you had four responses to your question. I doubt that you find any of them convincing. Am I right?

Haven't had time to read them all yet. At first glance, you're spot on. [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I expect that the reason is that you are completely convinced of the rightness of the need for Christ's humanity according to PSA - that Christ needed to be human to take humanity's punishment and pay the price of sin with human blood. Is this right?

Yes and No. I am currently convinced of PSA but open to be corrected. I would hope that others hold their convictions about CV similarly.

I do think, as you suggest, that PSA is consonant with the early church fathers who insisted that Christ's full humanity was absolutely necessary for salvation. As it were PSA is a model that fits with this piece of data. I like CV but think this is one area of weakness for it as a model.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Asking why Jesus had to be human for one small part of the whole makes as much sense as asking why Jesus had to be human to perform miracles.

I'm asking it because it was a very big deal to the early church fathers.

I can't dismiss key aspects of church history to the dustbin of 'insignifcant part' quite as easily as you. [Big Grin]

I never used the word "insignificant".

The point I am making is that Christ's humanity is essential for His whole work from the manger to the clouds. I don't feel the need to make it essential at every point on that journey.

Our champion on the Cross has to be human because after He's won the victory on the cross He takes our redeemed Humanity, which He has borne in His person through life and death, into the Godhead and thereby enables our Theosis.

Isn't that enough?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The problem of sin is not a cosmic one, with a great and powerful devil opposing a great and powerful God. The problem of sin is specific to humans, for whom it has an appeal that is connected primarily with the desires of their senses.

I thought the doctrine of the Fall/original sin was that the whole created order was effected by the sin of Adam and Eve so the entire cosmos needs redemption, not just humans. I think that's particularly a view held by the Puritans, e.g. John Milton in Paradise Lost.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
As with Leo I'm getting really confused here.

Sharktacos, how does this ....

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV broadens that picture to include the biblical emphasis on Satan.... is addressed by CV's understanding of the world being under demonic rule...

fit with this ...

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
As I have said before: because our problem is internal, we need to God to live as us so that we can live in God.

[Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The problem of sin is not a cosmic one, with a great and powerful devil opposing a great and powerful God. The problem of sin is specific to humans, for whom it has an appeal that is connected primarily with the desires of their senses.

I thought the doctrine of the Fall/original sin was that the whole created order was effected by the sin of Adam and Eve so the entire cosmos needs redemption, not just humans. I think that's particularly a view held by the Puritans, e.g. John Milton in Paradise Lost.
I don't disagree with that view, but I see those things as being affected by humanity's sinful state. So the problem, and the solution, still rest with the need to reform humanity.

I also would not generalize it to the cosmos. I would restrict it to this particular planet. [Biased]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As with Leo I'm getting really confused here.

Sharktacos, how does this ....

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV broadens that picture to include the biblical emphasis on Satan.... is addressed by CV's understanding of the world being under demonic rule...

fit with this ...

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
As I have said before: because our problem is internal, we need to God to live as us so that we can live in God.

[Ultra confused]

It fits because our bondage to Satan is internal.
Therefore what being liberated out of bondage means is a change in identity, going from being a "child of Satan" and belonging to "the world" with our identity defined by that hateful brokenness, we are "adopted" into God's family.

You can see here that a lot of NT analogies overlap: redemption out of slavery, adoption, etc. Because these are all analogies that are attempting to explain complex heavenly and deeply internal things we need a bunch of different metaphors to try and get at this complex picture. That's why in general the perspective you are taking of trying to combine several perspectives on the atonement is a good one because any single motif or analogy is going to only show us one aspect of what is going on. I do think however that it is important as well to try and work out how the different pictures fit together so we have a combined mosaic rather then a hodge podge of motifs.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

I also would not generalize it to the cosmos. I would restrict it to this particular planet. [Biased]

I see your smiley, but I wanted to mention anyway that "cosmos" as Paul uses it refers to the spiritual realm and principalities and powers which are an important part of what CV deals with in addition to redeeming us humans.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

I also would not generalize it to the cosmos. I would restrict it to this particular planet. [Biased]

I see your smiley, but I wanted to mention anyway that "cosmos" as Paul uses it refers to the spiritual realm and principalities and powers which are an important part of what CV deals with in addition to redeeming us humans.
Ooh. Good point. I agree.

I especially think that the spiritual realm is an important element here.

[ 14. August 2007, 19:24: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[QB]
[QUOTE] If you have no idea how it 'works', how can you be so adamant that PSA is wrong? There is mystery here but you appear to be starting from your doctrine of God and then simply reading that into your view of the atonement. I would rather a sort of two-way feedback between what the bible teaches about God and about the atonement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precisely what we all do really. Start from our non-negotiables. Mine is that Christ substituted for my sin on the cross. I share it with millions of Christians world wide. It is in my view what Paul believed. I reject Sharktacos' reading of Romans 3:25 as a highly speculative linguistic argument that is a mere possible alternative reading. In the total weight of scripture, the evidence for Christ as a penal substitute is significant when the concept of sacrifice is considered. The issue earlier on in the thread was whether a sacrifice is 'punished'. I do not think it possible for one to avoid the obvious reading that it is a penal substitute however much one would like to think differently.

You see, Jamat, this is the why I find debating with you so frustrating. You are arguing about PSA from the point of view that PSA is non-negotiable. And yet, it is not (I believe) an undisputably biblical doctrine, (and you have been given chapter and verse for that)nor it is the doctrine held by most Christians today, nor, as far as we can tell, by most Christians in the past.

The fact is that many people do not see the Bible as teaching what you see it teaching. In fact, PSA was the default teaching of the church in which I came to faith and I rejected it precisely because I could not reconcile it with the scriptures!

quote:
Could I just add one other thing. The things we are discussing here are not academic to me. I have lived them for 30 years. I know what I believe and why and I am starting to get just slightly miffed at the patronising 'there there you don't really understand the issues' tone of some posts. This proves of course that I am still far from holy but you knew that anyway.

Now I don't actually think that the following fact means anything, but I also have been a Christian for a very long time, (born in 1953, came to faith in 1969) and I along with you I try, in as much as God gives me grace, to live the truths that I believe. The gospel is the power of God for salvation to me as well! So believe me, I'm not being patronising when I say that I believe that you have it wrong. As, I assume, you believe that I have it wrong. I just don't think that retreating into "this is a non-negotiable" is terrificly helpful for the debate.

Perhaps it may help to explain why it is to me utterly non negotiable.
PSA offers a clear rationale for blood sacrifice, particularly propitiary sacrifice.
PSA offers a rationale for the different scriptural elements in God's character, his judgements and his paradoxical love.
PSA clearly explains how the believer is subsumed into the cross and identified with the messiah through faith.
PSA adequately explains the essence of the mechanics of salvation..the how of the forgiveness possible on the basis of the cross.
PSA deals with the sin problem and the sins problem, the disease and the fruit of the disease. It explains how we can be forgiven and opens the possibil;ity of true holiness.
PSA explains God's holiness adequately and allows for it.
PSA accords well with the OT notably IS 53.
PSA is the most internally consistent model one can use to explain scriptures such as Ro 3:25, 1Jn 2:2, 1Jn 4:10, 1Cor5:7,Heb9:14,28, 1Pet 1:19,Rev1:5,
PSA contains a clear understanding of redemption.
PSA suggests a concept of justice in line with many Biblical stories.
I am convinced it is what the scripture writers believed.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
It fits because our bondage to Satan is internal.
Therefore what being liberated out of bondage means is a change in identity, going from being a "child of Satan" and belonging to "the world" with our identity defined by that hateful brokenness, we are "adopted" into God's family.

But that's my point, you're fighting a losing battle (unvictor [Big Grin] ) if you think that CV works better than PSA in describing something that is internal. I thought earlier that your big problem with PSA was that it was too obsessed with the internal.

I like CV but, as a metaphor, it inevitably focuses towards Christ fighting an external enemy, where as PSA tends to stress the internal consequences of sin.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I like CV but, as a metaphor, it inevitably focuses towards Christ fighting an external enemy, where as PSA tends to stress the internal consequences of sin.

In CV the enemy is within us. Christ battles the devil inside of each of us. We are not the devil, we are merely prone to following him unless we rely on Christ, who gives us the strength to resist him.

PSA, as I understand it, does not explain how we resist the devil.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
In CV the enemy is within us. Christ battles the devil inside of each of us. We are not the devil, we are merely prone to following him unless we rely on Christ, who gives us the strength to resist him.


Maybe, but the metaphor itself more naturallly conjures up images of an external enemy.

This is just the same as those who say that PSA, as a model, encourages us to model retributive justice in society. Equally I say that the model, in and of itself, may point that way, but we shouldn't apply it like that. It is at this point that you guys shout 'foul'.

Why doesn't it work both ways?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Hmmm... Perhaps I should explain why I find PSA so unsatisfying as a model:

quote:
PSA offers a clear rationale for blood sacrifice, particularly propitiary sacrifice.
Only by back-reading penal substitution into the OT sacrifice model.

quote:
PSA offers a rationale for the different scriptural elements in God's character, his judgements and his paradoxical love.
Only by proposing that punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty is "justice".

quote:
PSA clearly explains how the believer is subsumed into the cross and identified with the messiah through faith.
CV does this as well. The Incarnation enables identification, which is effected through Baptism. Having identified with our champion, we share in the benefits of His work on the cross.

quote:
PSA adequately explains the essence of the mechanics of salvation..the how of the forgiveness possible on the basis of the cross.
Forgiveness happens because God is forgiving. His nature is, as the CofE Liturgy says, always to have mercy. He doesn't need to have His arm twisted by a legal fiction.

quote:
PSA deals with the sin problem and the sins problem, the disease and the fruit of the disease. It explains how we can be forgiven and opens the possibil;ity of true holiness.
As does CV. Christ defeats sin. As we grow in theosis, dying to self and living to Him, we become freed from the disease of sin. Forgiveness is only the start of it, the very start.

quote:
PSA explains God's holiness adequately and allows for it.
Only if your definition of holiness is "hates sin and HAS HAS HAS to squash people for it".

quote:
PSA accords well with the OT notably IS 53.
Which has been discussed earlier. No-one denies that Christ suffered in our place and for our benefit - He suffers, we don't. But this is a very different thing from PSA, which states that God the Father punishes Christ.

quote:
PSA is the most internally consistent model one can use to explain scriptures such as Ro 3:25, 1Jn 2:2, 1Jn 4:10, 1Cor5:7,Heb9:14,28, 1Pet 1:19,Rev1:5,
Naturally if you start with a conclusion you will find texts which fit it.

quote:
PSA contains a clear understanding of redemption.
I'm not sure this is any more than any other model.

quote:
PSA suggests a concept of justice in line with many Biblical stories.
If you're talking about hanging the sons of Saul for what Saul did, then I've told you what I think of that "justice" - it's not. It's evil, wicked, injustice and should never, ever be commended. That the writer of Samuel seemed to think it was merely shows how much he was a man of his particular culture, which in this matter was deeply flawed. Unless you think it fair if I come and kill your son for what you have done wrong. I hope you'd tell me to fuck off.

quote:
I am convinced it is what the scripture writers believed.
I'm convinced it's what you want them to have believed.
 
Posted by JimS (# 10766) on :
 
The Hebrew scriptures make it very clear that the "god" who requires human sacrifice is Baal not YHWH. The Abraham/Isaac story and numerous other examples make this clear.
No Jew, Jesus, Paul etc. could have accepted PSA.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
It fits because our bondage to Satan is internal.
Therefore what being liberated out of bondage means is a change in identity, going from being a "child of Satan" and belonging to "the world" with our identity defined by that hateful brokenness, we are "adopted" into God's family.

But that's my point, you're fighting a losing battle (unvictor [Big Grin] ) if you think that CV works better than PSA in describing something that is internal. I thought earlier that your big problem with PSA was that it was too obsessed with the internal.

I like CV but, as a metaphor, it inevitably focuses towards Christ fighting an external enemy, where as PSA tends to stress the internal consequences of sin.

That's not true. PSA because it deals with sin on a legal level is anthropocentric, but completely external. It deals with averting our external punishment only, not with anything internal for us. For that it needs to add other doctrines on to itself.

CV in contrast deals both with individual and societal sin, and deals with the internals of both because of its medical model.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Hi Jim.

quote:
Originally posted by JimS:
The Abraham/Isaac story and numerous other examples make this clear.

[Killing me] Commentators have been arguing over the point of Genesis 22 since before Jesus. Indeed many PSAers claim it as their OT 'seed'. The story of God demanding Abraham's son for sacrifice but then providing the sacrifice himself fits perfectly with CV or PSA.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

CV in contrast deals both with individual and societal sin, and deals with the internals of both because of its medical model.

We're doing a kids club at church next week and the theme is 'Superheroes'. Inspired by this thread (you'll be pleased to know [Big Grin] ) I thought about a talk on Jesus as 'the superhero', although he wins by losing.

Anyway, I therefore thought we would look at the CV passage in the NT to base this idea on - Colossians 2: 13-15.

"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross."

However, two things struck me about these verses:

1. Clearly Paul uses the 'victory' language to describe an external triumph - I don't recall any commentator seriously suggesting that the 'powers and authorities' were entirely internal.

2. He also links that 'victory' motif with a legal / penal one. (After all the point he is making about the law is that it condemned us.)


doesn't it bother you that you have do so much work on the central text in order to make it 'fit' your view of CV?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, two things struck me about these verses:
1. Clearly Paul uses the 'victory' language to describe an external triumph - I don't recall any commentator seriously suggesting that the 'powers and authorities' were entirely internal.

I hope you look at Jamat's and my discussion of these verses above.

Are "sin" and "demons" external or internal? Insofar as these forces work within us, the work, and the victory, are internal.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
2. He also links that 'victory' motif with a legal / penal one. (After all the point he is making about the law is that it condemned us.)

The point he is making is about the Jewish ritual laws of circumcision, about the laws that say “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” or that are about "food or drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths." These are of no value in actually turning away from sin. They merely distinguish Jews from non-Jews and so are "against us."
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
doesn't it bother you that you have do so much work on the central text in order to make it 'fit' your view of CV?

Just the opposite. It's PSA that needs to rework the central texts, and ignore Jesus' own teachings, to make a fit.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are "sin" and "demons" external or internal? Insofar as these forces work within us, the work, and the victory, are internal.

My point was about Colossians 2: 15, I've never heard anyone claim that Paul is talking about purely internal enemies there.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The point he is making is about the Jewish ritual laws of circumcision, about the laws that say “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” or that are about "food or drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths." These are of no value in actually turning away from sin. They merely distinguish Jews from non-Jews and so are "against us."

No, that is the application that Paul makes, the work of Christ (as I'm sure you would agree) is much deeper. In verse 22 of chapter 1 he speaks of the cross making us 'free from accusation'. The written code condemns us, Jesus has set us free from that. Neverthless Paul is using a legal metaphor to explain the cross.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It's PSA that needs to rework the central texts, and ignore Jesus' own teachings, to make a fit.

I think you might have said that before. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are "sin" and "demons" external or internal? Insofar as these forces work within us, the work, and the victory, are internal.

My point was about Colossians 2: 15, I've never heard anyone claim that Paul is talking about purely internal enemies there.
So who are the external enemies? The Romans? The Jewish leadership? Are "sin" and "demons" external or internal?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So who are the external enemies? The Romans? The Jewish leadership? Are "sin" and "demons" external or internal?

If you notice I said purely internal.

I'm sure demons have an internal influence too but all commentators I have ever read assume Col. 2 v 15 refers to external evil spiritual forces - i.e. the demonic realm.

[ 16. August 2007, 14:11: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So who are the external enemies? The Romans? The Jewish leadership? Are "sin" and "demons" external or internal?

If you notice I said purely internal.

I'm sure demons have an internal influence too but all commentators I have ever read assume Col. 2 v 15 refers to external evil spiritual forces - i.e. the demonic realm.

So what's the problem? The demonic realm can be seen as either internal or external, depending on how you look at it.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So what's the problem? The demonic realm can be seen as either internal or external, depending on how you look at it.

Er, no. I was saying that the demonic realm may well have internal consequences but it must also be external. Col. 2 v 15 seems to be stressing the external aspect.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So what's the problem? The demonic realm can be seen as either internal or external, depending on how you look at it.

Er, no. I was saying that the demonic realm may well have internal consequences but it must also be external. Col. 2 v 15 seems to be stressing the external aspect.
I'm not seeing what the problem is.

Even if the demonic realm is external, and Christ fought against it as an external force, it is neither visible or tangible in this world. The entire spiritual realm is by definition internal because it is invisible. It only affects anyone through their spirit, which is internal and invisible. At least, I've never run into demons anywhere else - I've never seen or been aware of them at all.

So evil spiritual forces are external to a person in the sense that they are not the person himself or herself. But since they don't walk around visibly in the world they only exist within us, so to speak. Or they don't exist at all, according to many.

So I don't see the conflict with Col 2:15. What am I missing? Do I have an entirely different view of how demons work than you do? [Confused]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm not seeing what the problem is.

Okay. This is just an analogy, please don't take it too literally.

In Marvel comic world super heroes (batman / spiderman etc.) have all sorts of arch enemies to combat. However, their greatest enemy is often themselves (feelings of guilt or whatever).

CV in Col. 2 v 15 is much more about 'kapow' to the Green Goblin than it is about internal struggles. Even if their effects may be internal the demons are external enemies.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
CV in Col. 2 v 15 is much more about 'kapow' to the Green Goblin than it is about internal struggles. Even if their effects may be internal the demons are external enemies.

Yes, that makes sense to me. This is why I enjoy Spiderman.

But why is this a problem? Christ defeated this enemy. It was external. Are you saying that "sin" and "demons" are not also internal problems? Are you saying that He does not defeat the sin that is within us?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you saying that "sin" and "demons" are not also internal problems? Are you saying that He does not defeat the sin that is within us?

No. I'm just saying that Col. 2 v 15 is using the CV picture externally.

Now, I've got some work to do so I won't be around for a while.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you saying that "sin" and "demons" are not also internal problems? Are you saying that He does not defeat the sin that is within us?

No. I'm just saying that Col. 2 v 15 is using the CV picture externally.
OK. Sure. You're just not saying what "externally" means in relation to "sin" and "demons."

You were originally responding to Sharktacos' statement:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV in contrast deals both with individual and societal sin, and deals with the internals of both because of its medical model.

You seem to be saying that Col. 2 v 15 somehow contradicts this. Do you really think that it does?

It does bring up an important concept about how sin works. Is sin within us or outside of us? Are demons within us or outside of us? The question is an important one because of its implications about what "fallenness" is.

Are we "fallen" because sin is an intrinsic part of us?

Or are we "fallen" because we are predisposed by our heredity to be vulnerable to the appeal of "sin" and "demons"?

I think that the implications of CV are the latter.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

1. Clearly Paul uses the 'victory' language to describe an external triumph - I don't recall any commentator seriously suggesting that the 'powers and authorities' were entirely internal.

Perhaps we need to define our terms more clearly. When I said that PSA was "external" what I meant is that it deals with averting an external punishment rather than with solving the problem of sin in us.

Paul's language of the "powers and authorities" is not speaking of external things because as he says "our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against the principalities and powers of this dark age". In other words, he is speaking of a spiritual reality. That spiritual reality, while being larger then just us, has a direct impact on us inside. Our bondage to it is internal in that it effects us, it shapes who we are, our identity and self-worth.

So the powers are not just us. There is a bigger thing going on. But they are connected to us, and thus to liberate us from them entails and inner transformation in us.

I think perhaps Johnny you are taking Paul's analogies too rigidly and expecting them to fit exactly. Paul uses a number of different analogies rather than just one so that when you put them all together you can get at the big picture he is painting.

quote:

2. He also links that 'victory' motif with a legal / penal one. (After all the point he is making about the law is that it condemned us.)

Legal yes. Penal no. The victory motif is a liberation motif. He is crucifying the law here which had condemned us. He is not in this appeasing the law, he is killing it. Like us the law dies to the sin in it, so that it can rise to become the servant of love.

quote:
doesn't it bother you that you have do so much work on the central text in order to make it 'fit' your view of CV?
The work is because we have adopted a wrong way of seeing things and projected it onto the text and need to unlearn this so we can listen to what the Bible is actually saying.

CV fits with all of the Bible. PSA does not. And I don't just mean we can squeeze it to fit. It fits with the original intent and point of the authors. It fits with the historical settings and world view of the time.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Thank you, sharktacos. Excellently put.

But I wonder about this:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The victory motif is a liberation motif. He is crucifying the law here which had condemned us. He is not in this appeasing the law, he is killing it. Like us the law dies to the sin in it, so that it can rise to become the servant of love.

I don't disagree with this, but I'm wondering what you mean by "the law." I referred above to the new perspective on Paul, which indicates that "the law" here is the ritual law, not the actual laws of right and wrong that are taught in the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and elsewhere both in the OT and the NT.

I do agree that these laws are the servant of love - since love necessarily entails obeying them.

What is your thinking on this?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Paul's language of the "powers and authorities" is not speaking of external things because as he says "our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against the principalities and powers of this dark age". In other words, he is speaking of a spiritual reality. That spiritual reality, while being larger then just us, has a direct impact on us inside. Our bondage to it is internal in that it effects us, it shapes who we are, our identity and self-worth.

I'm still not clear. Are you saying that spiritual powers cannot be external? ('Cos if so, then I would think that you'd be pretty novel in that.)


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I think perhaps Johnny you are taking Paul's analogies too rigidly and expecting them to fit exactly. Paul uses a number of different analogies rather than just one so that when you put them all together you can get at the big picture he is painting.

[Big Grin]

But how can I be taking Paul too literally if, as you claim, CV fits so easily with the plain reading of scripture?

Let me guess, an angel appeared one night with some special glasses and now you can see what the NT is really about. I wish you well in your new denomination. [Biased]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Are you saying that spiritual powers cannot be external? ('Cos if so, then I would think that you'd be pretty novel in that.)

What do you mean by external? I think that's the issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But how can I be taking Paul too literally if, as you claim, CV fits so easily with the plain reading of scripture?

Taking Paul too literally means not paying attention to context and metaphors, and not asking what Paul really meant by what he said. People do this all the time.

CV more closely follows the larger themes of Scripture than PSA, which relies on a superficial understanding of a few concepts and verses.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QB] Hmmm... Perhaps I should explain why I find PSA so unsatisfying as a model:

quote:
PSA offers a clear rationale for blood sacrifice, particularly propitiary sacrifice.
Only by back-reading penal substitution into the OT sacrifice model
Did you take in my mention several posts back ,of the Edenic couple needing to be clothed in skins? also the reason Abel's sacrifice was accepted and Cain's not?
Not a back readinding..to me intrinsic.

If you don't like the God of the OT scriptures and write him off as a genocidal maniac, who's got the problem? The OT God was the only God Jesus was connected with.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
I still can't understand why some think PSA which, istm, makes God rather stupid in choosing Passover which has nothing to do with sin offering at all when He could have chosen Yom Kippur which has everything to do with sin offering and atonement for all the people and the only day when the Holy of Holies was entered.


The bloody sacrifices were: bull, two goats, two rams. The two lambs were part of the daily offering, not special to Yom Kippur.


quote:
General observances
Yom Kippur, also known as the Day of Atonement, is the Jewish day of repentance. It is considered to be one of the holiest and most solemn days of the year. Its central theme is atonement from sins against both God and one's fellow man.


....

The main section of the Avodah is a threefold recitation of the High Priest's actions regarding expiation in the Holy of Holies. Performing the sacrificial acts and reciting Leviticus 16:30, "for on this day atonement shall be made for you, to atone for you for all your sins, before God..." (he would recite the Tetragrammaton at this point, to which the people would prostrate to the ground) and after extending the Name, he would finish the verse "...you shall be purified." He would first ask for forgiveness for himself and his family ("Your pious man"), then for the priestly caste ("Your holy people"), and finally for all of Israel ("Your upright children"). (Yom Kippur)

Passover was not for a sin offering, but ".. so that you may remember the day of your departure from the land of Egypt as long as you live."(Pesah (Eighth Day))


Myrrh
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
So the comparisons and prophecies fulfilled that tie the sacrificed Jesus to the Passover lamb -- you see no idea of a sacrifice for sin there?

Even if you can't find any other connection, isn't the idea of Him being our Passover lamb enough? His being the body we consume, His being the blood that marks us, so that we are saved from pestilential avenging punishing death?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Janine - full stop Passover has NOTHING to do with sin offering, or repentance or atonement. It's all about freedom from slavery.

What I see wrong in PSA as being the main concept of Christ's death, besides that it makes God a heathenish one who requires blood sacrifices which the prophets denounce and Jeremiah specifically says God didn't give them these sacrifices at Mt Sinai, is that it makes God an ijit, who can't tell one day from another. If God meant that as the main concept it is illogical that he ignored Yom Kippur and chose Passover.

Sure, all kinds of views of what freedom means can be, quite reasonably, read into Passover including PSA if you believe that's your God (and I don't), but the overwhelming meaning is freedom and interestingly, we drink the blood too in remembering Christ in the eucharist, the Passover lamb has to have the blood spilled on the ground "as water".


Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Janine - full stop Passover has NOTHING to do with sin offering, or repentance or atonement. It's all about freedom from slavery.

What I see wrong in PSA as being the main concept of Christ's death, besides that it makes God a heathenish one who requires blood sacrifices which the prophets denounce and Jeremiah specifically says God didn't give them these sacrifices at Mt Sinai, is that it makes God an ijit, who can't tell one day from another. If God meant that as the main concept it is illogical that he ignored Yom Kippur and chose Passover.

Sure, all kinds of views of what freedom means can be, quite reasonably, read into Passover including PSA if you believe that's your God (and I don't), but the overwhelming meaning is freedom and interestingly, we drink the blood too in remembering Christ in the eucharist, the Passover lamb has to have the blood spilled on the ground "as water".


Myrrh

You should tell Paul then. He says in 1Cor 5:7 "Christ our Passover was also SACRIFICED."
 
Posted by craigb (# 11318) on :
 
G'day Jamat,

Ables sacrifice was accepted by God because of his timeliness in making it from the best of his first fruits - not because it was a animal sacrifice. Cains sacrifice was not accepted because it was not first fruits, and in a way was grudgingly given / or the fruit offered was substandard for Scripture says of the incident that in the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil.

Scripture does not support that Cains sacrifice was not accepted because it was not an animal sacrifice.

This story supports the CV stance more so than PSA as Jesus was Gods first fruit made sacrifice by men.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
G'day Jamat,

Ables sacrifice was accepted by God because of his timeliness in making it from the best of his first fruits - not because it was a animal sacrifice. Cains sacrifice was not accepted because it was not first fruits, and in a way was grudgingly given / or the fruit offered was substandard for Scripture says of the incident that in the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil.

Scripture does not support that Cains sacrifice was not accepted because it was not an animal sacrifice.

This story supports the CV stance more so than PSA as Jesus was Gods first fruit made sacrifice by men.

Hi Craig,
Don't agree,sorry. The separation of man and God was the issue, Blood sacrifice was the reconnection device. Virtually, the whole of scripture supports this. It is the rationale for he whole Mosaic system. Where does it say Cain's fruits weren't 'first' fruits anyway?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You should tell Paul then. He says in 1Cor 5:7 "Christ our Passover was also SACRIFICED."

The Passover lamb is a sacrifice, (but so is using bread, fruits, incense) - it's not a sacrifice for sin offering.

Myrrh
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Thank you, sharktacos. Excellently put.

But I wonder about this:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The victory motif is a liberation motif. He is crucifying the law here which had condemned us. He is not in this appeasing the law, he is killing it. Like us the law dies to the sin in it, so that it can rise to become the servant of love.

I don't disagree with this, but I'm wondering what you mean by "the law." I referred above to the new perspective on Paul, which indicates that "the law" here is the ritual law, not the actual laws of right and wrong that are taught in the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and elsewhere both in the OT and the NT.

I do agree that these laws are the servant of love - since love necessarily entails obeying them.

What is your thinking on this?

I'm thinking Paul means good laws, that have the purpose of leading us to love, that have become fallen and produce death.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Are you saying that spiritual powers cannot be external? ('Cos if so, then I would think that you'd be pretty novel in that.)

You are using the word "external" completely different then I was with my original quote. I meant it in reference to legal acquittal as "detached" "disconnected" "irrelevant" "superficial".

As far as Demons go, my position would be somewhere between Greg Boyd, C Peter Wagner, and Walter Wink.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Janine - full stop Passover has NOTHING to do with sin offering, or repentance or atonement. It's all about freedom from slavery.

You are correct about this. It was a covenant of solidarity with God. Jesus says that he is offering a "new covenant" in his blood.

At the same time though, there is the symbolism of passover, in the midst of the larger context of being about liberation of God's people out of bondage, that the blood of the passover lamb on the door as a sign of one's covenant with God did turn away the angel of wrath. The question is why. I'd say because blood - whether it was for atonement or passover or dedicating the Torah or a thank offering or whatever - always has the purpose of sanctification.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QB] Hmmm... Perhaps I should explain why I find PSA so unsatisfying as a model:

quote:
PSA offers a clear rationale for blood sacrifice, particularly propitiary sacrifice.
Only by back-reading penal substitution into the OT sacrifice model
Did you take in my mention several posts back ,of the Edenic couple needing to be clothed in skins? also the reason Abel's sacrifice was accepted and Cain's not?
Not a back readinding..to me intrinsic.

And where, exactly, in the story is there any mention of the animal skins coming from a sacrifice? This is blatent reading-in. Ditto Cain and Abel - you offer a hypothesis as to why Abel's sacrifice was accepted, but no actual backing for it - more reading-in.

quote:
If you don't like the God of the OT scriptures and write him off as a genocidal maniac, who's got the problem? The OT God was the only God Jesus was connected with.
"Don't like" - "write him off"?

OK. Let me take you through a thought exercise.

You are three years old. You live in a city. Outside there is an enemy army. One day, the walls fall in. Men rush into the city.

Your mother barricades the doors, and huddles you and your ten month old brother in the corner. The door starts to shake as a soldier pushes it in. The barricade is no defence.

Two men spring into the room. One takes his sword and in front of you tears your baby brother from his mother's arms and kills him. He turns to your mother and plunges his sword into her weeping form. As she turns to you, you see in her dying eyes her horror as the other soldier lifts his sword and plunges it at you. You feel the terrific pain as the sword enters your ribcage. Blood pours up through your mouth. The room fades, and you know no more.

Now, tell me, AS THAT THREE YEAR OLD CHILD, that these men are doing God's work. Tell me that this God is the loving, merciful Father that Our Lord Jesus Christ taught about. And try to do it without feeling the massive cognitive dissonance it has to create, unless you're a master of doublethink.

I used to try to believe that. But I realised it was 1984 Christianity. I believed it because I was too scared to believe otherwise. I forced myself not to confront the obvious. But it is obvious.

We do not successfully combat Marcionism by pretending the problem which gave rise to it does not exist. It does. It is very real.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
We do not successfully combat Marcionism by pretending the problem which gave rise to it does not exist. It does. It is very real.

Ah, the issue.

You're right Karl it cannot be ignored. However, unless you want to turn your back on the historic church the answer is not found in jettisoning the OT.

I think this whole debate would move forward much further if, on both sides [Hot and Hormonal] , we were a bit more willing to wrestle over passages of scripture. (Instead of just claiming them all for 'our' camp.)

I bumped into Gordon McConville (Professor of OT) in the pub a few weeks ago and asked him about the 'kpr' word group in the OT - is it propitiation or expiation? His considered response was - difficult to be certain!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I'm not up for jettisoning the OT. What I am up for is rejecting the idea that we can just pull something from it (like hanging Saul's sons for Saul's crimes, as Jamat did earlier) and saying "Look. That's the sort of thing God thinks is just, that is. You should agree with Him or else."

If you're at all interested, I don't think the Joshua genocides actually happened, historically. I think they're a bolted on origins myth. They're a vital background to ancient Israel's identity as the chosen people, given the land by God for a purpose, but actually I have a sneaking suspicion that my three year old child grew up into a big strapping lad, and had children whose own children, at least, considered themselves Israelite [Biased]

I also have a sneaking suspicion that when the "Book of the Law" was allegedly found during the Temple spring cleaning, the ink was suspiciously damp. But again, it's only a suspicion.

But this is getting very tangential.

[ 17. August 2007, 08:48: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
G'day Jamat,

Ables sacrifice was accepted by God because of his timeliness in making it from the best of his first fruits - not because it was a animal sacrifice. Cains sacrifice was not accepted because it was not first fruits, and in a way was grudgingly given / or the fruit offered was substandard for Scripture says of the incident that in the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil.

Scripture does not support that Cains sacrifice was not accepted because it was not an animal sacrifice.

This story supports the CV stance more so than PSA as Jesus was Gods first fruit made sacrifice by men.

Hi Craig,
Don't agree,sorry. The separation of man and God was the issue, Blood sacrifice was the reconnection device. Virtually, the whole of scripture supports this. It is the rationale for he whole Mosaic system. Where does it say Cain's fruits weren't 'first' fruits anyway?

Actually, Jamat, it's very strongly implied (one might almost say the obvious reading) in Gen 4: 3-5. Whilst Cain brings "some of the fruits" of his wealth, Abel brings the most valuable parts of the firstborn of his flock. I don't believe the contrast between the way the two offerings are described is accidental. Cain gave his offering after he had garnered his wealth, Abel gave sacrificially, before he had the security of knowing how his flocks would fare.

BTW, this is fairly standard evangelical exegesis of the passage. I make no claim to originality; I've heard many sermons in which the passage has been thus interpreted, from preachers of impeccable "soundness".

[ 17. August 2007, 08:51: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But this is getting very tangential.

I don't think this is tangential at all. We are going to go around in circles until we agree on principles of interpretation.

For example, I'd be interested in why you don't believe the Joshua conquests really happened. There is a big difference between 'because if the evidence' and 'and don't like that kind of God.'
 
Posted by craigb (# 11318) on :
 
Hi Jamat, you asked

quote:
Where does it say Cain's fruits weren't 'first' fruits anyway?

When we read this passage,
quote:
Gen 4:3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD .
Gen 4:4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,

it says that in the course of time, meaning some time had passed and he brought some of the fruits of the soil.

However Scripture says that Able offered fat portions of the first fruits, and nothing about Cain offering first fruits.

We get more of an insight into Cains state of mind here as we read further on,

quote:
Gen 4:5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

God was not happy with Cain, nor was he happy with his offering and Cain was angry with God. The very fact that Cain was angry shows that Cain brought an offering to the Lord under sufferance and his heart was not right before the Lord.

Also in the Mosaic law there are ample examples of various fruit and vegetable offerings that the Lord found pleasing - such as the wave offerings when the farmer would wave the first sheaf of grain before the Lord in thanksgiving. So the very fact that the Mosaic law allows fruit offerings that are pleasing to God means that it wasn't because Cain offered God some fruit that offended him.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QB] Hmmm... Perhaps I should explain why I find PSA so unsatisfying as a model:

quote:
PSA offers a clear rationale for blood sacrifice, particularly propitiary sacrifice.
Only by back-reading penal substitution into the OT sacrifice model
Did you take in my mention several posts back ,of the Edenic couple needing to be clothed in skins? also the reason Abel's sacrifice was accepted and Cain's not?
Not a back readinding..to me intrinsic.

And where, exactly, in the story is there any mention of the animal skins coming from a sacrifice? This is blatent reading-in. Ditto Cain and Abel - you offer a hypothesis as to why Abel's sacrifice was accepted, but no actual backing for it - more reading-in.

quote:
If you don't like the God of the OT scriptures and write him off as a genocidal maniac, who's got the problem? The OT God was the only God Jesus was connected with.
"Don't like" - "write him off"?

OK. Let me take you through a thought exercise.

You are three years old. You live in a city. Outside there is an enemy army. One day, the walls fall in. Men rush into the city.

Your mother barricades the doors, and huddles you and your ten month old brother in the corner. The door starts to shake as a soldier pushes it in. The barricade is no defence.

Two men spring into the room. One takes his sword and in front of you tears your baby brother from his mother's arms and kills him. He turns to your mother and plunges his sword into her weeping form. As she turns to you, you see in her dying eyes her horror as the other soldier lifts his sword and plunges it at you. You feel the terrific pain as the sword enters your ribcage. Blood pours up through your mouth. The room fades, and you know no more.

Now, tell me, AS THAT THREE YEAR OLD CHILD, that these men are doing God's work. Tell me that this God is the loving, merciful Father that Our Lord Jesus Christ taught about. And try to do it without feeling the massive cognitive dissonance it has to create, unless you're a master of doublethink.

I used to try to believe that. But I realised it was 1984 Christianity. I believed it because I was too scared to believe otherwise. I forced myself not to confront the obvious. But it is obvious.

We do not successfully combat Marcionism by pretending the problem which gave rise to it does not exist. It does. It is very real.

Not reading in, clear inference. Somewhere an animal died to clothe them. Very possible God killed the animal is a sacrifice especially in view of the enduring principle of sacrifice undeniable in the OT from Genesis on. To me it stares you in the face. To you there is a problem..not what you WANT to believe.

OK Karl I can see the vivid horror of the scene you have painted. What about this scenario

A race of people of Canaanite origin is shot through with idol worship. They practice human sacrifice and are deeply disconnected from God. Perhaps they are shot through with STDs as a result of sexual practices. Perhaps too there is a hybridity similar to what happened in Ge 6 that motivated the flood judgement. There is mention of 'Anakim' and Og of Bashan was clearly a giant. What if God in his foreknowledge sees where the world is heading unless he intervenes?

What if the alternative to killing humanity off completely is to cut out the 'cancer' endemic to this people group? I am always intrigued by the phrase, "The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full," Suggesting God delayed the Exodus to give this people group every chance. Balaam, you recall, was a Babylonian astrologer through whom God spoke so the word of the Lord was not totally confined to Israel.

Imagine a scenario then, where the most merciful solution to a problem is to wipe out the Canaanite race. It would be, of course untinkable if a Genghis Khan or a Hitler or a Stalin did it but the one who decides is not a piece of clay, he is the potter himself.

Does he not have the right?

We may not understand his reasons but can we not trust him to have them? Or must we judge with our fallen human minds instead of trusting that he is loving in his motives and just in his dealings even if we can't grasp these things.

His ways in fact are not ours.

Now Perhaps he is limited in his actions by another factor. The Christ has not come. There is no indwelling Holy Spirit and Mankind is heading down the path of Spritism and Barbaric violence.

God's solution is to build a particular nation that differs from all the others by modelling his laws and ways. This is his plan for the time. He knows they will fail and that it is a temporary solution but it is what he decides. He uses this raised up a nation to execute his judgements in order to preserve humanity in toto.

This nation, the Jews, are set apart by the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants which point down the ages to the Christ, the promised seed whose net effect will be to avoid the necessity for the drastic judgements of the past.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
Hi Jamat, you asked

quote:
Where does it say Cain's fruits weren't 'first' fruits anyway?

When we read this passage,
quote:
Gen 4:3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD .
Gen 4:4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,

it says that in the course of time, meaning some time had passed and he brought some of the fruits of the soil.

However Scripture says that Able offered fat portions of the first fruits, and nothing about Cain offering first fruits.

We get more of an insight into Cains state of mind here as we read further on,

quote:
Gen 4:5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

God was not happy with Cain, nor was he happy with his offering and Cain was angry with God. The very fact that Cain was angry shows that Cain brought an offering to the Lord under sufferance and his heart was not right before the Lord.

Also in the Mosaic law there are ample examples of various fruit and vegetable offerings that the Lord found pleasing - such as the wave offerings when the farmer would wave the first sheaf of grain before the Lord in thanksgiving. So the very fact that the Mosaic law allows fruit offerings that are pleasing to God means that it wasn't because Cain offered God some fruit that offended him.

Nowhere says Cain's fruits weren't first fruits only that Abel's were. I prefer my view.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
G'day Jamat,

Ables sacrifice was accepted by God because of his timeliness in making it from the best of his first fruits - not because it was a animal sacrifice. Cains sacrifice was not accepted because it was not first fruits, and in a way was grudgingly given / or the fruit offered was substandard for Scripture says of the incident that in the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil.

Scripture does not support that Cains sacrifice was not accepted because it was not an animal sacrifice.

This story supports the CV stance more so than PSA as Jesus was Gods first fruit made sacrifice by men.

Hi Craig,
Don't agree,sorry. The separation of man and God was the issue, Blood sacrifice was the reconnection device. Virtually, the whole of scripture supports this. It is the rationale for he whole Mosaic system. Where does it say Cain's fruits weren't 'first' fruits anyway?

Actually, Jamat, it's very strongly implied (one might almost say the obvious reading) in Gen 4: 3-5. Whilst Cain brings "some of the fruits" of his wealth, Abel brings the most valuable parts of the firstborn of his flock. I don't believe the contrast between the way the two offerings are described is accidental. Cain gave his offering after he had garnered his wealth, Abel gave sacrificially, before he had the security of knowing how his flocks would fare.

BTW, this is fairly standard evangelical exegesis of the passage. I make no claim to originality; I've heard many sermons in which the passage has been thus interpreted, from preachers of impeccable "soundness".

Sounds suspiciously like 'assertion' JJ.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Sounds suspiciously like 'assertion' JJ.

Well at least it's assertion based on what the text actually says. There is absolutely no basis for an assertion that blood sacrifices only were acceptable to God, still less that blood sacrifices were in any way associated with the animals being punished instead of their owners.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But this is getting very tangential.

I don't think this is tangential at all. We are going to go around in circles until we agree on principles of interpretation.

For example, I'd be interested in why you don't believe the Joshua conquests really happened. There is a big difference between 'because if the evidence' and 'and don't like that kind of God.'

Archaeological evidence of the conquests is debatable to say the least. It's not simply "I don't like that kind of God", but also that "That kind of God is not like the God revealed in Christ" - nor even revealed elsewhere in the OT. If I were convinced that God were that type of God, I could simply say "No thanks", not wanting anything to do with Him. I probably wouldn't, through moral cowardice, but that's by the by. At face value, we have a people told not 40 years earlier "Thou shalt not commit murder", being commanded to commit mass murder. As Abraham said, "shall not the judge of the world act justly?"; similarly, "shall not the very embodiment of goodness act in the manner He Himself has said is good?".

Which reminds me also of the Saul's Sons thing. This so-called "justice" system Jamat draws our attention to is condemned in the Mosaic Law and in the prophet Ezekiel!. The Mosaic Law says that a father shall not be put to death for the sins of his sons, nor a son for the sins of the father. Ezekiel has a long passage saying the same thing.

This is why I find the "A God you don't like" thing a bit strange - who is going to like a God who orders genocide? It's not like some personal peccadillo, not liking genocide. It's not that I want "A God I like" (as is often the accusation), but rather one that isn't actually morally repugnant.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You should tell Paul then. He says in 1Cor 5:7 "Christ our Passover was also SACRIFICED."

The Passover lamb is a sacrifice, (but so is using bread, fruits, incense) - it's not a sacrifice for sin offering.

Myrrh

Passover was a blood sacrifice. It was not a specific sin offering but in the OT it is blood that covers sin and blood that cleanses. This is clearly confirmed by the Hebrews writer who associates Christ's shed blood with our cleansing. Christ died during the Passover feast. Ergo, the sin offering, which he was, is associated with Passover and identified with it. Not saying Passover in its original form was not about liberation and redemption, only that there is a dovetailing of it with the 'Christ as a sacrifice for sin' teaching.
PSA proponents have a right to reasonably make these connections in their exegesis.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
I'm a late comer to this thread, and my views are predictable, as a self-identified liberal. But this is a pearl, to illustrate the way in which people see what's not there: (the fact I don't take Gen 3 literally is irrelevant)

quote:
Not reading in, clear inference. Somewhere an animal died to clothe them. Very possible God killed the animal is (I assime as - that's not a dig I do loads of typos) a sacrifice especially in view of the enduring principle of sacrifice undeniable in the OT from Genesis on. To me it stares you in the face. To you there is a problem..not what you WANT to believe.
What stares me in the face? That VERY POSSIBLY God killed an animal as a sacrifice? OK very possibly he did. Or he might just have killed it for clothes, so indicate (as the muth implies) that nakedness isshameful. So is that your definition of a clear inference? If so a lot if misunderstandings can be explained.

Clear inference equals anything that's possible and which fits in with my theology.

I'd like to offer an alternative.

Clear inference is something that's clearly inferred. So it is fairly clearly inferred that an animal dies (although God may have have a bit of spare clay). That's about it, really.

[ 17. August 2007, 10:58: Message edited by: anteater ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Jamat - I can conceive of no situation where the mass murder of men, women and children is the "merciful" solution. That is doublethink - 1984 Christianity.

I used to think exactly along the lines you proposed, but eventually my reason just said "Don't be so fucking ridiculous".

If God really can't think of a better solution to a problem than mass murder, He really isn't much of a God.

I find "We may not understand his reasons but can we not trust him to have them? Or must we judge with our fallen human minds instead of trusting that he is loving in his motives and just in his dealings even if we can't grasp these things." dangerous. If we can never think "That's evil, God wouldn't do that", we are never safe from getting some stupid fuckwitted idea into our heads that God wants us to do X, Y and Z and then doing it. Which is exactly what religiously motivated terrorists have done down the ages. It's a dangerous road, and it starts with saying that our conscience can be ignored.

[ 17. August 2007, 11:01: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

BTW, this is fairly standard evangelical exegesis of the passage. I make no claim to originality; I've heard many sermons in which the passage has been thus interpreted, from preachers of impeccable "soundness".

Sorry to disappoint Jamat but on Genesis 4 I have to agree with JJ. His focus on 'first fruits' is the traditional evangelical interpretation that I have heard regularly for the past 30+ years.

What cannot be denied about Genesis 4 though, is that it matters that we worship God the way he wants us to and not the way we think is okay.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Sounds suspiciously like 'assertion' JJ.

Well at least it's assertion based on what the text actually says. There is absolutely no basis for an assertion that blood sacrifices only were acceptable to God, still less that blood sacrifices were in any way associated with the animals being punished instead of their owners.
I never have suggested that there are not other forms of offering, only that as the Hebrews writer confirms, it is blood sacrifice that covers, cleanses and allows entry into God's presence in the sense of acceptable worship. We must be cleansed to come before him. Cleansed means forgiven in this context. Forgiven means uncondemned. Uncondemned means righteous and justified. Christs blood does this for us. Abel's sacrifice was to me cognizant of this requirement, Cain's was not.(IMNSHO of course.)
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
We may not understand his reasons but can we not trust him to have them? Or must we judge with our fallen human minds instead of trusting that he is loving in his motives and just in his dealings even if we can't grasp these things.

His ways in fact are not ours.

Well, leaving aside the point that our fallen minds are all we have available for us to reason with (hopefully transformed as per Romans 12), how does this sit with the direct command of our Lord as recorded in, for exampleMark 12:30 . It doesn't seem that Jesus wanted us to leave our minds behind in order to partake in the Kingdom of God. It was Job's comforters who got the biggest condemnation from God.

And anyway, it's a totally false dichotomy. It's quite possible to have an attitude of faith and trust in God and still believe that the accounts in Joshua are not an example of an attitude to be commended but condemned, as a dreadful warning to those who decide to fight God's battles for Him.

Also, John, I seem to recall that the genetic evidence is heavily against a genocide, but I can't find the relevant citations. Any other shipmates?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Jamat - I can conceive of no situation where the mass murder of men, women and children is the "merciful" solution. That is doublethink - 1984 Christianity.

I used to think exactly along the lines you proposed, but eventually my reason just said "Don't be so fucking ridiculous".

If God really can't think of a better solution to a problem than mass murder, He really isn't much of a God.

I find "We may not understand his reasons but can we not trust him to have them? Or must we judge with our fallen human minds instead of trusting that he is loving in his motives and just in his dealings even if we can't grasp these things." dangerous. If we can never think "That's evil, God wouldn't do that", we are never safe from getting some stupid fuckwitted idea into our heads that God wants us to do X, Y and Z and then doing it. Which is exactly what religiously motivated terrorists have done down the ages. It's a dangerous road, and it starts with saying that our conscience can be ignored.

Well OK, but you are putting your 'reason' above the scripture. Fine, think what you like. We need to decide though of a way to handle the issue.

I have always taken the view that God must have known what he is doing. The giver of life surely has the right to take it. I don't favour killing kids either by the way but my sensiblities aren't the issue, God's responsibilities are and we read what he is said to have done.

To me it isn't doublethink; it is just wrong for us to judge God. What he did, he had a reason for. I don't get it, I wouldn't have done it. But we aren't talking about human thinking here are we?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I still think that this matter is tangential; I certainly don't want to pursue it on this thread as (a) it's been done to death and (b) I find it emotionally difficult and try to avoid the subject. I have considered it, thought it through, come to my conclusions and get fed up with people apparently being angry with me for disliking genocide. Never got my head round that.

Let's just drop this one and get back to CV. Modes of Biblical interpretation don't really cut it; for every example of punishing the innocent Jamat can come up with, I can point to the Law and Ezekiel specifically condemning this approach to "justice", using the same mode of exegesis. I tend not to believe in "holding things in tension" any more - 90% of the time this is code for "believing two contradictory things at the same time" - doublethink. 1984 Christianity. If God's Big Brother, we're shafted anyway.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
. If we can never think "That's evil, God wouldn't do that", we are never safe from getting some stupid fuckwitted idea into our heads that God wants us to do X, Y and Z and then doing it. Which is exactly what religiously motivated terrorists have done down the ages. It's a dangerous road, and it starts with saying that our conscience can be ignored.

I actually agree totally that anyone like the Koreshs of this world who may use the scriptures for their own power games are on a dangerous road. I know though, that when we talk about ancient cultures, we are in a different ethical frame in terms of what was acceptable behaviour.

I take your point about Ezekiel's denunciation of the proverb 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge' (Was that your ref? I am working from memory.)

I would say though that the scriptures depict a scenario of a descent into Barbarism and a climb back to redemption. A case in point is polygamy. OK for then but not now. Jesus reconfirmed monogamous marriage. However there was a stage in history when it was clearly the norm, but we needed to be redeemed out of it.

So too, the ancient scenarios of conquest and genocide. Nevertheless, it seems one must accept that God intervened at times in what would be to us, an unacceptable way. The only way through, to my mind, is to accept this. It must have been necessary. We are talking about God here not Caligula.

[ 17. August 2007, 11:42: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Or, of course, that the genocides never historically happened and need to be read as an origins myth. Yours is not "the only way out of it". But like I said, lets drop it and move back to the thread topic.
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I find "We may not understand his reasons but can we not trust him to have them? Or must we judge with our fallen human minds instead of trusting that he is loving in his motives and just in his dealings even if we can't grasp these things." dangerous. If we can never think "That's evil, God wouldn't do that", we are never safe from getting some stupid fuckwitted idea into our heads that God wants us to do X, Y and Z and then doing it. Which is exactly what religiously motivated terrorists have done down the ages. It's a dangerous road, and it starts with saying that our conscience can be ignored.

[Overused] Brilliant Karl. This sums up a lot of what I've been thinking, but it's far better put than I could have done.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
I sometime wonder how fundamentalists are so sure they could distinguish God from the Devil. After all if God is so incomprehensible that genocide is part of his "good and perfect will", then can you think of anything remotely so bad, which has been proved to be part of the Devils will?

So he killed Job's family (at God's behest). He tempted a few people. Has any Satanist ever claimed a genocide as representing the will of Satan? Not to my knowledge. But Fundamentalists tell the whole world that this is what God is like.

Not that everybody was always killed. Sometimes the girls were kept as concubines. Give me a break!

What is so sinister about this, and why people rightly fear fundamentalism, is that it inevitably means that Fundies believe genocide to be an ethically correct action, given the right circumstances. I don't see how they can deny it, if they believe it is the will of God, and before you say it was the will of God, have an answer to the next question which is: When did God change his ethical principles? As an interesting counter-example, torture was never condoned in the old or new testaments, so there is no reason to believe that this is acceptable.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I sometimes wonder how 'liberals' are so sure they could distinguish God from the Devil. After all if God is transcendent then created beings like us have no objective criteria for assessing morality at all. God becomes the Devil, the Devil becomes God.

What is so sinister about this, and why people rightly fear liberalism, is that it inevitably means that libs believe anything to be an ethically correct action, given the right circumstances. Morality becomes simply a social construct determined by the majority at the time.

I now agree with Karl. [Big Grin] Let's back to discussing CV.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Johnny - your last post is so laden with assumptions it's frightening.

1. My position is that their is objective morality, and therefore something cannot "become right" just because any being, even God, orders it. Otherwise, "God is good" becomes a completely meaningless phrase because it is a simple tautology.

2. Ironically, these debates always end up with the more conservative side arguing for a completely relative morality, where we are told our scruples about genocide and injustice are "modern sensibilities" and are accused of "emotionalism", for holding to an absolute sense of morality and justice. Essentially, my position is "it's wrong, it's always wrong, it can't be made right by God saying it is". Who then is the relativist? As I said earlier, abandoning our personal conscience and twisting our brains round to accept anything, no matter how repugnant, because it apparently has divine approval is what is to be feared. It is the root of the evils done by Protestant and Catholic to each other throughout the Reformation, of the appalling treatment of Jews in Christian Europe, and modern Islamic terrorism.

But as you say, back to CV. I just couldn't let that total misunderstanding of the liberal position pass.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Nice try at irony JohnnyS. How about answering the question: Do you believe genocide (like the obliteration of an ethnic group - and you can take the Amalekites as an example) ever to be justifiable? Same question for ethnic cleansing?

Straight answers preferred. Mine are: No, and No.

Ergo: I do not believe that an morally perfect God either ordered or approved them.

And what you say about liberals is total balls. I don't know any liberal christian thinker who has said that majority decision is final, or that ethics are relative. Do you? Names, please.

I know plenty of fundies who believe that, under certain circumstances, both genocide and ethnic cleansing can be ethically correct, in fact have been commanded, so that Saul was condemned for not completing the Anihilation of the Amalekites. If you think this to be a libellous slander on Fundies, say so and I'll retract instantly. But so long as God is portrayed as commanding, let alone tolerating, both, you'll have to distance yourself from your fundamentalist brethren if you're going to do that. I hope you do.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Johnny - your last post is so laden with assumptions it's frightening.

Of course it was. I was trying (obviously not successfully) to use irony to deflect the discussion back to CV.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
If the (not successfully) refers to me, it was a cross post.

I've sort of horned into a discussion so I'll horn out again. I suppose most of my questions were rhetorical. I know the answers, having lived amongst fundies for years, and reading almost the entire oeuvre of A. W. Pink. I just don't like them.

By all means return to CV (which universally in our house means Cat's Vomit), I can't ask you to change it on that account, but it does add a degree of surreality to the debate.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Johnny - your last post is so laden with assumptions it's frightening.

Of course it was. I was trying (obviously not successfully) to use irony to deflect the discussion back to CV.
Ah. I often miss oblique language. Sorry.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
having a stab at the genocide thing before going on:

The problem isn't with God commanding that whoever He wants to be slaughtered, get slaughtered. He's the Potter, I'm the Ming vase. The problem for some people lies in our understanding of why He did it.

Not so for me -- I long ago accepted that I'd never fathom God's reasons. Mostly because I have a finite mind, but also perhaps because it's not always my business.

Where the problem might lie for me is when someone who has not heard directly from God tries to coordinate a slaughter in His name.

Same with natural disasters and the wrath of God. I understand the concept of things in the natural world being used by God -- or things that aren't quite natural even -- to kill off whomever He wants out of the way. (Are you seeing God as sort of a Mafia don yet? He is good at making offers you can't refuse...)

But I haven't yet met anyone who could convince me they had heard from God about that little concept.

When I meet someone who can get up on a soapbox and convincingly state "XYZ disaster was due to ABC sin on the part of PDQ population", I will let you know.

[ 17. August 2007, 15:07: Message edited by: Janine ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
The problem isn't with God commanding that whoever He wants to be slaughtered, get slaughtered.
When the "whoever He wants to be slaughtered" includes the innocent children of Jericho, it bloody well is the problem. A massive one.

And even when someone has definitely heard from God, if his slaughter includes my wife and kids, it is another massive problem. He can fuck off.

But please, we've been through this a billion times, let's get back to CV.

[ 17. August 2007, 15:09: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
If the (not successfully) refers to me, it was a cross post.

I've sort of horned into a discussion so I'll horn out again. I suppose most of my questions were rhetorical. I know the answers, having lived amongst fundies for years, and reading almost the entire oeuvre of A. W. Pink. I just don't like them.

By all means return to CV (which universally in our house means Cat's Vomit), I can't ask you to change it on that account, but it does add a degree of surreality to the debate.

<horning in on the tangent> The bit that confuses me is that, given that that sort of thing (genocide) went on quite a bit at the time, it's not impossible that some sort of atrocity may have marred Israel's past. But knowing what we do about what people are like, the fact that the war crimes gets retoactively justified is so far from surprising that it'd be surprising if it hadn't happened. This is history, as written by the winners.

What I don't quite understand is why anyone but a literalist would be tempted to such a naive reading of a tale that they wouldn't think of doing to any similar story that didn't have "Bible" on the cover. I think the damage done by admitting that some books of the Bible are of uncertain historicity is far less than the that done by insisting that God's nature can incline towards genocide if it pleases Him.

Why would you want to believe that, if there's a reasonable way out?

- Chris.
<horns out again>
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
<sits on hand>
<horns out>
<back to CV>
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
<sits on hand>
<horns out>
<back to CV>

Go ahead if you want to anteater. I don't mind. I just don't think we will get very far.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
I think we are making great strides. [Biased]

Genocide. [Projectile]

Anyway, CV means that God is leading captivity captive. It means no more genocide. It doesn't justify the genocide of the past.

Israel's victories (which we can, I think, legitimately call genocide in retrospect) are always couched, in the Bible, as the achieving of peace - or of God bringing peace to His obedient people that He loves.

In Jesus, the thing that those battles represented are brought to spiritual reality. He defeated sin, making it possible for us, with His help, to defeat sin in our own lives.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
PSA offers a clear rationale for blood sacrifice, particularly propitiary sacrifice.
Only by back-reading penal substitution into the OT sacrifice model
Did you take in my mention several posts back ,of the Edenic couple needing to be clothed in skins? [/QUOTE]

Jamat I am eating grilled chicken as I type. Clearly an animal died for that. If you would infer from that that the chicken's death was for the purpose of appeasing punishment that would be incorrect. I killed the chicken because it is yummy.

There is zero logical correlation between A&E wearing fur coats and appeasement of wrath.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Nice try at irony JohnnyS. How about answering the question: Do you believe genocide (like the obliteration of an ethnic group - and you can take the Amalekites as an example) ever to be justifiable? Same question for ethnic cleansing?

Well even though I reject PSA, I do consider myself a conservative Evangelical. So I'll throw my hat into the ring.

No.

That puts me in a dissonance because I take the Bible as inspired. But my #1 rule in theology is: if anything I think or read makes God look unloving or unjust, then it is either wrong, or more likely I have misunderstood something. I call it my "God is not a jerk" thesis.

The alternative is justifying action for us today that is clearly evil, which as Karl says is profoundly dangerous. I would rather wrestle with my tension then worship an evil God.

If God is evil then I will go to Hell before I worship him. I think that is in fact exactly what Jesus did on the cross. He refused to worship the "God of this world" and was condemned and sent to Hell.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
sorry typo should read
"I would rather wrestle with my tension than worship an evil God.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

If you don't like the God of the OT scriptures and write him off as a genocidal maniac, who's got the problem? The OT God was the only God Jesus was connected with.

Er, not so much, in my opinion. What we have as the Old Testament is only a piece of what Jews at Jesus' time would have heard and used in understanding God. Think of the rabbinic traditions and the likely existence of an Oral Torah that supplemented, not duplicated, the written one.

I'd also advance the argument that Jesus was intimately "connected with" God in a way that goes beyond the OT scriptures, to the point where he could confidently argue past them and into another means of understanding God and justice in the world ("But I say to you...").
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
That puts me in a dissonance because I take the Bible as inspired. But my #1 rule in theology is: if anything I think or read makes God look unloving or unjust, then it is either wrong, or more likely I have misunderstood something. I call it my "God is not a jerk" thesis.

Nicely put.

This is the beauty, I think, of Christus Victor. The righteous pretensions of the Old Testament victories are fulfilled in Christ's spiritual victories.

Similarly, the righteous pretensions of the Old Testament sacrifices and burnt offering are fulfilled in Christ's sacrifice.

Neither Old Testament feature was actually "a good thing." They merely represented good things, and were fulfilled in Christ. That is, the genuine goodness that they represented became real in what Christ did.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
PSA offers a clear rationale for blood sacrifice, particularly propitiary sacrifice.
Only by back-reading penal substitution into the OT sacrifice model
Did you take in my mention several posts back ,of the Edenic couple needing to be clothed in skins?
Jamat I am eating grilled chicken as I type. Clearly an animal died for that. If you would infer from that that the chicken's death was for the purpose of appeasing punishment that would be incorrect. I killed the chicken because it is yummy.

There is zero logical correlation between A&E wearing fur coats and appeasement of wrath.
[/QUOTE]

You kill chickens? OK, that does it! Its all over!

[ 18. August 2007, 06:12: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think we are making great strides. [Biased]

Genocide. [Projectile]

Anyway, CV means that God is leading captivity captive. It means no more genocide. It doesn't justify the genocide of the past.

Israel's victories (which we can, I think, legitimately call genocide in retrospect) are always couched, in the Bible, as the achieving of peace - or of God bringing peace to His obedient people that He loves.

In Jesus, the thing that those battles represented are brought to spiritual reality. He defeated sin, making it possible for us, with His help, to defeat sin in our own lives.

I agree with you Freddy that God, in Christ, led captivity captive,and defeated sin. A PSA model also confirms these things with the advantage of being able to unequicocally state why and how.

However, I see the softening of issues with the turning of genocide, so called, into a metaphor for a way to bring peace, as a sleight- of-hand piece of rationalisation.

My question for you is how in your theological world where anything seems to be easily read as metaphor, there is any 'spiritual reality'. What kind of literalism is possible for you?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I take the Bible as inspired. But my #1 rule in theology is: if anything I think or read makes God look unloving or unjust, then it is either wrong, or more likely I have misunderstood something. I call it my "God is not a jerk" thesis.

The alternative is justifying action for us today that is clearly evil, which as Karl says is profoundly dangerous. I would rather wrestle with my tension then worship an evil God.


The problem with this is that it makes you a relativist. As such you become the arbiter of what you will or won't believe.

Now that is fine if you want to do it but not many conservative evangelicals I know would buy into it.

The issue for me is that it cuts one loose from any kind of certainty. As you have probably gathered my own stance is to accept the scriptures unreservedly.

Now, I realise you could say this is sliding out of responsibility in a way - I won't say killing the Amorites wasn't wrong if God says he ordered it. God seems though to deal with humanity's journey to redemption in different ways suitable to the nature of the circumstances. It is interesting though that the Bible actually demonstrates a wide range of such 'dealings' of God.

It seems to me that a faith decision needs to accept his goodness and wisdom at times inspite of cultural spectacles which we have no choice about
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
jamat,

What I find dangerous about your position is that you are so sure that your interpretation of things is right, and that your particular read of Scripture equals God's own view that you end up not allowing for the possibility that you are wrong about something. So much so that you would rather defend the rightness of your position than you would defend the victims of massive violence.

Jesus, being in very nature God, did not defend himself or his honor, he did not focus on God's glory. He allowed himself to be wrongly judged for the sake of sinners, for the sake of the crushed, the weary, the abused.

Based on that revelation of who God is, I would say that God would rather have us stand up against massive killing, rape, and abuse even if that means making him "look bad" than he would have us "defend his honor" by justifying them. In your effort to defend God, you are in fact trampling over the very ones he died for.

Jamat, if you read something in the Bible as saying that it is good to do something profoundly hurtful and you question that, that "doubt" is a good thing. It means that you acknowledge that you are a sinful and fallible human being and that you just might have it wrong. Jesus does not want you to justify murder, rape, and atrocity in his name. That questioning does not make you a "relativist" it means you have a moral conscience.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QB]
[QUOTE] jamat,

What I find dangerous about your position is that you are so sure that your interpretation of things is right, and that your particular read of Scripture equals God's own view that you end up not allowing for the possibility that you are wrong about something. So much so that you would rather defend the rightness of your position than you would defend the victims of massive violence.

Well I am not convinced I know anything infallibly and am surprised you suggest so. I am convinced though of God's infallibility, and of his philanthropic view of us people. I don't have a problem accepting the Bible as God's book unreservedly and tend to want to see it as holistic and consistent rather than as a series of disconnected and sometimes contradictory narratives. It is that unity I strive to defend, not the personal rightness of my current position.

quote:
Jesus, being in very nature God, did not defend himself or his honor, he did not focus on God's glory. He allowed himself to be wrongly judged for the sake of sinners, for the sake of the crushed, the weary, the abused.
Well, who could dispute this? He did defend truth though, and he did confront evil and he did accept worship not rebuking Peter for saying "My Lord and my God."

quote:
Based on that revelation of who God is, I would say that God would rather have us stand up against massive killing, rape, and abuse even if that means making him "look bad" than he would have us "defend his honor" by justifying them. In your effort to defend God, you are in fact trampling over the very ones he died for.

God doesn't need me to defend him and
at least I don't kill chickens. Come on; lighten up!


quote:
Jamat, if you read something in the Bible as saying that it is good to do something profoundly hurtful and you question that, that "doubt" is a good thing. It means that you acknowledge that you are a sinful and fallible human being and that you just might have it wrong. Jesus does not want you to justify murder, rape, and atrocity in his name. That questioning does not make you a "relativist" it means you have a moral conscience.
Never want to justify those things. I choose not to put my mind and human judgements above his omniscient mind and eternal judgements is all. I repeat, the fact that you do, makes you relativistic. You are determining what is God breathed and what isn't, in the scripture. You are saying, "The God I worship isn't like that!" In fact, this puts you on the level of one who is inventing his own God. Sorry, no offence, it is a matter of logic. You can't have the God you want if you choose the God of the Bible.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My question for you is how in your theological world where anything seems to be easily read as metaphor, there is any 'spiritual reality'. What kind of literalism is possible for you?

Unless you are ready to say that there are no biblical metaphors the question is just about learning how to draw the line.

There is nothing hard about it at all. I start from shaktacos assumption that God is good. I also assume that the genuine distinctions are between things that are actually good and evil, as Jesus taught these concepts.

Where God's described actions and words, or biblical actions and words, appear to fall outside of what Jesus described as good and evil, then we are likely to be dealing with a metaphor. The meaning of the metaphor will always fall within Jesus' parameters.

This means that:
Yet all of these things are taught in the Bible. If they are understood as metaphors they easily agree with everything Jesus taught, and Jesus can be seen as their fulfilment. That is, He made them real in terms of actual good and evil.

There is certainly spiritual reality and literalness. The reality is about what is actually good and evil according to the central principles outlined throughout the Bible and clarified in what Jesus taught. These are the principles of the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and similar teachings. The premise is that actions springing from the love of God and the neighbor are good, and that actions springing solely from the love of self and the world are evil. Things that are beneficial to humanity are good, things that are harmful to humanity are evil.

The bottom line is that the whole point of the Bible and the Incarnation is to make things genuinely better for everyone. I think that the 'spiritual reality' of that concept is solid.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Where God's described actions and words, or biblical actions and words, appear to fall outside of what Jesus described as good and evil, then we are likely to be dealing with a metaphor. The meaning of the metaphor will always fall within Jesus' parameters.

This means that:

Yet all of these things are taught in the Bible. If they are understood as metaphors they easily agree with everything Jesus taught, and Jesus can be seen as their fulfilment. That is, He made them real in terms of actual good and evil.

I can see what you are trying to do Freddy but I think it is more complicated than that.

e.g. Jesus does describe God as angry. (and gets angry himself.)

The problem arises, ISTM, when your line of thought is pursued but the 'bits we don't like about God' are edited out of Jesus' teaching too.

It raises many questions:

- on what basis do we evaluate the teaching of Jesus?
- where does our 'moral conscience' come from?
- what do we do when moral consciences differ?
- if there is such thing as an absolute morality, how do we know what it is? (if not from scripture.)

I'm not saying that it is an easy task - actually far harder than you are making it seem.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm not saying that it is an easy task - actually far harder than you are making it seem.

I don't think that it is that hard, Johnny. The source of information is the consistent message of Scripture. It merely involves being able to sort and prioritize Scriptural teaching according to its own internal rules and structure.

It's not that hard if we are willing to rigorously look for patterns and compare teachings from a comprehensive understanding of the whole Bible.

At first glance the Bible appears to be internally inconsistent and self-contradictory. But I think that if we believe it, see it as God speaking, understand that it must therefore contain a unified message, and look for that message, it all falls into place.
 
Posted by Fauja (# 2054) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Things that are beneficial to humanity are good, things that are harmful to humanity are evil.

That sounds great but the problem as humans is determining what is ultimately beneficial. Many people see death as the end, not so with God who sees things from an eternal perspective. Hence, we have teachings from Jesus such as:

Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Matthew 16:26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?

I am not pretending that I don't struggle with accepting and understanding some things in the Bible, New as well as Old Testament, but like Jamat, I try to align my thinking to what the Scriptures teach (with the help of the Church and the Holy Spirit), rather than relying on my own finite mind to judge what parts of the Bible I should agree with. That doesn't mean to say that I reject my own conscience or ability to reason and rationalise but it does mean that I refuse to allow myself to be the ultimate judge of what is best for humanity.

I too struggle with the wars of Israel with other nations but I think that what we have to bear in mind is that these nations left to their own devices would most probably have got involved in wars anyway with human nature being what it was and to a great extent still is. What I see in the OT is a God who is ultimately concerned with the salvation of the world, even before the formation of Israel we have God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:2&3 that "all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." In the New Testament we learn that it is not so much the blood-line of Abraham that God makes the promise to, but rather those who believe who are regarded as true sons and daughters of Abraham.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fauja:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Things that are beneficial to humanity are good, things that are harmful to humanity are evil.

That sounds great but the problem as humans is determining what is ultimately beneficial.
I agree. The determination has to come, I think, from the Bible itself - from a detailed and comprehensive understanding of it.

Admittedly, no one said that true scholarship is easy. It's a challenge to truly understand what the Bible says.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The problem arises, ISTM, when your line of thought is pursued but the 'bits we don't like about God' are edited out of Jesus' teaching too.

It raises many questions:

- on what basis do we evaluate the teaching of Jesus?

Yes, this is an issue. Jesus' sayings also involve parables and metaphors, so we need to be able to recognize them. It's not just about editing out the bits we don't like. It's about discerning the single message among apparently contradictory statements.

For example, in Jesus' parables we often have a "master", who is evidently God, who "destroys" those who fail to do His will - as in the parables of the wicked vinedressers, the great supper, or the unforgiving servant. Yet when the disciples suggest that Jesus "call down fire from heaven" on someone "like Elijah did", Jesus says "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of" (Luke 9:55). The difference is between a parable and real life.

As regards Jesus' anger, it isn't anger but zeal. He is zealous for good to be done and not evil.

There is an important distinction between anger and this kind of zeal, even though they seem to be similar.

Anger involves retribution, hatred, and the desire to destroy. Zeal is about love, the protection of what is right and good, and the desire to preserve life and prevent further harm. Anger demands punishment, payment and appeasement. Zeal only looks to prevent harm and to rectify harmful situations by setting them right. Zeal tolerates punishment for the sake of preventing future harm, whereas anger demands punishment as a form of revenge. The two are like night and day because zeal comes from love and anger comes from hatred.

I think the difference between these two can be seen in Jesus' teachings.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You are saying, "The God I worship isn't like that!" In fact, this puts you on the level of one who is inventing his own God. Sorry, no offence, it is a matter of logic. You can't have the God you want if you choose the God of the Bible.

No, I am making God's self-revelation in Jesus primary, and the lens through which I interpret the rest of Scripture.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Also I want to add that I am not judging God, I am judging a fallible human interpretation of Scripture that would make God unjust.

Even if Scripture is infallible we are not and so we need to be able to question our interpretations. If an interpretation would make God out to be someone not worthy of worship, unjust, or wicked... then I see a pretty obvious red flag that there is something obviously wrong with that fallible human interpretation.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Finally (and this includes a CV theme), if I were faced with the choice (say in the OT times or maybe in the middle ages) between either defending people from being slaughtered in the name of God or maintaining my own orthodoxy, I would rather defend them and be called a heretic and take my changes in Hell, rather than get into heaven by justifying the slaughter of so many people.

That very opposition to God-sponsored oppression is why Jesus was crucified, and when I get down into Hell I would expect to find him on his knees ministering to the captives and saying to me "what took you so long?"

This to me illustrates the tendency of PSA to be so much on the side of appeasing authority that it ends up covering over corrupt and oppressive authority in the name of God because it does not have a means to recognize the devil masquerading as an angel of light because it is blindly obedient to authority. the Bible is not beyond being used for evil. The devil quoted Scripture. The law produced death. PSA ignores and even perpetuates that while CV unmasks it.

[ 18. August 2007, 19:31: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Finally (and this includes a CV theme), if I were faced with the choice (say in the OT times or maybe in the middle ages) between either defending people from being slaughtered in the name of God or maintaining my own orthodoxy, I would rather defend them and be called a heretic and take my changes in Hell, rather than get into heaven by justifying the slaughter of so many people.

That very opposition to God-sponsored oppression is why Jesus was crucified, and when I get down into Hell I would expect to find him on his knees ministering to the captives and saying to me "what took you so long?"

This to me illustrates the tendency of PSA to be so much on the side of appeasing authority that it ends up covering over corrupt and oppressive authority in the name of God because it does not have a means to recognize the devil masquerading as an angel of light because it is blindly obedient to authority. the Bible is not beyond being used for evil. The devil quoted Scripture. The law produced death. PSA ignores and even perpetuates that while CV unmasks it.

You see I think you've kind of blown all your hard work so far here.

So far on this thread ... PSA is relatively new (in church history terms) and the dominant view of the early church fathers was a form of CV (allegedly).

The BIG problem you have created for yourself is this:

- Since Constantine Christians have done some pretty horrible things and have used 'the gospel' to justify all sorts of abuses of authority.

- If (as you have argued) PSA was not that dominant until the last 500 years or so then clearly CV must be blamed for all the atrocities before (let's say) Anselm. After all I can see how if Christ is a victor in battle that could actively encourage the violence you (rightly) abhor.

Either way your argument falls down. Either PSA was much more dominant in the early centuries and you are suggesting a clear deviation from the historic faith or it is a grotesque slander to lay the blame for the abuse of power at the feet of PSA.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Finally (and this includes a CV theme), if I were faced with the choice (say in the OT times or maybe in the middle ages) between either defending people from being slaughtered in the name of God or maintaining my own orthodoxy, I would rather defend them and be called a heretic and take my changes in Hell, rather than get into heaven by justifying the slaughter of so many people.

That very opposition to God-sponsored oppression is why Jesus was crucified, and when I get down into Hell I would expect to find him on his knees ministering to the captives and saying to me "what took you so long?"

This to me illustrates the tendency of PSA to be so much on the side of appeasing authority that it ends up covering over corrupt and oppressive authority in the name of God because it does not have a means to recognize the devil masquerading as an angel of light because it is blindly obedient to authority. the Bible is not beyond being used for evil. The devil quoted Scripture. The law produced death. PSA ignores and even perpetuates that while CV unmasks it.

You see I think you've kind of blown all your hard work so far here.

So far on this thread ... PSA is relatively new (in church history terms) and the dominant view of the early church fathers was a form of CV (allegedly).

The BIG problem you have created for yourself is this:

- Since Constantine Christians have done some pretty horrible things and have used 'the gospel' to justify all sorts of abuses of authority.

- If (as you have argued) PSA was not that dominant until the last 500 years or so then clearly CV must be blamed for all the atrocities before (let's say) Anselm. After all I can see how if Christ is a victor in battle that could actively encourage the violence you (rightly) abhor.

Either way your argument falls down. Either PSA was much more dominant in the early centuries and you are suggesting a clear deviation from the historic faith or it is a grotesque slander to lay the blame for the abuse of power at the feet of PSA.

It is an interesting question Johnny, but all I was saying is that the PSA approach especially in its hyper-Calvinist form can (as evidenced in Jamat's stance) support justifying divine violence. I do not think Jamat's rendering of PSA is typical of most contemporary advocates. I doubt that for example JI Packer would agree with him here, I doubt you would either frankly. I am saying that it so focuses on individual guilt that it is virtually blinded to the idea of corrupt authority and evil. Taking it as one aspect combined with others which might notice these things, I think that you in your "multi" approach might avoid this.

A number of people who advocate PSA expressly reject violence and retribution. Off the top of my head, Richard Mouv, Phillip Yancy, and Miroslav Wolf come to mind. So I do not think that PSA necessarily leads to violence any more than Christianity does. Both have been used to justify violence, so we do need to be articulate about why this interpretation is wrong.

You are correct that PSA cannot be blamed for Constantine. I would say Constantine was influenced mostly by his own paganism and his history of Roman domination and war. The violence in the medieval Catholic church likewise cannot be pinned on PSA since it did not exist yet. However we do see an understanding of the idea of penance evolving around this time which has the idea of the authority which one transgresses and needs to be reconciled with (in both Anselm and Aquinas for example), rather than the idea of liberation from false authority in CV. So I do think we can argue that as the church switched to being a persecuted counter-cultural community and moved to ever growing political power until it was Rome itself, we can see here a parallel growing conception of salvation going from the idea of liberation from pagan bondage (the Jewish view) to individual transgressors returning under authority (the church-state view).

I do not see PSA emerging until after Calvin in fact. While Calvin hints at a PSA view it is not expressly articulated in him. That is, if you are looking for the classic formulations we all associate with PSA, they are not in the Institutes.

I have noticed you have been staying out of the conversation about genocide. I'd be interested in your take. If God told you to go into a Mosque and gun down 120 people would you obey? If not, what would have been different if the same thing happened to you in 700BC?

p.s. I'm hoping since you look a lot like Nelson Mandela that you would not

[ 19. August 2007, 02:25: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You are saying, "The God I worship isn't like that!" In fact, this puts you on the level of one who is inventing his own God. Sorry, no offence, it is a matter of logic. You can't have the God you want if you choose the God of the Bible.

No, I am making God's self-revelation in Jesus primary, and the lens through which I interpret the rest of Scripture.
You are deciding that Christ's words are primary which means by inference Pauls words or Jeremiah's are secondary. The rest of scripture may or may not be God breathed..Why have it anyway. Hey is this another tangent?

"I rest my case then your honour. The defendant is condemned out of his own mouth.
Shall we burn him at the stake immedieately or next week?"
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QB] the PSA approach especially in its hyper-Calvinist form can (as evidenced in Jamat's stance) support justifying divine violence. I do not think Jamat's rendering of PSA is typical of most contemporary advocates.

Well I am aggrieved to be called a hyper-calviist and a sanctioner of violence. Are we descending here to 'argument ad hominem'?

I do not sanction human violence. I have been its victim at times. I would not believe the HS would tell anyone to gun down anyone else.

I am not a hyper calvinist. That is laughable to me. I have avoided painting myself into any such corner.

I do believe Christ died for my sins and that he took the punishment due to me on himself. This makes me a hyper calvinist? Don't they believe in a doctrine of election that precldes choice? I am aware that I chose to respond to a supernatural prompting about 35 years ago and that a weight of guilt was lifted.

I suppose you have heard of John Stott, of Watchman Nee and of Billy Graham, and of EW Kenyon. Have you looked at the studies of Chuck Missler or of Arnold Fruchtenbaum? There are plenty of non Hyper Calvinistic Con evos who agree with me.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I have noticed you have been staying out of the conversation about genocide.

That's because, (ISTM) in the answer you have graciously given there is no necessary connection between atonement models and the support of violence and therefore this is a red herring. I see it as a stick being used to beat PSA where it could equally be used to beat CV (if we look at church history.) The problem is about the abuse of power rather than atonement models.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I'd be interested in your take. If God told you to go into a Mosque and gun down 120 people would you obey?

(sigh) but if you really are that keen to know...

This is easy to answer. Ignoring for a moment at least 3 assumptions that I find horrific in that question - of course I wouldn't obey precisely because of PSA. If God has judged the world in Christ then who am I to do it again?

CV shows us that God 'defeats' violence through the cross. PSA equally proclaims the end of violence through God's judgment. Hence Paul's argument in Romans 12. PSA demands that Christ's followers 'leave room for God's wrath' and forbids them from taking it into their own hands.

I would argue that in CV Christ subjectively shows us how to live (more akin to the exemplar model) and in PSA violence is actually judged objectively. For me, PSA itself is one of the main reasons why I why I even find the question posed so appalling.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
If not, what would have been different if the same thing happened to you in 700BC?

Now that is a much harder question answer and something that, personally, I find very troubling. I wrestle with Karl's dissonance. I don't have a full answer to that, just a few comments:

- Gordon Wenham thinks about OT morality as existing between the 'ceiling' of the Law and the 'floor' of the narrative. Hence the law gave the ideals for Israelite society, but the narrative gives the reality. I think there are clues in the narrative as to what direction God's unfolding morality is heading in. E.g. I don't think anyone can read the David or Solomon narratives without concluding that polygamy is a bad idea.

- Using polygamy as an example there is a 'progessive' revelation in scripture. Note, not relative morality, but progression. I find your question impossible to answer because I can't dump myself (with my 21st century western values) into ANE culture.

- The OT is content to speak about people groups as agents of God's judgment without condoning their actions. E.g. Isaiah's depiction of Assyria (Isaiah 10: 5-7) both describes Assyria as God's judgment on 'a godless nation' and at the same time responsible for their evil actions in doing so.

- are there worse things than dying? (Jesus seemed to think so in Matthew 10: 38) As I read Joshua 2 I wonder what would have happened if all the inhabitants of Jericho had followed Rahab's example... presumably they would have been brought into God's people too? If we believe in hell in any sense then we have to face this issue of God judging people at some point ... or do we conveniently push to the next life where it is 'out of sight and out of mind'.

So, not much of answer, just lots more questions - but you did ask!!

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
So I do think we can argue that as the church switched to being a persecuted counter-cultural community and moved to ever growing political power until it was Rome itself, we can see here a parallel growing conception of salvation going from the idea of liberation from pagan bondage (the Jewish view) to individual transgressors returning under authority (the church-state view).

I think there is some truth in what you say but I don't see what it has to do with atonement models. PSA has thrived in 'non-conformity' and among the 'dissenters'. Again, if anything, it would warn me away from CV (Christ the conquering King) rather than PSA.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
p.s. I'm hoping since you look a lot like Nelson Mandela that you would not

I don't look anything like Mandela, although I have many personal and family reasons to consider him to be a hero. Indeed the 'Truth and Reconciliation committee' set up in South Africa is an interesting 'case study' of the issues we have been discussing. I think it pushes and pulls in both directions (CV vs. PSA).
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Back to the OP.

sharktacos likes to describe CV as a 'medical' metaphor and think of Christ defeating sin as a 'disease'.

While I use this analogy frequently it does illustrate (ISTM) why we need PSA alongside it. A medical metaphor (on its own) for sin removes responsibility for sin.

Now this is a complex issue because there is some truth in how the physical condition of our bodies affects our behaviour. (It is only right that some people are put in hospital instead of prison). Neverthless I don't think anyone would want to go so far as to let go of all responsibility. I'm fairly convinced that I do have a 'selfishness' gene (as opposed to the selfish gene [Big Grin] ) ... along with a lust gene, gossip gene, pride gene ... I could go on but it would bore you all. I need saving from it all, but I also need to accept responsibility for my actions.

What do others think about the charge that CV, when used as a medical metaphor, loses a sense of responsibility for sin?

(We've skirted around this before but not come to a conclusion before ... other than the pantomime of ... oh, not it's not ... oh, yes it is! [Biased]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You are deciding that Christ's words are primary

Yes, because Jesus was God's primary revelation of himself. That is Christian theology 101.


quote:
which means by inference Pauls words or Jeremiah's are secondary.
That's right.

quote:
The rest of scripture may or may not be God breathed.
It is all God breathed, but needs to be interpreted through the eyes of Jesus. That is very standard orthodox interpretation of Scripture.

You on the other hand appear to read Jesus through the eyes of the Old Testament. The New Convenant is a superior revelation to the Old.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
quote:
What do others think about the charge that CV, when used as a medical metaphor, loses a sense of responsibility for sin?
Depends whether you think that the aim is to remedy the situation or to assign blame and then exact retribution.

Question: Does God demand retribution for each sin? I don't believe it. Mainly because I see no moral virtue in it, and would not accept it as a good way to relate to one's own children. But in any case, in classical augustinian theology (to avoid the C-word) the retribution is also for the sin of Adam for which we are not responsible.

Before you say I'm judging God by human standards, we all do that. If you believe God is morally perfect and that he demands retribution for each sin then you must believe this is part of what ethical perfection is. I don't. And as with genocide, if the Bible teaches it, then the Bible is to that extent unacceptable. I don't think anyone who thinks about their faith believes things of God which they also hold to be reprehensible.

I also see no virtue in submitting one's will to the writings defined as canonical by the Church. As implied by someone earlier, I think it's a cop out.

So if you are aguing based on the final authority of scripture, and I'm arguing based on an absolutist ethical position, we may end up talking past each other. But not for long. I off on hols tomorrow.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
What do others think about the charge that CV, when used as a medical metaphor, loses a sense of responsibility for sin?
Depends whether you think that the aim is to remedy the situation or to assign blame and then exact retribution.
Enjoy your hols. [Smile]

I didn't say anything about retribution. That is another matter. For now all I asked about was accepting blame for things we do wrong.

It is a slight tangent but I would argue, looking at society at large, that an essential part of finding a remedy is accepting responsibility for our circumstances.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Johnny,

I think you raise two very important points.

First the issue of the medical model leading to a deemphasis on responsibility. I think today people (both inside and outside of the church) tend to see themselves as victims more than they do as guilty. this is real need that needs to be addressed. People really are abused and broken by tragedy and evil in their lives. At the same time though part of that healing process involves taking hold of our own lives and owning up to our own responsibility.

A medical model as we conceive of it today does imply a lack of responsibility for many. I would propose two correctives to this:

First, on a social science level the idea of mental illness (and we are talking primarily about sin in these terms as "soul sickness" as opposed to physical sickness) very much involves the idea of responsibility as a major factor in the healing process. A person cannot change until they are willing to change. Though we cannot help what has been done to us, we do need to take our lives into our hands and work to not be a victim. That is a hallmark of the path towards mental health and healing.

Secondly, if we are to claim that Scripture offers a "medical" model, then we need to understand that in the terms that Scripture does rather than imposing our own worldview of sickness into it. For Jesus sickness was not associated with germs, but with Satan. For example he refers to the woman with a blood hemorrhage as "being kept in bondage by Satan for these many years". In "God at War" Greg Boyd chronicles how over and over Jesus associates physical sickness with demonic bondage. In fact Jesus saw physical sickness, poverty, and sinful actions all as being related to Satanic bondage. So if we are to take this view of "medical" then we need to understand it in the context of bondage. Further, Scripturally, bondage always has an aspect of our own culpability. Israel was sent into exile as a result of their sins. Bondage and our own guilt are intertwined. So to have a "medical" view that is biblical involves a complex picture of sickness/bondage/responsibility. What I am stressing here by mentioning the medical model is not to deny the importance of being responsible (even if we are not always at fault, we still need to seek life) but to highlight that our problem is not an external one of God being mad, but an internal one of our having this enslaving blackness inside of us that we need to be liberated from.

The second point you raise is the idea of Christ the "victor" being an excuse for justifying violence. Again I would suggest that an understanding of the demonic is crucial. Our battle is "not against flesh and blood". But beyond this the way that this victory over evil is won is not through conquest and force but by God acting in humility and kenosis. We need to keep this "upside-down" perspective in mind with every part of our atonement theories. Justice comes through a great injustice. Christ wins by losing. God's might is in weakness. God is "satisfied" by giving up allowing himself to be wronged.

Luther calls this "God hidden in his opposite". We need to apply this "backwards" thinking to every aspect of the atonement - to CV and to PSA in order to in this "foolishness" comprehend the scandalous true wisdom of God. Complex? Yup. But that the only way to grasp what Paul means when he says, "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him."


p.s. When I said you look like Mandela, I was looking at your avatar.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Passover was a blood sacrifice. It was not a specific sin offering but in the OT it is blood that covers sin and blood that cleanses. This is clearly confirmed by the Hebrews writer who associates Christ's shed blood with our cleansing. Christ died during the Passover feast. Ergo, the sin offering, which he was, is associated with Passover and identified with it. Not saying Passover in its original form was not about liberation and redemption, only that there is a dovetailing of it with the 'Christ as a sacrifice for sin' teaching.
PSA proponents have a right to reasonably make these connections in their exegesis.

I did say that PSA could reasonably be read into Passover, because Passover is an all encompassing freedom and certainly some in the NT (hebrews) saw it as that and associated the sacrificial lamb with Yom Kippur. But this is out of their own 'requirement' for freedom, lamb is not even one of the sacrifices specific to Yom Kippur, only there (two lambs) in the usual daily sacrifice.

Passover is not specifically a sin offering, has nothing to do with sin offering, and for those not holding to belief in such a God which requires blood sacrifice before he'll forgive (as taught in both the NT and OT as I posted earlier), PSA cannot be insisted on as a doctrine to be held by Christians because PSA contradicts God's choice of Passover. If God had chosen Yom Kippur it would be more difficult to argue this point...


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
What do others think about the charge that CV, when used as a medical metaphor, loses a sense of responsibility for sin?
Depends whether you think that the aim is to remedy the situation or to assign blame and then exact retribution.
Enjoy your hols. [Smile]

I didn't say anything about retribution. That is another matter. For now all I asked about was accepting blame for things we do wrong.

It is a slight tangent but I would argue, looking at society at large, that an essential part of finding a remedy is accepting responsibility for our circumstances.

Estrangement from God and unity with Him as a medical problem comes from the Orthodox Church's teaching which includes the ongoing practice of repentance and forgiveness of sins, responsibility is a given.

The Church as hospital is the Orthodox Church's doctrine. This phrase has been taken up by other Christian systems where it loses its original context because core theology is different.

For example, the RCC picked it up in the last century from the Melkite imput into Roman Catholicism and is one of the Orthodox views introduced by the Melkites which are now colouring the RCC catechism, where for example change of emphasis of the Orginal Sin doctrine is seen (Orthodox don't have the OS doctrine). Now unbaptised babies dying 'are given up the the mercy of God' instead of the centuries dogmatised tradition that they went permanently into the eternal damnation they were born in and which only baptism could save them from. Anyway, the Orthodox who see the Church as a hospital don't have a juridical relationship with God as the RCC have so use of the term will naturally mean something different to each.

I'm struggling to imagine what the phrase could mean to those who view God as requiring payment in blood before he'll forgive sins..

(Orthodox God is good, ever merciful, ever forgiving, love not hate (not requiring sacrifice) - the hospital is where this God is worshipped and healing is the practice of becoming this God.)

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

Secondly, if we are to claim that Scripture offers a "medical" model, then we need to understand that in the terms that Scripture does rather than imposing our own worldview of sickness into it. For Jesus sickness was not associated with germs, but with Satan. For example he refers to the woman with a blood hemorrhage as "being kept in bondage by Satan for these many years". In "God at War" Greg Boyd chronicles how over and over Jesus associates physical sickness with demonic bondage. In fact Jesus saw physical sickness, poverty, and sinful actions all as being related to Satanic bondage. So if we are to take this view of "medical" then we need to understand it in the context of bondage. Further, Scripturally, bondage always has an aspect of our own culpability. Israel was sent into exile as a result of their sins. Bondage and our own guilt are intertwined. So to have a "medical" view that is biblical involves a complex picture of sickness/bondage/responsibility. What I am stressing here by mentioning the medical model is not to deny the importance of being responsible (even if we are not always at fault, we still need to seek life) but to highlight that our problem is not an external one of God being mad, but an internal one of our having this enslaving blackness inside of us that we need to be liberated from.

You've just created another problem for yourself. If you look at the 'Spiritual Warfare' thread (I don't know how to link to it) then you'll see how popular bringing in 'demons' is! (Blame it on the devil is just an alternative to blame it on my illness.) Now I know that you have described it in internal ways (so not like the 'Spiritual Warfare' thread) but I don't see how you can do that from the teaching of Jesus. I find the story of 'Legion and the Pigs' (Mark 5) rather bizarre but the one point that is clear is that these demons are not purely internal - otherwise how can they exist outside of the man?


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The second point you raise is the idea of Christ the "victor" being an excuse for justifying violence. Again I would suggest that an understanding of the demonic is crucial. Our battle is "not against flesh and blood". But beyond this the way that this victory over evil is won is not through conquest and force but by God acting in humility and kenosis. We need to keep this "upside-down" perspective in mind with every part of our atonement theories. Justice comes through a great injustice. Christ wins by losing. God's might is in weakness. God is "satisfied" by giving up allowing himself to be wronged.

Yes I get all that, and agree with it. My point is that PSA teaches that we must not engage in retribution but instead leave it up to God. You claim that PSA is unhelpful as a model because the picture used will cause us to value retribution.

If that is the case then we have the same problem with CV. We use the model counter-intuitively. I'm happy with that, but therefore the concept must work both ways.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you look at the 'Spiritual Warfare' thread (I don't know how to link to it) then you'll see how popular bringing in 'demons' is! (Blame it on the devil is just an alternative to blame it on my illness.) Now I know that you have described it in internal ways (so not like the 'Spiritual Warfare' thread) but I don't see how you can do that from the teaching of Jesus. I find the story of 'Legion and the Pigs' (Mark 5) rather bizarre but the one point that is clear is that these demons are not purely internal - otherwise how can they exist outside of the man?

Johnny, I'm a little puzzled by how you are using the word "internal." Are you saying that the demons in that story were visible and tangible?

My understanding of the word is that something internal is invisible and exists within something else. Jesus said that the kingdom of God, for example, is "within you." This means that its existence is really in the realm of peoples loves and thoughts. It is an internal kingdom.

Why couldn't the demons move from within the man to within the pigs? Isn't that what the story says?

Or do you have a different understanding of the word "internal"? [Confused]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Johnny, I'm a little puzzled by how you are using the word "internal." Are you saying that the demons in that story were visible and tangible?

No.


My thoughts / emotions etc. are all internal in the sense that it is meaningless to talk about them being outside of me.

Mark 5 describes the demons as separate entities to the man, they may well have been 'internal' to the man but it was possible for them to leave the man and enter the pigs. The demons were separate 'beings' to the man and in that sense were not purely internal.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Mark 5 describes the demons as separate entities to the man, they may well have been 'internal' to the man but it was possible for them to leave the man and enter the pigs. The demons were separate 'beings' to the man and in that sense were not purely internal.

I see.

Are you sure that this is the only way to understand "internal" things? Do you see internal things as necessarily intrinsic to the person?

The biblical understanding, I believe, is that demons and angels are internal in the sense that, although they are not the person himself or herself, they can be within a person and influence him or her from within. Do you see it differently?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


The biblical understanding, I believe, is that demons and angels are internal in the sense that, although they are not the person himself or herself, they can be within a person and influence him or her from within. Do you see it differently?

Which is why I kept putting the word 'purely' in italics as in purely internal. Of course there is an internal dimension but we were talking about atonement models and whether they are about fighting sin as something that is alien to us or very much a part of our nature.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Which is why I kept putting the word 'purely' in italics as in purely internal. Of course there is an internal dimension but we were talking about atonement models and whether they are about fighting sin as something that is alien to us or very much a part of our nature.

I understand this. The question is whether sin is alien to us or is a part of our nature.

Your questions make me wonder if you understand how CV is supposed to work.

The idea, I think, is that there are spiritual forces that affect every person from within. These forces are not the person, but they work within the person. God helps us to overcome the forces that would guide us to do evil.

Your view seems to be that everything that is internal to a person is the person himself or herself. Is that right?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


Your view seems to be that everything that is internal to a person is the person himself or herself. Is that right?

No.

My point is precisely that it is more complicated than that.

Take the analogy of a drug addict. To what degree is the addiction due to the drug or the desires of the user? To what degree are they the victim? Where does responsbility lie?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My point is precisely that it is more complicated than that.

Take the analogy of a drug addict. To what degree is the addiction due to the drug or the desires of the user? To what degree are they the victim? Where does responsbility lie?

I agree that it is complicated. Obviously many factors converge. To some extent a person is a victim. To some extent they are responsible. It is not an either/or situation. Freedom is not an absolute qantity - you can be more free or less free.

The idea behind CV is that God helps you to overcome things like drug addiction, taking into account all of the factors involved.

So sin is something that preys on us. We are its victims. At the same time, we are responsible for it as well because we are free to choose whether to listen to it or not. It's complicated because many factors are involved.

At the core, however, we are free beings with the ability to choose to accept or reject God's aid. CV describes how He aids us.

How do you see it?

[ 20. August 2007, 15:29: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


So sin is something that preys on us. We are its victims. At the same time, we are responsible for it as well because we are free to choose whether to listen to it or not. It's complicated because many factors are involved.

At the core, however, we are free beings with the ability to choose to accept or reject God's aid. CV describes how He aids us.

How do you see it?

I view it pretty much the same and hence find CV only partially helpful as a metaphor. In the sense that sin is alien to me then I find it easy to picture Christ fighting sin on my behalf. However, in the sense that sin is part of me (a voluntary decision of my will) then the image of CV means that Christ must be fighting me. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, in the sense that sin is part of me (a voluntary decision of my will) then the image of CV means that Christ must be fighting me. [Ultra confused]

So this gets to the question of what you, essentially, are?

Christ does not fight us. Don't forget that we, essentially, are nothing. Isn't that what Christ teaches? Or is it just that without Him we can do nothing?

As I see it, we are nothing of ourselves. Everything that goes into making us up come from outside of us. Either we allow God to form us into something good, or we allow hell to form us into something evil. Most likely we are mixture of both. Either way, the only part of us that is actually "us" is what we have freely chosen.

To me, this solves it. [Angel]

How do you see it?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
What Fred said.

Johnny I think the difficulty is you are taking the motif "victor" and just running with it. The same could happen if one were to hear "God is love" and just run with that. There are many assumptions we have about what love is and what victory is that make this problematic. Instead we need to look at the complex picture of this victory that the Bible gives us to get behind what is being said (same with love).

The actual theory of CV does contain this complexity. When you reduce it down to a single metaphor, you are not correctly representing the theory.

There are elements of sin being a bondage we need to be liberated from, of this bondage effecting us internally and shaping who we are, of our need not only for liberation but a change in identity and allegiance, of our own responsibility in all of this as well as our victimization. Reality is complex and so is CV.

As far as God being our enemy, I would say that he is. Paul says "while we were God's enemies..." but goes on to agree with Jesus that God loves his enemies. Our enmity is conquered by grace, and in the same way the authorities and powers and wrath are all conquered and redeemed by grace.


quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


So sin is something that preys on us. We are its victims. At the same time, we are responsible for it as well because we are free to choose whether to listen to it or not. It's complicated because many factors are involved.

At the core, however, we are free beings with the ability to choose to accept or reject God's aid. CV describes how He aids us.

How do you see it?

I view it pretty much the same and hence find CV only partially helpful as a metaphor. In the sense that sin is alien to me then I find it easy to picture Christ fighting sin on my behalf. However, in the sense that sin is part of me (a voluntary decision of my will) then the image of CV means that Christ must be fighting me. [Ultra confused]

 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As I see it, we are nothing of ourselves. Everything that goes into making us up come from outside of us. Either we allow God to form us into something good, or we allow hell to form us into something evil. Most likely we are mixture of both. Either way, the only part of us that is actually "us" is what we have freely chosen.

We've been here before. I think your view of salvation is dualistic. Being human is about more than just a tussle between opposing forces of good and evil.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

Johnny I think the difficulty is you are taking the motif "victor" and just running with it.

[brick wall]

We're going round in circles.

I know that is what I'm doing with CV. My point concerns the major reason why people want to ditch PSA - they refuse to accept a nuanced view of PSA (something similar to Numpty's one) but simply take the 'retribution' motif and run with it. If you respond (quite rightly IMO) as you do to the way I treated CV just then, then why are you suprised when others do the same over PSA?

BTW - While I believe in the devil and demons, as I posted earlier I can see big problems with overstressing Christ's victory against the devil. I think it is trying to turn back the clock to before Anselm and, like Freddy, is ultimately dualistic in view.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think your view of salvation is dualistic. Being human is about more than just a tussle between opposing forces of good and evil.

Is dualistic a bad thing? Doesn't the Bible teach that there is a conflict between the forces of God and "the power of darkness"?

I don't think that the Christian version of a tussle between opposing forces is anything like Manichean. The biblical view, I think, is that God has all power, and evil has no power. The only power evil has is due to humanity's tendency to give in to the allures of the senses, wealth, power, and the "subtle" arguments of the serpent.

Is this what you are calling dualistic? [Confused]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

Johnny I think the difficulty is you are taking the motif "victor" and just running with it.

[brick wall]

We're going round in circles.

I know that is what I'm doing with CV. My point concerns the major reason why people want to ditch PSA - they refuse to accept a nuanced view of PSA (something similar to Numpty's one) but simply take the 'retribution' motif and run with it. If you respond (quite rightly IMO) as you do to the way I treated CV just then, then why are you suprised when others do the same over PSA?

J, we agree that we need to critique the most sophisticated view of a theory. As you say, this is not what you are doing with CV. From your response it sounds like you are purposely misrepresenting the CV theory. If that is the case I don't see how a conversation is possible with someone who is trying to misunderstand. [brick wall]

As far as your "critique" it does not stick because I am not trying to misrepresent PSA, and in fact disagree with a sophisticated version of it (for example that of John Stott).
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
From your response it sounds like you are purposely misrepresenting the CV theory. If that is the case I don't see how a conversation is possible with someone who is trying to misunderstand. [brick wall]

No, I'm not trying to misrepresent anything. I'm trying to put CV under the same kind of critical evaluation that we did to PSA some 20 pages and several threads previously. I think that is only fair.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
All I can say is that CV is not simply an out of context slogan like "victory". So in representing it as such you are not addressing any real version of the theory.

I'm a bit at a loss as to where to go from here. I also do not see why presenting a false version of a theory has anything to do with critically and vigorously reviewing it. How is anything but a straw man fallacy?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Johnny, it's not that we don't welcome critiques of CV. I have been more than happy to critique PSA. I don't think, though, that the crtiques of PSA have been restricted to straw men or caricatures of it, as sharktacos pointed out.

It still seems to me that you are not really catching how CV works. Are you more settled now about how the word "internal" is used?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It still seems to me that you are not really catching how CV works. Are you more settled now about how the word "internal" is used?

Apparently not. [Big Grin]

I still don't see how CV (on its own) defeats sin in a way that also enables me to take responsibility for my sin.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It still seems to me that you are not really catching how CV works. Are you more settled now about how the word "internal" is used?

Apparently not. [Big Grin]

I still don't see how CV (on its own) defeats sin in a way that also enables me to take responsibility for my sin.

Because it is not either/or.

Think of the example you gave of addiction. Addiction is BOTH something that enslaves AND something for which a person needs to take responsibility.

PSA involves 2 players: us and God.
CV is not restricted to 2 players (God and the devil) but 3 players: us, the devil, and God.

That view takes into account the role God plays and the role the demonic plays, AND the role we play. So responsibility is in there.

We are slaves to sin and NOT able to take responsibility for our lives. Our problem is not God being mad, but our sin and enslavement. So we need to fix the problem of our sinful enslavement, not the problem of a mad God.

With Jesus liberating us from the devil (who we were enslaved to in part because of our guilt, in part because of other people's guilt, and in part because of general falleness), and thus giving us a new identity in Christ, we can then IN Christ be "set free" so we CAN choose to live in Jesus and take responsibility.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I still don't see how CV (on its own) defeats sin in a way that also enables me to take responsibility for my sin.

The idea, as I understand it, is that Christ's defeat of sin makes it possible for us, if we are willing, with Christ's help, to defeat it in our own lives.

So we are still responsible.

This is in accord with many statements that Christ makes, which urge us to trust in Him and keep His commandments, these being the only means of gaining our freedom. He says:
quote:
John 8:31 “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

John 15:4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.
9 “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love."

These sayings make it clear, I think, that it is Christ who frees us and overcomes sin in our lives, and yet that we are responsible to believe in Him and obey Him.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Johnny, what is our responsibility in PSA? What must we do?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
PSA involves 2 players: us and God.
CV is not restricted to 2 players (God and the devil) but 3 players: us, the devil, and God.

That view takes into account the role God plays and the role the demonic plays, AND the role we play. So responsibility is in there.

No it isn't.

I don't think you understand my comments about models. I'm not deliberately misunderstanding CV and I'm not setting up straw men. I'm trying to handle CV as a model in a fair way and in a similar way to the way we have looked at PSA.

In the CV model Jesus fights for us, we have no responsibility. I know that is not true for how you articulate CV but my argument is that you have to go elsewhere than the model itself for that justification. I do not see what role WE have to play in CV, as a model.

Again, I want to say very clearly, I am not accusing you of that inconsistency (your view of the atonement seems very clear) just that you have not demonstrated how this comes from CV and is not simply presumed as a sort of 'hang over' from PSA and other models.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Johnny, what is our responsibility in PSA? What must we do?

PSA has responsibility for sin at it's very core. As Jesus dies so sentence is pronounced on all our sin. Believing that must mean accepting responsibility for my attitudes and actions, I accept that this is what I deserve. The verdict is 'guilty' and I accept that verdict.

Consequently, there is also huge motivation to change my life in the future too - whenever I am tempted to sin I am struck by the sense in which that is adding to Christ's burden on the cross. (I appreciate that there are chronological problems with that but then PSA is not a 'temporal' model.)
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
PSA involves 2 players: us and God.
CV is not restricted to 2 players (God and the devil) but 3 players: us, the devil, and God.

That view takes into account the role God plays and the role the demonic plays, AND the role we play. So responsibility is in there.

No it isn't.

I don't think you understand my comments about models. I'm not deliberately misunderstanding CV and I'm not setting up straw men. I'm trying to handle CV as a model in a fair way and in a similar way to the way we have looked at PSA.

In the CV model Jesus fights for us, we have no responsibility. I know that is not true for how you articulate CV but my argument is that you have to go elsewhere than the model itself for that justification. I do not see what role WE have to play in CV, as a model.

Again, I want to say very clearly, I am not accusing you of that inconsistency (your view of the atonement seems very clear) just that you have not demonstrated how this comes from CV and is not simply presumed as a sort of 'hang over' from PSA and other models.

Strictly speaking no atonement model covers what we must do because atonement models by definition focus on what God did. Salvation models say what we must do. So both PSA and CV attach themselves to the same basic salvation model that on God has done his work (the atonement) our "work" is to repent and believe, by faith through grace. There is no inherent "our part" in either PSA or CV.

Now of course in practice we apply what we see of God's actions (atonement) to how we respond to God (salvation). You for example say you do not want to sin because you do not want to hurt God. I agree with this, and stress that one could make the same conclusion from CV because CV INCLUDES substitutionary atonement as its mechanism for victory. It is victory THROUGH bearing our sin and suffering. CV in itself is the complex model. To think of CV as just "victory" minus the substitutionary atonement part, or just about the devil and not us, is not CV.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
So in more direct answer to your question, CV could say all the things you did, and add to it that because we had been brought out of slavery we do not wish to lose that freedom, and that because God gave us an example of self-sacrificing love of enemies we are to imitate him by taking up our own cross and practicing humility grace and forgiveness. In that way CV ties the cross to the whole ministry and teaching of Jesus, while PSA has a tendency to do the opposite. As a result CV implies a life of service and acts of justice, while PSA often focuses only on our getting to heaven.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

CV INCLUDES substitutionary atonement as its mechanism for victory. It is victory THROUGH bearing our sin and suffering.

Ummh. I like that but I still think you've work to do in showing why CV is necessarily substitionary. Note, I'm not demanding the full mechanics of how it works, just an explanation of why CV is substitionary. Why does Jesus dying in our place bring about atonement?


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

In that way CV ties the cross to the whole ministry and teaching of Jesus, while PSA has a tendency to do the opposite. As a result CV implies a life of service and acts of justice, while PSA often focuses only on our getting to heaven.

You see it is that word 'tendency' that bothers me. It is no different from me saying that CV, without the proper biblical qualifications, has a tendency to minimise our responsibility. All you're saying is that models need to be seen alongside the full sweep of scripture, but we are agreed on that already. Nobody on this thread wants to make PSA (or CV I hope) an exhaustive summary of the gospel. We are discussing models which are elements of it.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

CV INCLUDES substitutionary atonement as its mechanism for victory. It is victory THROUGH bearing our sin and suffering.

Ummh. I like that but I still think you've work to do in showing why CV is necessarily substitionary.
Well CV is substitutionary because that is simply what CV says. But perhaps you are asking how Christ bears our sin and suffering if not in a punitive sense of appeasement? We have answered this question in fact several times now. Jesus becomes us so that he can overcome what is in us. Here are Martine Luther's words:

Luther begins by describing the problem of sin in Christus Victor terms:

"When the merciful Father saw that we were being oppressed through the Law, that we were being held under a curse, and that we could not be liberated from it by anything..."

then shifts into substitutionary atonement,

"...He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of all men upon Him, and said to Him: “Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sins of all men. And see to it that You pay and make satisfaction for them."

and then explains this in the context of Christus Victor,

“Let us see how Christ was able to gain the victory over our enemies. The sins of the whole
world, past, present, and future, fastened themselves upon Christ and condemned Him. But because Christ is God He had an everlasting and unconquerable righteousness. These two, the sin of the world and the righteousness of God, met in a death struggle. Furiously the sin of the world assailed the righteousness of God. Righteousness is immortal and invincible. On the other hand, sin is a mighty tyrant who subdues all men. This tyrant pounces on Christ. But Christ’s righteousness is unconquerable. The result is inevitable. Sin is defeated and righteousness triumphs and reigns forever.”

(from Luther's commentary on Galatians 3:13)


quote:
You see it is that word 'tendency' that bothers me. It is no different from me saying that CV, without the proper biblical qualifications, has a tendency to minimise our responsibility.
And you would be right. It does.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Johnny, what is our responsibility in PSA? What must we do?

PSA has responsibility for sin at it's very core. As Jesus dies so sentence is pronounced on all our sin. Believing that must mean accepting responsibility for my attitudes and actions, I accept that this is what I deserve. The verdict is 'guilty' and I accept that verdict.

Consequently, there is also huge motivation to change my life in the future too

That's what you call responsibility?

I would call it "avoiding responsibility" because Christ is the one who takes the responsibility.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Thanks that's helpful.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
But perhaps you are asking how Christ bears our sin and suffering if not in a punitive sense of appeasement? We have answered this question in fact several times now.

Sorry about that, I must just be a bit dim because I still haven't got this bit yet.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

"...He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of all men upon Him, and said to Him: “Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sins of all men. And see to it that You pay and make satisfaction for them."

How is that last clause not PSA?


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

“Let us see how Christ was able to gain the victory over our enemies. The sins of the whole
world, past, present, and future, fastened themselves upon Christ and condemned Him. But because Christ is God He had an everlasting and unconquerable righteousness. These two, the sin of the world and the righteousness of God, met in a death struggle. Furiously the sin of the world assailed the righteousness of God. Righteousness is immortal and invincible. On the other hand, sin is a mighty tyrant who subdues all men. This tyrant pounces on Christ. But Christ’s righteousness is unconquerable. The result is inevitable. Sin is defeated and righteousness triumphs and reigns forever.”

Likewise.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
How is that last clause not PSA?

Johnny, I agree. I think it is.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
It is not PSA because in Luther's thinking the condemnation was unjust, not the fulfillment of justice. Luther describes it as being "against all law and custom" (Luther's commentary on Isa 53)

Also satisfaction is not the same as PSA. Satisfaction is a term that comes from Catholicism and means "to compensate" or "to make restitution" and NOT "to appease" or "to gratify". You can see with the adjacent term "pay" that it is in the terms of a debt owed (which indicates Anselm's satisfaction model) not of a penalty. In Anselmian satisfaction one pays the debt to avoid punishment, this is very different from PSA where one pays the debt through punishment. The language of Christ paying our debt is biblical. The idea of his being punished in our place in order to appease justice is no where in the Bible, nor is it in Luther.

You seem to see anything that remotely resembles PSA language and immediately assume that they are talking about PSA. You need to read people (like Luther or Paul or Anselm) in their own context and try to get behind their own framework of thinking.

Also note that I answered your question of how CV works through substitutionary atonement, and you changed the subject.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Thanks that's helpful.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
But perhaps you are asking how Christ bears our sin and suffering if not in a punitive sense of appeasement? We have answered this question in fact several times now.

Sorry about that, I must just be a bit dim because I still haven't got this bit yet.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

"...He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of all men upon Him, and said to Him: “Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sins of all men. And see to it that You pay and make satisfaction for them."

How is that last clause not PSA?


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

“Let us see how Christ was able to gain the victory over our enemies. The sins of the whole
world, past, present, and future, fastened themselves upon Christ and condemned Him. But because Christ is God He had an everlasting and unconquerable righteousness. These two, the sin of the world and the righteousness of God, met in a death struggle. Furiously the sin of the world assailed the righteousness of God. Righteousness is immortal and invincible. On the other hand, sin is a mighty tyrant who subdues all men. This tyrant pounces on Christ. But Christ’s righteousness is unconquerable. The result is inevitable. Sin is defeated and righteousness triumphs and reigns forever.”

Likewise.


 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
You can see with the adjacent term "pay" that it is in the terms of a debt owed (which indicates Anselm's satisfaction model) not of a penalty. In Anselmian satisfaction one pays the debt to avoid punishment, this is very different from PSA where one pays the debt through punishment. The language of Christ paying our debt is biblical. The idea of his being punished in our place in order to appease justice is no where in the Bible, nor is it in Luther.

What debt? My point is that I can't see what debt Jesus had to pay if it wasn't some sense of penalty for our sin.

Likewise Luther's comment about condemnation. How is condemnation not penal language?

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
You seem to see anything that remotely resembles PSA language and immediately assume that they are talking about PSA. You need to read people (like Luther or Paul or Anselm) in their own context and try to get behind their own framework of thinking.

I'm not asking you to agree with me on PSA, but I would ask you to concede that the above paragraph proves nothing. I could say exactly the same about you wanting to twist Luther's language into your framework. Stating it proves nothing, you have to demonstrate that you are the one who understands Luther properly.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Also note that I answered your question of how CV works through substitutionary atonement, and you changed the subject.

[Ultra confused] How did I change the subject? AFAIK your answer to how CV works is that, according to Luther, it works via PSA.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
My point is that I can't see what debt Jesus had to pay if it wasn't some sense of penalty for our sin.
Biblically, the debt is one of ransom from slavery. "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men" (1 Co 7:23)

quote:
Likewise Luther's comment about condemnation. How is condemnation not penal language?
Because in Luther's paragraph it the devil who is condemning Christ, not God. It is unjust condemnation.

Again CV works by Christ becoming us so that he can overcome what has enslaved us. He does this because he is more concerned with us than he is with blame or getting paid, and is thus willing to bear our abuse, our hurt, our pain, our guilt, our victimhood, our evil, our hopelessness, our slavery, in order to see us set free. God does not bear these things in order to fulfill some requirement(PSA), but in order to set us free and bring us out of death and into life (CV).
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
I could say exactly the same about you wanting to twist Luther's language into your framework. Stating it proves nothing, you have to demonstrate that you are the one who understands Luther properly.

No, I don't think you can. I am basing my view on Luther on reading massive amounts of his writing, (as well as the works of major commentators on Luther), and looking at the entire context of Luther's thought. You are basing your view on finding isolated "vocabulary words" in a quote I gave and injecting a meaning into it that is out of context.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Interesting discussion. I can appreciate your pulling the rank of scholarship on Luther; Paul is another matter. You, Sharktacos, have no greater credential than anyone else to claim you know his context unless you are a first century Jew. Hence I'd rather accept my own reading of Ro 3:25 than yours.

Here's another text of interest

Heb 7:26,7 "High preist..(Christ) who does not need daily like those high priests to offer up sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this he did once for all when he offered up himself."

This suggests to me that Christ's priestly function meant that Calvary was a sacrifice in which Christ functioned as priest and victim and that the sacrifice element was for sins of others as well as himself though he was sinless of course.

My question is how is such a text not more reconcilable with PSA as a model than with CV.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Jamat,

I agree that "priestly function meant that Calvary was a sacrifice in which Christ functioned as priest and victim and that the sacrifice element was for sins of others as well as himself though he was sinless of course."

It is not compatible with PSA because sacrifice in Hebrews is about purification not punishment.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Jamat,

I agree that "priestly function meant that Calvary was a sacrifice in which Christ functioned as priest and victim and that the sacrifice element was for sins of others as well as himself though he was sinless of course."

It is not compatible with PSA because sacrifice in Hebrews is about purification not punishment.

On what authority? Surely purification
was more about preparation for worship. Sacrifice was the act of worship one prepares for. On could also say we are purified by the act of appropriating calvary personall see 1Pet 2:9
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Johnny, it's not that we don't welcome critiques of CV. I have been more than happy to critique PSA. I don't think, though, that the crtiques of PSA have been restricted to straw men or caricatures of it, as sharktacos pointed out.


Opposition to PSA has been on the grounds of:
It suggests to some that God sanctions injustice:
Some object to the idea that Christ was punished:
Some say God gets angry in the PSA model:
Some say it minimises Jesus teaching and emphasises his death too much:
Some suggest the sacrifice concept is barbaric:
Some claim it is unscriptural:

You'd have to say that most of these ar quite pejorative and tending to reactiveness. The temptation in such cases is for some sort of caricature to denigrate the opposing view.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Nope, purification is the purpose of the sacrifice. It has nothing to do with punishment. That is what Hebrews says repeatedly.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Johnny, it's not that we don't welcome critiques of CV. I have been more than happy to critique PSA. I don't think, though, that the crtiques of PSA have been restricted to straw men or caricatures of it, as sharktacos pointed out.


Opposition to PSA has been on the grounds of:
It suggests to some that God sanctions injustice:
Some object to the idea that Christ was punished:
Some say God gets angry in the PSA model:
Some say it minimises Jesus teaching and emphasises his death too much:
Some suggest the sacrifice concept is barbaric:
Some claim it is unscriptural:

You'd have to say that most of these ar quite pejorative and tending to reactiveness. The temptation in such cases is for some sort of caricature to denigrate the opposing view.

You left out the two big ones:
PSA is unjust
PSA is unbiblical
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Biblically, the debt is one of ransom from slavery. "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men" (1 Co 7:23)

You still haven't said what the price was and who it was paid to.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Likewise Luther's comment about condemnation. How is condemnation not penal language?
Because in Luther's paragraph it the devil who is condemning Christ, not God. It is unjust condemnation.
Allied with your comment above I presume you think that the debt was paid to the devil. If so your model has massive problems. Namely:

1. It is dualistic.
2. There is no biblical reference to the debt being paid to the devil.
3. If the debt was paid to the devil in what sense can we say that Jesus 'defeated' the devil? When someone/thing is redeemed from slavery it makes no sense to describe the owner as 'defeated' - quite the opposite it means that you uphold their original rights of ownership.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
No, I don't think you can. I am basing my view on Luther on reading massive amounts of his writing, (as well as the works of major commentators on Luther), and looking at the entire context of Luther's thought. You are basing your view on finding isolated "vocabulary words" in a quote I gave and injecting a meaning into it that is out of context.

= "argument weak, so shout louder." [Big Grin] If Luther really is that straight forward then you should have no problem demonstrating it to a simpleton like me. [Biased]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Please define what you think "dualism" is and why it is bad.

As to your other comments, you really need to read Gustaf Aulen's "Christus Victor". All of the things you mention are dealt with it in there. In short, your view of CV is way too legalistic/wooden and needs to be understood as a dramatic narrative not as a rigid formula equation.

Same goes for Luther. Luther is not "simple" he is extremely complex.

What you keep doing is presenting an extreme oversimplification of something and then complaining that it is too simple, but then when we present a complex view you complain that it is too complex. Sorry, real life is not simple.

You need to pick one tactic: either you can say you don't understand CV and then be open to learning about it OR you can claim that you do understand it and then critique it intelligently. From your posts I think it is pretty obvious that you have never read Aulen's book, which kind of disqualifies you from the later. So please, go pick up a copy. Until then you will be fighting windmills.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Nope, purification is the purpose of the sacrifice. It has nothing to do with punishment. That is what Hebrews says repeatedly.

OK I've just read Hebrews. The word purification isn't there. In the 2 Pet 2:9 scripture it is mentioned in a different context. I'm using NASB. Hebrews does make extensive mention of sanctification Heb 10:10 and 14. The word redemption is mentioned in connection with Christ's shed blood Heb 9:12 and 15. Given that this is a concept (purification) you are assuming Hebrews is all about I 'd suggest this is more 'assertion'.

To prove PSA is unscriptural you really have to show that Christ did not pay the price for our sins. In other words you would have to contradict Heb 9:28, 1Jn 2:2 and quite a few other important verses. Now you say you endorse the substitutionary death of Christ. As John has pointed out, quite a few of your posts on the nature of CV read suspiciously like endorsements of PSA. It is just that you struggle with the two ideas of justice and the punishment concept. I'd suggest that it is all a question of a 'rose by any other name'. All you are really doing is redefining key terms like ransom and propitiation to make them smell better to your sensibilities.

The justice idea also seems to me a misnomer. To me God is just even if Christ was unjustly punished which I believe. This is because it was not Christ his anger was directed at but sin itself. And it was the sin of man that Jesus voluntarily took on board at the cross and this was the reason for God's presence leaving him and that agonised cry, "My God My God why have you forsaken me."

What's the problem?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Biblically, the debt is one of ransom from slavery. "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men" (1 Co 7:23)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You still haven't said what the price was and who it was paid to.

Clearly, the price was Jesus' death on the cross. I thought that was clearly established. Certainly no-one here is disputing it. It is the function of His death that is under discussion - is it penal in some sense, or is it sacrifice, in the broader sense of the word (as well as, of course, in the cultic sense, upon which I think most of us are agreed).

I'm not sure that the question "to whom is it paid", is a relevant one. Freddy [Overused] has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that the OT concept of "ransom" does not necessarily involve the payment to anyone, any more than the hero pushing the child out of the way of the oncoming train at the cost of his own life could be said to be making a payment to the railway company. It is simply the inherent cost of the salvific event. I suppose, if you really wanted to be picky, you could say it is a payment to the created reality (almost like the classical ransom theory, where payment is made to the devil), but it really is a bit more metaphysical than could be called truely biblical. I think the biblical evidence is pretty much against payment to anyone, but certainly there is no hint that it is payment to God.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
To prove PSA is unscriptural you really have to show that Christ did not pay the price for our sins. In other words you would have to contradict Heb 9:28, 1Jn 2:2 and quite a few other important verses.
No, you have to prove that Christ did not pay the price of our sins to God , and that God did not demand the death of Christ to appease His own wrath. You have to demonstrate that God's just character can only be vindicated by the punishment of offences, even if the person punished was in no way responsible for those offences.

quote:
Now you say you endorse the substitutionary death of Christ.
You say this as if we had not repeatedly expressed such endorsment.Properly understood, I think we all endorse the substitutionary death of Christ, though the Orthodox and some others would balk at the phrasing.

quote:
As John has pointed out, quite a few of your posts on the nature of CV read suspiciously like endorsements of PSA. It is just that you struggle with the two ideas of justice and the punishment concept. I'd suggest that it is all a question of a 'rose by any other name'. All you are really doing is redefining key terms like ransom and propitiation to make them smell better to your sensibilities.
I suggest that what you are doing is merely restating PSA to include in it elements of CV (which sometimes it contains, sometimes it doesn't) whilst maintaining its core distinctives. There seems little point in discussing where we agree. It is these core distinctives (off the top of my head: is God constrained to punish sin, is the cross a prerequisite for forgiveness, what happens when a holy God comes into contact with sin, is Jesus' death in some way to be seen as a penal act?)

quote:
The justice idea also seems to me a misnomer. To me God is just even if Christ was unjustly punished which I believe. This is because it was not Christ his anger was directed at but sin itself.
Of course you believe that Christ's death was unjust. Who does not? The issue is how such injustice can be made, with integrity, into a requirement of justice, which is fundamental to most expressions of PSA. This is what I mean by saying that PSA sounds awfully like a legal fiction, a casuistical attempt to dig oneself out of a hole created by antropomorphising the nature of God as akin to a fallen human judge.

quote:
And it was the sin of man that Jesus voluntarily took on board at the cross
Not only the sin of man , but with that caveat, agreed.
quote:
... and this was the reason for God's presence leaving him and that agonised cry, "My God My God why have you forsaken me."
I don't believe that the Father's presence ever left Jesus. What Jesus experienced was aliention from God, the human condition. But God was no more separated from Him than from any of His created beings. It's just that, for that momemt, Jesus, like us, could not "see" Him. His presence was there, it was just that He wasn't experiencing it. Now I hate the old "Footprints" thing with a passion, but, on this, I think it has something to say. "It was then I carried you".


quote:
What's the problem?

The problem is that PSA portrays a God who is not like Jesus Christ, which is pretty serious if we regard Jesus as the perfect embodiment of the Father.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Please define what you think "dualism" is and why it is bad.

Dualism - as in life consisting of a battle between two equal forces of good and evil with the spoils going to the winner. This is not an equal battle with the outcome unknown, Christians have traditionally believed that God is sovereign.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
You need to pick one tactic: either you can say you don't understand CV and then be open to learning about it OR you can claim that you do understand it and then critique it intelligently. From your posts I think it is pretty obvious that you have never read Aulen's book, which kind of disqualifies you from the later. So please, go pick up a copy. Until then you will be fighting windmills.

We've been here before, and I'll say what I said then. I do not claim to fully understand CV and I'm trying to learn by asking questions. If I am 'fighting windmills' then it should be very easy for you to show me and correct me.

While I have not read all of Aulen's book, I have read from it and indeed studied a course in atonement theories as part of my theology degree - but I don't want to play the game of 'pulling rank' ... it achieves nothing. It is patronising to tell someone that you won't engage with them unless they do it on your terms.

I'm sure JJ finds me equally frustrating but he has the grace to engage when he wants to or let it go when he doesn't.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Thanks JJ, this is helpful. I'd like to tease it out a bit more.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Clearly, the price was Jesus' death on the cross.

Yes, but why was that the price? Who fixed the price?


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not sure that the question "to whom is it paid", is a relevant one. Freddy [Overused] has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that the OT concept of "ransom" does not necessarily involve the payment to anyone, any more than the hero pushing the child out of the way of the oncoming train at the cost of his own life could be said to be making a payment to the railway company. It is simply the inherent cost of the salvific event. I suppose, if you really wanted to be picky, you could say it is a payment to the created reality (almost like the classical ransom theory, where payment is made to the devil), but it really is a bit more metaphysical than could be called truely biblical. I think the biblical evidence is pretty much against payment to anyone, but certainly there is no hint that it is payment to God.

Ummh. I'm open to being persuaded on this one, but would want a bit more evidence. As you say Freddy puts a lot of weight on the ransom metaphor and then argues that it doesn't need to be paid to anyone. I'm strugling with the bible using an image so commonly which, according to you, seems to work so badly (if you see what I mean.) The redemption concept would be so common to the Israelites and Jews that ISTM it begs this misunderstanding.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As you say Freddy puts a lot of weight on the ransom metaphor and then argues that it doesn't need to be paid to anyone.

The weight I put on it is just about showing that "ransom" is paired with "redemption" as being about a victory won with effort and power.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm strugling with the bible using an image so commonly which, according to you, seems to work so badly (if you see what I mean.) The redemption concept would be so common to the Israelites and Jews that ISTM it begs this misunderstanding.

The redemption concept as something achieved by force is commonly used everywhere as a military metaphor. Everyone talks about soldiers sacrificing their lives and paying the price of victory. The price is not paid to anyone in particular, everyone understands that the soldiers "gave" their lives in exchange for the victory, meaning that through their unselfish efforts the victory was achieved. But no one thinks that somehow the "war gods" are "satisfied" by their blood. It's just a universally understood metaphor.

The same metaphor holds even when no lives are lost - the soldiers willingly risked their lives because this is the price of freedom. Or the volunteers worked late into the night, sacrificing their free time for the sake of the project.

The biblical point, made clearly by Jesus, is that love is willing to give everything for what is loved. The greater the love, the more it is willing to give.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Please define what you think "dualism" is and why it is bad.

Dualism - as in life consisting of a battle between two equal forces of good and evil with the spoils going to the winner. This is not an equal battle with the outcome unknown, Christians have traditionally believed that God is sovereign.
We have explained that God is absolutely sovereign. There is no actual contest for any kind of absolute control here.

The problem of sin is just about overcoming the predilection for it that exists in human hearts.

It is only a battle at all from our puny perspective - which is why Christ had to be human.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The redemption concept as something achieved by force is commonly used everywhere as a military metaphor. Everyone talks about soldiers sacrificing their lives and paying the price of victory. The price is not paid to anyone in particular, everyone understands that the soldiers "gave" their lives in exchange for the victory, meaning that through their unselfish efforts the victory was achieved. But no one thinks that somehow the "war gods" are "satisfied" by their blood. It's just a universally understood metaphor.

The same metaphor holds even when no lives are lost - the soldiers willingly risked their lives because this is the price of freedom. Or the volunteers worked late into the night, sacrificing their free time for the sake of the project.

Yes, but in all those analogies the sacrifice actually pays something. The soldiers give their lives while fighting the enemy. To follow your analogy through if the entire army went to battle and then just stood there and were shot then the battle would be lost, their sacrifice in vain.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[QUOTE] quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
, you could say it is a payment to the created reality (almost like the classical ransom theory, where payment is made to the devil), but it really is a bit more metaphysical than could be called truely biblical. I think the biblical evidence is pretty much against payment to anyone, but certainly there is no hint that it is payment to God.

You are in a corner about this. Your position demands this meaning of ransom which by the way is not convincingly defined at all if you change its meaning so as to suggest it is not a forced payment of some sort. The question "to whom" is eminently reasonable and from your frame of reference, unanswerable. Why don't you just admit it? My view is that God's holiness demands that sin be atoned/paid for. It is part of his nature, his very "Godness" if you like.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Yes, but in all those analogies the sacrifice actually pays something. The soldiers give their lives while fighting the enemy. To follow your analogy through if the entire army went to battle and then just stood there and were shot then the battle would be lost, their sacrifice in vain.

That's correct. The battle would be lost.

This was the outcome that the hells were hoping that they had achieved in the crucifixion.

So the deaths by themselves accomplish nothing. It is the willingness to risk death, and the heroic efforts that this implies, that achieves something.

So what did Christ achieve in His death?

As I understand it, in His death He overcame the desires that place all value in the body and its life - the desires that do not realize that the spirit is the true person. All of hell is attached to those desires.

Jesus Himself could not die, but through the sacrifice of His human body He gained the victory. In a similar way, everyone who wishes to be born again needs to willingly sacrifice the self-centered and worldly desires that bodily life demands be the priority. In their place we need to give priority to spiritual values and desires. The cross and resurrection not only symbolized this rebirth, it broke the power that works to prevent it.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You are in a corner about this. Your position demands this meaning of ransom which by the way is not convincingly defined at all if you change its meaning so as to suggest it is not a forced payment of some sort.

Then how do you explain the way the Bible uses the term? Were the authors ignorant of its true meaning?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Yes, but in all those analogies the sacrifice actually pays something. The soldiers give their lives while fighting the enemy. To follow your analogy through if the entire army went to battle and then just stood there and were shot then the battle would be lost, their sacrifice in vain.
Well, of course, Christ does actually pay something, His life. Where the analogy falls down is that earthly battles do indeed depend on overwhelming the enemy with superior force. But the scriptures are quite clear that, in this particular battle (ie Christ vs evil) the superior power is that of submission and obedience. In effect, we allow our enemy to destroy himself by using his most potent weapon, only to discover that it is ultimately useless against One who willingly gives up that which the enemy would seek to deprive Him of; indeed, as it were, it blows up in his hand. As Freddy points out, this is in macrocosm what we do when we have the victory in our own lives over sin and self-interest. The principle is the same as for an earthly battle, but, as Paul points out, the weapons involved are not the same.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
, you could say it is a payment to the created reality (almost like the classical ransom theory, where payment is made to the devil), but it really is a bit more metaphysical than could be called truely biblical. I think the biblical evidence is pretty much against payment to anyone, but certainly there is no hint that it is payment to God.

You are in a corner about this. Your position demands this meaning of ransom which by the way is not convincingly defined at all if you change its meaning so as to suggest it is not a forced payment of some sort. The question "to whom" is eminently reasonable and from your frame of reference, unanswerable. Why don't you just admit it? My view is that God's holiness demands that sin be atoned/paid for. It is part of his nature, his very "Godness" if you like.
Why do you assume that this ransom is payable to God? If the definition of the word that we translate as ransom is, as you would have it, the payment to a captor for the release of a captive, would we not be forced to accept the classical model, (since Satan is our captor), and conclude that Christ's death was the price demanded by the devil. It makes no sense to pay a ransom to the One who is the Liberator, only to the one who is the captor.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Why do you assume that this ransom is payable to God? If the definition of the word that we translate as ransom is, as you would have it, the payment to a captor for the release of a captive, would we not be forced to accept the classical model, (since Satan is our captor), and conclude that Christ's death was the price demanded by the devil. It makes no sense to pay a ransom to the One who is the Liberator, only to the one who is the captor.

Thanks for this JJ and Freddy. This gives me something to think about.

Is it fair to say that you have pretty much arrived back at the classical CV position? I ask because I don't want to caricature your position, but I thought that the notion that the devil was 'tricked' into God's plan of salvation had been abandoned as unsophisticated but I may be wrong there.

This is the bit I have not been able to grasp. I could see us heading in this direction but felt sure that you guys would want to distance yourself from the 'classic' articulation of CV. It seems I was mistaken.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Why do you assume that this ransom is payable to God? If the definition of the word that we translate as ransom is, as you would have it, the payment to a captor for the release of a captive, would we not be forced to accept the classical model, (since Satan is our captor), and conclude that Christ's death was the price demanded by the devil. It makes no sense to pay a ransom to the One who is the Liberator, only to the one who is the captor.

Thanks for this JJ and Freddy. This gives me something to think about.

Is it fair to say that you have pretty much arrived back at the classical CV position? I ask because I don't want to caricature your position, but I thought that the notion that the devil was 'tricked' into God's plan of salvation had been abandoned as unsophisticated but I may be wrong there.

This is the bit I have not been able to grasp. I could see us heading in this direction but felt sure that you guys would want to distance yourself from the 'classic' articulation of CV. It seems I was mistaken.

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out the logic of a position which says that the atonement is a matter of a price being paid to someone, as Jamat asserts. I don't accept that premise, but if it were true, then there would be a good argument for "Classic" Ransom theory. Rather, I'm with Freddy, that biblical useage requires only that a price be paid, (in the sense that there is an actual cost to God in saving humankind) rather than anyone being in receipt of that cost. I wouldn't so much characterise classic Ransom theory as unsophisticated, more mistaken, but I can see the logic by which the ECF's arrived at it. It is a more logical position than Jamat's, though I believe that both are errors. There are commonalities shared by Ransom and CV, but Ransom is distinct from CV, IMV.

ETA it may be that CV grew out of Ransom theory (the commonalities suggest this is possible), and could thus be described as a more nuanced development of the Ransom theme. On the other hand, the same basic data may have given rise to two models which were readily distinguishable even quite early on.

[ 22. August 2007, 14:01: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Is it fair to say that you have pretty much arrived back at the classical CV position?

What JJ said. I'm surprised that you could even ask this.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It is simply the inherent cost of the salvific event. I suppose, if you really wanted to be picky, you could say it is a payment to the created reality (almost like the classical ransom theory, where payment is made to the devil), but it really is a bit more metaphysical than could be called truely biblical.

Okay, so it is not really a payment to the devil but more like a payment to the created reality.

I can get that. Rather like if someone falls off the side of a cliff their death is 'paying the price of their stupidity' (courtesy of gravity).

However, since God created the cosmos in the first place and those are his 'laws' how is that fundamentally different to a nuanced view of PSA?

(e.g. if a Headmaster sets the rules of detention in the first place, going to detention is not directly appeasing his wrath, but it is 'paying the price' of the rules he set up.)

(I'm sure it must be different but I'd like you guys to tease clarify the key differences for me.)

[ 22. August 2007, 18:52: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, since God created the cosmos in the first place and those are his 'laws' how is that fundamentally different to a nuanced view of PSA?

Great question, Johnny!

If God created the law of gravity, and if we have to obey it or else we pay the price, then success demands that we pay a price in terms of making the effort to obey gravity's laws. Or we fall. [Frown]

Similarly, if God created the spiritual equivalent of gravity, then we must obey that law or risk falling spiritually. We must pay the price in terms of the efforts needed to obey those spiritual laws. If we don't we fall. [Frown]

Would PSA say that Christ falls for us? I think that CV would say that Christ helps us keep from falling.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, since God created the cosmos in the first place and those are his 'laws' how is that fundamentally different to a nuanced view of PSA?

Great question, Johnny!

If God created the law of gravity, and if we have to obey it or else we pay the price, then success demands that we pay a price in terms of making the effort to obey gravity's laws. Or we fall. [Frown]

Similarly, if God created the spiritual equivalent of gravity, then we must obey that law or risk falling spiritually. We must pay the price in terms of the efforts needed to obey those spiritual laws. If we don't we fall. [Frown]

Would PSA say that Christ falls for us? I think that CV would say that Christ helps us keep from falling.

I think we could say from the view of substitutionary atonement that God who makes gravity enters into creation and, like a father who sees his child falling from a window sill, dives out, grasps and shelters his baby in his arms, landing on the concrete below and absorbing the full weight of the blow.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Nice. Sounds good to me.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
]Why do you assume that this ransom is payable to God? If the definition of the word that we translate as ransom is, as you would have it, the payment to a captor for the release of a captive, would we not be forced to accept the classical model, (since Satan is our captor), and conclude that Christ's death was the price demanded by the devil. It makes no sense to pay a ransom to the One who is the Liberator, only to the one who is the captor.

I don't. I think that we are ransomed by the cross of Christ from the power of the enemy who had a legal hold over us, which incidentally was the reason Christ had to come.

[ 23. August 2007, 01:18: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think that we are ransomed by the cross of Christ from the power of the enemy who had a legal hold over us, which incidentally was the reason Christ had to come.

The enemy had a legal hold over us.

So did Christ then satisfy the condition for our release? Which was blood? Innocent blood? Paid to whom?

Doesn't it sound better to say that the enemy had captured us, and that Christ rescued us by His mighty power? [Confused]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Nope, purification is the purpose of the sacrifice. It has nothing to do with punishment. That is what Hebrews says repeatedly.

I was looking for a particular page on Temple sacrifices, but this will do to show that 'little fluffy' wasn't an offering to an angry God who wouldn't forgive unless assuaged by blood, but on reading it was reminded that Orthodox still have it as the Jews, that sin is not thought of as in a juridical relationship with God for which punishment is due, but as "missing the mark", of being what we are created to be in image and likeness.

(Little Fluffy)


Also, someone said that the real 'us' is spirit and I'm not quite sure how it was meant, but this again isn't the Orthodox Church's view which sees us as a whole of spirit and body, theosis for instance is becoming the human we are created to be, fully human - we don't have the concept of being 'liberated at death from the body to enter heaven' if that's what was meant.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
]Why do you assume that this ransom is payable to God? If the definition of the word that we translate as ransom is, as you would have it, the payment to a captor for the release of a captive, would we not be forced to accept the classical model, (since Satan is our captor), and conclude that Christ's death was the price demanded by the devil. It makes no sense to pay a ransom to the One who is the Liberator, only to the one who is the captor.

I don't. I think that we are ransomed by the cross of Christ from the power of the enemy who had a legal hold over us, which incidentally was the reason Christ had to come.
But this isn't PSA. It's a succinct statement of "Classic" Ransom theory. (well, the apart from the "legal" bit, which is more like CS Lewis in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, than the ECFs). We are held captive by the devil, Christ exchanges His life for ours, taking our place as a prisoner, before breaking the bondage in the resurrection. Nothing about God's honour, nothing about God's hatred of sin, not a shade of PSA.

In itself, there is nothing wrong with this theory IMHO. The earliest Christian writers seemed to have believed something very similar. John referred to it as being "unsophisticated", a view with which I have some sympathy, if by that he means there are other things at work here. I just think it's a "first-order" account, perhaps a little simplistic. I do, however, think it is closer to the truth than is PSA.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Also, someone said that the real 'us' is spirit and I'm not quite sure how it was meant, but this again isn't the Orthodox Church's view which sees us as a whole of spirit and body, theosis for instance is becoming the human we are created to be, fully human - we don't have the concept of being 'liberated at death from the body to enter heaven' if that's what was meant.


That may have been me, and I was aware at the time that there was the possibility of misunderstanding. I think that it is true that we are whole beings; the spirit, divorced from the soul and the body, is not "the real us", as it were. However, ISTM that it is true that our spirits, souls and bodies all need to be transformed. I think a good case can be made to say that these transformations take place at different times, our spirits at the point of regeneration ("born again", if I may be allowed to recover the Dominical phrase), our souls as we grow in sanctification, and our bodies at the general resurrection. It is this tension between that which has already happened, and that which is apprehended by faith which is the dynamic of the Chrtistian life.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Also, someone said that the real 'us' is spirit and I'm not quite sure how it was meant, but this again isn't the Orthodox Church's view which sees us as a whole of spirit and body, theosis for instance is becoming the human we are created to be, fully human - we don't have the concept of being 'liberated at death from the body to enter heaven' if that's what was meant.

That may have been me, and I was aware at the time that there was the possibility of misunderstanding. I think that it is true that we are whole beings; the spirit, divorced from the soul and the body, is not "the real us", as it were.
I think it was me. I said above:
quote:
As I understand it, in His death He overcame the desires that place all value in the body and its life - the desires that do not realize that the spirit is the true person. All of hell is attached to those desires.
Myrrh, I've read this before, that Orthodoxy sees us as a whole of spirit and body. It makes sense. I just don't understand how Orthodoxy can talk of heaven and hell, then, since it seems obvious to me that we can't take our physical bodies to those places. My own understanding is that we do have bodies in the next life, just as we do here, with no apparent difference. It's just that the bodies are spiritual.

I guess that this is a tangent. But it has struck me a number of times on this thread that there is disagreement over whether there is such a thing as a spiritual reality or a spiritual realm that is real.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Freddy, I think that there is some misunderstanding of terms, more than anything else here. I do think that we will have real, recognisable bodies in the afterlife, and that, in the terms of reference of the afterlife, they will be "physical", but that doesn't mean they will have the same restrictions and characteristics of our mortal bodies. So I'm quite happy with the term "spiritual", as long as we don't take that to mean "etherial". After all, Jesus had a resurrection body, and He could be touched, but He could also enter locked rooms. Paul discusses this question in I Cor 15, and concludes that we will have a "spiritual" (as opposed to a "natural") body, but it will certainly have "physical" characteristics, appropriate to a definition of physical in terms of eternity.

But, as you say, a tangent.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Thanks, JJ. That sounds good to me.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

Would PSA say that Christ falls for us? I think that CV would say that Christ helps us keep from falling.

Well this is where the debate 'bites'. If 'punishment' is one of the moral laws of God's created world (like gravity) then yes, PSA says precisely that Jesus falls for us. The problem I have with your suggestion that 'Christ helps us from falling' is that I know from personal experience that I/We do keep falling, then what?

As CS Lewis once said when discussing this kind of 'cause and effect' view of judgment (when it was compared to electricity) - at least an angry person can be appeased, what hope do I have with an impersonal force?

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I think we could say from the view of substitutionary atonement that God who makes gravity enters into creation and, like a father who sees his child falling from a window sill, dives out, grasps and shelters his baby in his arms, landing on the concrete below and absorbing the full weight of the blow.

If PSA has a tendency to focus too much on Good Friday then surely this is too much about the tenderness of the incarnation. I don't dispute those things, but it leaves all sorts of questions about the 'game' God is playing...

e.g. To what degree is it an illusion to talk about the author submitting himself to the rules of his play?

All in all it makes God too much of a helpless captive in the world he created, for my liking, but YMMV.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I guess that this is a tangent. But it has struck me a number of times on this thread that there is disagreement over whether there is such a thing as a spiritual reality or a spiritual realm that is real.

It is a little tangential, but it does connect with any CV model which plays heavily on the ransom being paid to the devil.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

Would PSA say that Christ falls for us? I think that CV would say that Christ helps us keep from falling.

Well this is where the debate 'bites'. If 'punishment' is one of the moral laws of God's created world (like gravity) then yes, PSA says precisely that Jesus falls for us. The problem I have with your suggestion that 'Christ helps us from falling' is that I know from personal experience that I/We do keep falling, then what?
I think that this is a revealing question.

The answer, I think, is that it's not really a matter of falling or not falling. It's a question of how far we fall. It's not a question of whether or not we are sinners. It's a question of how much we sin and how we can be persuaded to sin less.

PSA, as I understand it, makes it an all-or-nothing game. If you break the least commandment then you might as well have broken them all.

The truth is, I think, that life works in increments. We're looking for spiritual progress, not perfection.

So the answer is that although we do tend to keep falling, the effort at obedience to Christ, and trusting in Him, helps us to fall a little less - and eventually not to fall much at all.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I guess that this is a tangent. But it has struck me a number of times on this thread that there is disagreement over whether there is such a thing as a spiritual reality or a spiritual realm that is real.

It is a little tangential, but it does connect with any CV model which plays heavily on the ransom being paid to the devil.
I'm curious as to what you mean by this, Johnny. Do other models not assume that there is a spiritual realm that is real? I would think that any model involving God, heaven and hell would have to assume that they are real even though they are not visible in the physical world. [Confused]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm curious as to what you mean by this, Johnny. Do other models not assume that there is a spiritual realm that is real? I would think that any model involving God, heaven and hell would have to assume that they are real even though they are not visible in the physical world. [Confused]

Absolutely.

What I meant was if we are going to talk about the devil as a being who receives the ransom that it brings with it a whole host of questions about what that spiritual reality is like. e.g. Is the devil a personal being (with a body?) or just the personification of evil?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
What I meant was if we are going to talk about the devil as a being who receives the ransom that it brings with it a whole host of questions about what that spiritual reality is like. e.g. Is the devil a personal being (with a body?) or just the personification of evil?

OK. Good. That makes sense.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:


e.g. To what degree is it an illusion to talk about the author submitting himself to the rules of his play?

All in all it makes God too much of a helpless captive in the world he created, for my liking, but YMMV.


In a sense God is captive.. OS with its 'no free will to turn to God' altered the base from which Christ taught, in the OC God cannot act against our will. Salvation then is a continuation of the same relationship with God plus Christ's incarnation.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm curious as to what you mean by this, Johnny. Do other models not assume that there is a spiritual realm that is real? I would think that any model involving God, heaven and hell would have to assume that they are real even though they are not visible in the physical world. [Confused]

Absolutely.

What I meant was if we are going to talk about the devil as a being who receives the ransom that it brings with it a whole host of questions about what that spiritual reality is like. e.g. Is the devil a personal being (with a body?) or just the personification of evil?

I'm not sure how relevant this really is, since most of us have rejected either the idea that the ransom is payable to anyone in any meaningful way, or, that, if it is payable, it isn't payable to Satan. For the record, I don't have a problem with a "personal" Satan (or rather, pace the blessed St Clive, an unpersonal satan). Whether he (it?) is also merely the personification of evil is a moot point, about which we have little or no strong biblical evidence one way or t'other. To affirm the objective existence (I do) of the being (or unbeing) referred to by Jesus as Satan says nothing about its origins. Most demonology seems to have its basis in Milton (and the tradition to which he gave voice) rather than the Bible.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
In a sense God is captive.. OS with its 'no free will to turn to God' altered the base from which Christ taught, in the OC God cannot act against our will. Salvation then is a continuation of the same relationship with God plus Christ's incarnation.

Myrrh

This sounds a lot like "open theism" which states that God who is in pursuit of a relationship willingly limits himself in order to give humanity real freedom for the purpose of relationship. It is a controversial theory among Evangelicals, and some are opposed to it because it questions the idea of God's meticulous control of the universe, bur I think that it seems to better portray the biblical drama, and address the problem of theodicy. What do you think?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
In a sense God is captive.. OS with its 'no free will to turn to God' altered the base from which Christ taught, in the OC God cannot act against our will. Salvation then is a continuation of the same relationship with God plus Christ's incarnation.

Myrrh

This sounds a lot like "open theism" which states that God who is in pursuit of a relationship willingly limits himself in order to give humanity real freedom for the purpose of relationship. It is a controversial theory among Evangelicals, and some are opposed to it because it questions the idea of God's meticulous control of the universe, bur I think that it seems to better portray the biblical drama, and address the problem of theodicy. What do you think?
The Orthodox Church never got into the "predestination" arguments because this is a basic belief for us. There's a good, not an endorsement of all on this website... [Smile] , analysis of OC and the Western view of predestination: (On Predestination From the Writings of Bishop Elias Minatios)

From which
quote:
St. John Chrysostom continues this thought by saying, "Even if it were possible to figure out this question (of predestination), it would nonetheless be unlawful to desire to do so." For us it is sufficient to know these two clear, understandable, basic precepts: first, God desires that we be saved, for He loves mankind. Second, we can be saved, for we are free. Thus, the will of God and the desire of man make up predestination. God desires, and if man desires also, then he or she is already predestined.
It's the synergistic view, of God's nature being always forgiveness and mercy so always open to our turning back, if we've ever left, the story of the Prodigal Son the epitome of this idea.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
In a sense God is captive.. OS with its 'no free will to turn to God' altered the base from which Christ taught, in the OC God cannot act against our will. Salvation then is a continuation of the same relationship with God plus Christ's incarnation.

Myrrh

This sounds a lot like "open theism" which states that God who is in pursuit of a relationship willingly limits himself in order to give humanity real freedom for the purpose of relationship. It is a controversial theory among Evangelicals, and some are opposed to it because it questions the idea of God's meticulous control of the universe, bur I think that it seems to better portray the biblical drama, and address the problem of theodicy. What do you think?
The Orthodox Church never got into the "predestination" arguments because this is a basic belief for us. There's a good, not an endorsement of all on this website... [Smile] , analysis of OC and the Western view of predestination: (On Predestination From the Writings of Bishop Elias Minatios)

From which
quote:
St. John Chrysostom continues this thought by saying, "Even if it were possible to figure out this question (of predestination), it would nonetheless be unlawful to desire to do so." For us it is sufficient to know these two clear, understandable, basic precepts: first, God desires that we be saved, for He loves mankind. Second, we can be saved, for we are free. Thus, the will of God and the desire of man make up predestination. God desires, and if man desires also, then he or she is already predestined.
It's the synergistic view, of God's nature being always forgiveness and mercy so always open to our turning back, if we've ever left, the story of the Prodigal Son the epitome of this idea.


Myrrh

Even though from an evo background, I always sort of assented to the thinking expressed in the quote from old Silvertongue. Makes sense to me, anyway.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Myrrh,

I think the central issue in the idea of God being self-limited in entering into relationship is not so much predestination (which as a non-Calvinist is a non-starter for me anyway) but rather the issue of God's sovereignty and how this effected by relational self-limitation. Any thought about that?

[ 23. August 2007, 19:29: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Myrrh,

I think the central issue in the idea of God being self-limited in entering into relationship is not so much predestination (which as a non-Calvinist is a non-starter for me anyway) but rather the issue of God's sovereignty and how this effected by relational self-limitation. Any thought about that?

Nope. [Smile] .... I wouldn't even know where to begin thinking about it, what does the question mean?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
This sounds a lot like "open theism" which states that God who is in pursuit of a relationship willingly limits himself in order to give humanity real freedom for the purpose of relationship.

Yep. I'll come clean - that was where I was heading. A speculation that CV (or move in that direction) follows on naturally from Open Theism. It was just a thought.

[ 23. August 2007, 19:39: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I think the central issue in the idea of God being self-limited in entering into relationship is not so much predestination (which as a non-Calvinist is a non-starter for me anyway) but rather the issue of God's sovereignty and how this effected by relational self-limitation. Any thought about that?

I agree about predestination.

I don't look at the issue as being God's self-limitation. Rather He knows exactly what will produce the best possible outcome over the very long term, and everything that He does is about that.

This means that all the laws of creation are about facilitating that best possible long term outcome. So God does not self-limit, instead He acts from love for creation. I think that it looks like self-limitation to us because of our restricted view of what is actually happening.

[ 23. August 2007, 20:08: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
This sounds a lot like "open theism" which states that God who is in pursuit of a relationship willingly limits himself in order to give humanity real freedom for the purpose of relationship.

Yep. I'll come clean - that was where I was heading. A speculation that CV (or move in that direction) follows on naturally from Open Theism. It was just a thought.
Both CV and Open Theism address the huge issue of theodicy (suffering and injustice), and in dealing with the incarnation also have common points of intersection. But since CV predates Open Theism by decades (Aulen's book was published in 1930, Open Theism is from the mid 90's) if not centuries (the Church Fathers), one cannot really say that Open Theism leads to CV.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

I don't look at the issue as being God's self-limitation. Rather He knows exactly what will produce the best possible outcome over the very long term, and everything that He does is about that.

This view is subject to the same critique that one can make of PSA: it makes God look vicious. As Dostoyevsky has said, what possible larger plan could justify the rape and torture of one little child?

I think we need to face the reality of radical evil and the demonic in our world. It is one thing to say that God can use evil for good, it is quite another to say that he is the author of it or that he sees it as a chess game. God cares for every sparrow that falls to the ground.

There is a very real war between good and evil. That is not dualism because evil is created good and fallen. It is not co-equal with good, it is a corruption of good. Thus the solution in this war is not to destroy evil (which would mean destroying us) but to redeem fallen people, institutions, and authorities so that people can be restored to relationship with God and others and institutions and laws can be restored to their proper roll as our servants leading us to God and love.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
But since CV predates Open Theism by decades (Aulen's book was published in 1930, Open Theism is from the mid 90's) if not centuries (the Church Fathers), one cannot really say that Open Theism leads to CV.

I think you misunderstood my point. This is not about chronology but about waves of popular thinking. CV has always been popular. However, my hunch about its popularity as an 'umbrella' model (certainly in evangelical circles) comes (ISTM) from the rise of Open Theism. It's not a conspiracy theory, just a thought.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
There is a very real war between good and evil. That is not dualism because evil is created good and fallen. It is not co-equal with good, it is a corruption of good. Thus the solution in this war is not to destroy evil (which would mean destroying us) but to redeem fallen people, institutions, and authorities so that people can be restored to relationship with God and others and institutions and laws can be restored to their proper roll as our servants leading us to God and love.

But that is where you have to part company with Open Theism in order for a more 'Reformed' position. That is the only way you can be sure that God can really do all the above. Otherwise, not only is a very real possibility that evil could win but also (reading a newspaper) quite a likely outcome.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Is this what you mean by (SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD)?


And is this site OK for Open Theism? (What is Openness Theology)


I've only just skimmed the beginning of the last link, are you really saying that this kind of thinking is very recent because it mentions the "watershed issue" as being the same which divides Calvinism from Arminianism.

In a nutshell please what's this difference between C and A?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Myrrh,

I think the central issue in the idea of God being self-limited in entering into relationship is not so much predestination (which as a non-Calvinist is a non-starter for me anyway) but rather the issue of God's sovereignty and how this effected by relational self-limitation. Any thought about that?

Nope. [Smile] .... I wouldn't even know where to begin thinking about it, what does the question mean?

Myrrh

I did have a thought about it earlier, but got distracted when I came on line to look for more info.

How is this sovereignty affected by God becoming part of the food chain by inextricable entry into the human condition in the Incarnation?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freddy:
[qb] This view is subject to the same critique that one can make of PSA: it makes God look vicious. As Dostoyevsky has said, what possible larger plan could justify the rape and torture of one little child?

Only if it is the best possible alternative. What larger plan could justify one child bullying another child? Or any of the countless vicious things that people do? Who would reasonably decide to permit some and not others?

My answer is to imagine a world where these things weren't possible. In that world what would be possible and what, exactly, would not be possible?

Christus Victor is a solution to this problem because it is a way to put an end to the rape and torture of children without literally making those actions impossible. That is, as I understand it, it provides a way for us, of our own free will, to put an end to practices like those. It is not a quick and easy solution, but it is, I think, the most permanent one and the one that is most consistent with human freedom.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

I don't look at the issue as being God's self-limitation. Rather He knows exactly what will produce the best possible outcome over the very long term, and everything that He does is about that.

This view is subject to the same critique that one can make of PSA: it makes God look vicious. As Dostoyevsky has said, what possible larger plan could justify the rape and torture of one little child?

I think we need to face the reality of radical evil and the demonic in our world. It is one thing to say that God can use evil for good, it is quite another to say that he is the author of it or that he sees it as a chess game. God cares for every sparrow that falls to the ground.

There is a very real war between good and evil. That is not dualism because evil is created good and fallen. It is not co-equal with good, it is a corruption of good. Thus the solution in this war is not to destroy evil (which would mean destroying us) but to redeem fallen people, institutions, and authorities so that people can be restored to relationship with God and others and institutions and laws can be restored to their proper roll as our servants leading us to God and love.

Sorry to belabour this point, but to understand the difference, what do you call yourselves/your views?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freddy:
[qb] This view is subject to the same critique that one can make of PSA: it makes God look vicious. As Dostoyevsky has said, what possible larger plan could justify the rape and torture of one little child?

Only if it is the best possible alternative. What larger plan could justify one child bullying another child? Or any of the countless vicious things that people do? Who would reasonably decide to permit some and not others?

My answer is to imagine a world where these things weren't possible. In that world what would be possible and what, exactly, would not be possible?

Christus Victor is a solution to this problem because it is a way to put an end to the rape and torture of children without literally making those actions impossible. That is, as I understand it, it provides a way for us, of our own free will, to put an end to practices like those. It is not a quick and easy solution, but it is, I think, the most permanent one and the one that is most consistent with human freedom.

Freddy, I don't think the above answers Sharktaco's objection to "Only if it is the best possible alternative" - are you saying that God can and does will evil?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Freddy, I don't think the above answers Sharktaco's objection to "Only if it is the best possible alternative" - are you saying that God can and does will evil?

No. God can not and does not will evil. It's a question of what He will prevent from happening. If He prevented all evil, which would probably make sense to us, where would that put us?

This issue is discussed so often on the ship it's a wonder that it's not a dead horse. But the connection to Christus Victor is that the point of the Incarnation is to overcome the wicked effects of evil without destroying human freedom. Christus Victor does that, I think.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Freddy, I don't think the above answers Sharktaco's objection to "Only if it is the best possible alternative" - are you saying that God can and does will evil?

No. God can not and does not will evil. It's a question of what He will prevent from happening. If He prevented all evil, which would probably make sense to us, where would that put us?

This issue is discussed so often on the ship it's a wonder that it's not a dead horse. But the connection to Christus Victor is that the point of the Incarnation is to overcome the wicked effects of evil without destroying human freedom. Christus Victor does that, I think.

The problem I have is that I've only been exploring the differences in the last few years and most discussions refer to concepts by way of their origin, which is confusing for someone who isn't at all used to the variety of authors and categories of thinking you're all so at ease with. For me, it appears that every nuance has created a separate doctrinal system over the centuries...

I'm trying to understand what you mean by CV and found this precis of Swedenborg (The Gist of Swedenborg)

So, for you CV means a rejection of the human body, ('Christ overcame the human nature he got from his mother')which appears to be Gnostic thinking as rejection of creation as inherently good.

Myrrh
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, my hunch about its popularity as an 'umbrella' model (certainly in evangelical circles) comes (ISTM) from the rise of Open Theism.

I don't think so. I'd say instead that they are both sparking popular imagination because there is post 9/11 an increased awareness of the problem of evil and suffering in the world that people are restling with. In fact I would say that as in Luther's time the question was "how can I find God's grace?" today our question is "how can a loving God allow abuse and tragedy".


quote:
But that is where you have to part company with Open Theism in order for a more 'Reformed' position.
Are you maybe confusing open theism with process theology?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
In fact I would say that as in Luther's time the question was "how can I find God's grace?" today our question is "how can a loving God allow abuse and tragedy".

I think you are probably right, although the questions are likely to be closely related.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
But that is where you have to part company with Open Theism in order for a more 'Reformed' position.
Are you maybe confusing open theism with process theology?
I don't think I am, but I guess it is always possible. Open Theism is gaining popularity in by-passing traditional theodicies. God is not responsible for suffering and evil because the future is 'open'. However, my point is that by solving one problem you merely create another.

The question moves from 'how can God allow suffering?' to 'how can we be sure that God can defeat evil and suffering?'

Now, at this point I'm sure we would all agree that the answer to the second question is - through the death and resurrection of Jesus! However, that only 'works' if:

a) the atonement does something objective (i.e. exemplar is not enough)

and

b) the atonement demonstrates Christ's victory over evil.


If you are still with me, you will be eager to point out that CV fits the bill perfectly. Well, I'm open to persuasion, but I've still not got my head round the link between how Christ's death and resurrection demonstrates his victory over evil for him with how he does it for us.

PSA I can understand because, issues of justice etc. aside, a punishment / debt can theoretically be paid by someone else. I know you all think I am too 'literal' but I can't see how Christ's victory can become 'our' victory.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm trying to understand what you mean by CV and found this precis of Swedenborg (The Gist of Swedenborg)

So, for you CV means a rejection of the human body, ('Christ overcame the human nature he got from his mother')which appears to be Gnostic thinking as rejection of creation as inherently good.

In Swedenborgianese CV is the glorification of Christ's human and the subjugation of the hells. This is redemption. It is put this way in Swedenborg's True Christianity:
quote:
It must first be stated what redemption is. To redeem means to free from damnation, to reclaim from everlasting death, to snatch from hell, and to release the captives and those in bondage from the hands of the devil. The Lord performed this by conquering the hells and founding a new heaven. The reason why people could not by any other means be saved was that the spiritual world is so closely integrated with the natural world that they are inseparable. This principally affects people's interiors, what is called their souls and minds; those of the good are linked with the souls and minds of angels, those of the wicked with the souls and minds of the spirits of hell. Their union is such that if a person were deprived of them, he would fall lifeless, like a block of wood. Likewise neither could angels and spirits remain in existence, if human beings were taken away from them. This will make it plain why redemption took place in the spiritual world, and why heaven and hell had to be brought into order before a church could be established upon earth. This is clearly stated in Revelation, where it is said that after the creation of a new heaven, the New Jerusalem, which is the new church, came down from that heaven (Rev. 21:1, 2). True Christianity 118
So it is not about rejecting the human body. It's not gnostic. The part about Christ overcoming the human nature that He got from Mary is that His mortal human nature was the means by which hell could encounter and attack Him. He fought the loves of self and the world associated with His humanity in favor of the love of the whole human race and of His Father. He didn't reject the body, He glorified it, or made it divine. He rose with it on the third day.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I've still not got my head round the link between how Christ's death and resurrection demonstrates his victory over evil for him with how he does it for us.

It is a victory over evil for him because he really solves the objective problem of evil by liberating us, reconciling us, healing us, and giving us a new identity. PSA deals with just the reconciling part. CV (which includes an expanded form of PSA -- let me know if I lose you on this part) deals with all 4.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
PSA I can understand because, issues of justice etc. aside, a punishment / debt can theoretically be paid by someone else.

A monitary debt, yes. A punitive debt, no. Not in any legal system. CV says he pays our monitary debt by releaseing us from slavery. With that new "ownership" we have a new identity in Christ, which is how what God does also effects us.


I know you all think I am too 'literal' but I can't see how Christ's victory can become 'our' victory. [/QB][/QUOTE]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I've still not got my head round the link between how Christ's death and resurrection demonstrates his victory over evil for him with how he does it for us.

It is a victory over evil for him because he really solves the objective problem of evil by liberating us, reconciling us, healing us, and giving us a new identity.
This is what my quote above addresses also.

Christ's victory for Him is a victory for us because it reduces hell's power over us by exposing them, putting them in their place, and giving us defenses against them. This in effect liberates us, reconciles us, heals us, and gives us a new identity insofar as we align ourselves with Him.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
In Swedenborgianese CV is the glorification of Christ's human and the subjugation of the hells. This is redemption. It is put this way in Swedenborg's True Christianity:
..
So it is not about rejecting the human body. It's not gnostic. The part about Christ overcoming the human nature that He got from Mary is that His mortal human nature was the means by which hell could encounter and attack Him. He fought the loves of self and the world associated with His humanity in favor of the love of the whole human race and of His Father. He didn't reject the body, He glorified it, or made it divine. He rose with it on the third day.

Thanks for the further explanation, obviously difficult to work out doctrine from such a cursory reading as mine. But, it does seem to me that he equates human nature itself with evil, though he rejects OS istm he still postulates that the material world is evil in that it's all damned.

From your quote: "It must first be stated what redemption is. To redeem means to free from damnation, to reclaim from everlasting death, to snatch from hell, and to release the captives and those in bondage from the hands of the devil."

And from the Gist of: "THE LIFE ON EARTH
The Lord had at first a human nature from the mother, of which He gradually divested Himself while He was in the world. Accordingly He kept experiencing two states: a state of humiliation or privation, as long and as far as He was conscious in the human nature from the mother; and a state of glorification or union with the Divine, as long and as far as He was conscious in the Humanity received from the Father. In the state of humiliation He prayed to the Father as to One other than Himself; but in the state of glorification He spoke with the Father as with Himself. In this state He said that the Father was in Him, and He in the Father, and that the Father and He were one.

The Lord consecutively put off the human nature assumed from the mother, and put on a Humanity from the Divine in Himself, which is the Divine Humanity and the Son of God."

I'm having difficulty in seeing this other than as the Gnostic idea of matter being evil. OC teaching is that matter is good, that human nature is good (created in image and likeness of God) and that Christ became fully human for a way to bring human nature to its fulfillment, not to destroy human nature by making it something different.

In this process of Christ 'divesting himself of human nature', everything that is human nature is associated with that which is not of God.

Istm although Swedenborg's rejected OS he still retains the concepts of damned nature, of estrangement from God, privation, which is part and parcel of the Gnostic OS and from this postulates CV as the only remedy much as OS demands baptism to restore lost grace.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Myrrh - Sorry, I'm not catching what "OS" stands for. I see that OC must mean "Orthodox Church". Is that right?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
But, it does seem to me that he equates human nature itself with evil, though he rejects OS istm he still postulates that the material world is evil in that it's all damned.

I can see how you have that idea. I'll try to explain.

Human nature is not evil, nor is the material world. The quote is talking about the hereditary tendencies to sin that are common to everyone. Jesus received these through His mother, and these are what He overcame, not human nature itself. So in that translation it says that He overcame the nature received from His mother, and that is what it means.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm having difficulty in seeing this other than as the Gnostic idea of matter being evil. OC teaching is that matter is good, that human nature is good (created in image and likeness of God) and that Christ became fully human for a way to bring human nature to its fulfillment, not to destroy human nature by making it something different.

I agree with you. Matter is good, human nature is made in the image and likeness of God.

The confusion arises because worldly things, in a certain sense, resist spiritual ones. The desire for worldly treasure, for example, is in some sense the opposite of the desire for heavenly treasure. Allowing ourselves to be led by the desires of our senses is not usually seen as the pathway to spiritual enlightenment.

This does not make the desires of our senses evil, nor does it make worldly treasure evil. It only means that the desire for worldly things needs to be subordinated to the desire for heavenly ones - that is, that our interest should be in people's welfare and in serving God.

The purpose of the Incarnation was to restore this kind of order, so that people could genuinely treasure the things of heaven, and no longer be led astray.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I'll leave Myrrh and Freddy to it (although I assume OS = original sin.)

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
It is a victory over evil for him because he really solves the objective problem of evil by liberating us, reconciling us, healing us, and giving us a new identity. PSA deals with just the reconciling part. CV (which includes an expanded form of PSA -- let me know if I lose you on this part) deals with all 4.

Yep, you lost me ... tell me more. I appreciate there is mystery here but there has to be some point of contact between the model and reality as we experience it now. I'm genuinely interested, how does CV deal with all four?

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
A monitary debt, yes. A punitive debt, no. Not in any legal system.

Actually we've covered this before, there are countless examples of someone paying a fine for someone else, where that fine is both monetary and penal. Others have argued that it is not common for 'major' crimes (point taken) but it is still commonly accepted in modern law.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV says he pays our monitary debt by releaseing us from slavery. With that new "ownership" we have a new identity in Christ, which is how what God does also effects us.

Once you move from 'ransom' to 'debt' then you really are in the territory of 'owing it to someone'. I presume we owe the debt to God? If so how is that qualitatively different to him demanding punishment? (I can possibly see how a monetary debt is quantatively different to punishment but not qualitatively.)
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
there are countless examples of someone paying a fine for someone else, where that fine is both monetary and penal.

Let me clarify: Jesus did not pay a monetary fine of any sort, he was physically executed. One can pay money for someone else, one cannot be executed for someone else in any legal system.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
It is a victory over evil for him because he really solves the objective problem of evil by liberating us, reconciling us, healing us, and giving us a new identity. PSA deals with just the reconciling part. CV (which includes an expanded form of PSA -- let me know if I lose you on this part) deals with all 4.

Yep, you lost me ... tell me more. I appreciate there is mystery here but there has to be some point of contact between the model and reality as we experience it now. I'm genuinely interested, how does CV deal with all four?

CV illustrated what God does
1) in liberating us because it is a ransom out of bondage,
2) reconciling us because CV includes substitutionary atonement which is an expanded form of PSA that includes more than PSA does, not less. (that is, PSA only deals with Christ bearing our sin, while SA deals with Christ bearing our sin, and bearing the sin done to us, and bearing our suffering and sickness)
3) in liberating us from the devil, we are given a new identity, no longer being slaves to sin, but as children of God
4) this liberation includes healing or purification because the bondage is internal. In the Orthodox view (which has always been CV) sin is seen as a medical model not a legal one.

PSA on the other hand deals exclusively with reconciliation and nothing else. So at the very least, it would need to be combined with other models to get the full picture.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV says he pays our monitary debt by releaseing us from slavery. With that new "ownership" we have a new identity in Christ, which is how what God does also effects us.

quote:
Once you move from 'ransom' to 'debt' then you really are in the territory of 'owing it to someone'. I presume we owe the debt to God?
You need to look at what Scripture says. It always speaks of the cross in the context of ransom when it mentions a "price". The only reference to debt I am aware of is a parable of Jesus were the moral is that we should be "forgiving of debt" as God is. Correct me if I am overlooking something.

You need to also remember that the idea of ransom or debt is an analogy there is not literally a legal problem. So we need to ask with CV and with PSA how they apply to "real life".
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Let me clarify: Jesus did not pay a monetary fine of any sort, he was physically executed. One can pay money for someone else, one cannot be executed for someone else in any legal system.

Ummh, someone once said: [Big Grin]

quote:
You need to also remember that the idea of ransom or debt is an analogy there is not literally a legal problem. So we need to ask with CV and with PSA how they apply to "real life".
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

PSA on the other hand deals exclusively with reconciliation and nothing else. So at the very least, it would need to be combined with other models to get the full picture.

Okay, I can see that.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The only reference to debt I am aware of is a parable of Jesus were the moral is that we should be "forgiving of debt" as God is. Correct me if I am overlooking something.

[Confused] The NT is full of the idea of sin as a 'debt'. We could start with the Lukan version of the Lord's Prayer ... interesting that we have to ask God to 'forgive us our debts'.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
But, it does seem to me that he equates human nature itself with evil, though he rejects OS istm he still postulates that the material world is evil in that it's all damned.

I can see how you have that idea. I'll try to explain. ....
Thank you Freddy, with that in mind I've read some more from the books available on Gutenburg - he really was quite extraordinary, a complete change from what I've come to associate with Western Christianity with its emphasis on Original Sin (OS) and Augustinian mindset.

Quite refreshing actually...


...I really can't stand Augustine...

[Smile]
Myrrh
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Thank you Freddy, with that in mind I've read some more from the books available on Gutenburg

I had heard that there were old books available on Gutenburg, but had not seen them. Thanks for pointing that out.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
he really was quite extraordinary, a complete change from what I've come to associate with Western Christianity with its emphasis on Original Sin (OS) and Augustinian mindset.

Yes, thanks. Very similar in some ways to Orthodoxy.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Myrrh,

I think the central issue in the idea of God being self-limited in entering into relationship is not so much predestination (which as a non-Calvinist is a non-starter for me anyway) but rather the issue of God's sovereignty and how this effected by relational self-limitation. Any thought about that?

I think I understand where Openness Theology has gone with this reminding me as it does of thoughts I had about it some time back, this could be a bit of ramble as I remember in no particular order.

Basically I see no problem in holding the two concepts of God's sovereignty and human free will true at one and the same time - as the OC has it that God is all-knowing and God cannot act against our free will - on thinking some more about this I have to note, as dredged up from memory, that it only takes one to say it's against his will for God to know him to successfully limit God's omniscience.

Orthodox teaching is that man has free will to turn to or reject God (not lost as in OS) and keeping it to this rather than going into the head to head abilities of free will, if Christ was willing the storm to cease and you wanted it to continue raining) and working to the principle that God's omniscience could be limited by those not willing to be known, I wondered how willing I was to be known by God and what in general this willingness to be be known or not known meant and how much did God actually know.

It seemed to me then that God's omniscient knowledge of us could only be in love (which as an uncreated energy of God is in all things and which as perfect love drives away all fear) because I couldn't accept, was unwilling, to be fully known by another in anything less. I decided I was willing to be known completely by this God only.

Openness suggests that God is not omniscient because we have free will to change minds etc., but my thoughts about this included Christ's teaching that God actually was and I concluded, that God is omnicient in that love which He is, which is also the love that we are created in image and likeness, but He can be not omnicient in relationship where one can choose to not be known because we have free will to choose relationship.

Thinking some more about this, I think the first commandment "to love God" is this exercise of our free will, the moment we choose to obey this commandment is the moment we open ourselves, align ourselves, to knowing God who as love can only be fully known by love, and in this we also come to know ourselves.

Perhaps 'how omniscient is God?' comes back to the similar Orthodox position on the eschatology of universal salvation - God wills all to be saved and it's an eternal willing, but we can only hope that all will be saved because God can't act against our will and force salvation on us if we're unwilling. It may well be that in God's will we are already saved, but our salvation is constrained by how we work it out in time, with the possibility that it doesn't become universal. So likewise I think God's omniscience; in perfect love is omniscience, but that is limited by how willing we are to participate in it in time (and which I recall now was the deciding factor for me in being willing to be known).

And, perhaps how to read God's possible rejection of us, "I never knew you"?


Myrrh
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
I said
The only reference to debt I am aware of is a parable of Jesus were the moral is that we should be "forgiving of debt" as God is. Correct me if I am overlooking something.

quote:
you said
[Confused] The NT is full of the idea of sin as a 'debt'. We could start with the Lukan version of the Lord's Prayer ... interesting that we have to ask God to 'forgive us our debts'.

The Lord's prayer, like the parable I mentioned is about our forgiving debt as we are forgiven our debts by God. It does not say that God paid our debt, but that he simply waives our debt and expects us to do likewise with others.

Now both CV and PSA say there is more to the cross then simply God forgiving or canceling our trespass (otherwise why have the cross at all if God can just forgive our debt?). Based on that, I don't think the passages that mention debt are specifically about the atonement (what God did to be able offer grace), although they are about sin and forgiveness as you say.

[ 25. August 2007, 02:59: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Myrrh,

My take on God's "omni" qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and ominipresence is that they are more based in Greek philosophy than the Bible. When the Bible talks about God "knowing us" it is always a statement not of God's ability to have exhaustive knowledge, but a statement of intimacy, "before a word was formed on my tongue you know it completely". The same goes for predestination, election, calling, etc. They are all not about God determining and controlling but about God loving us, desiring us, wooing us, even marrying us.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Myrrh,

I have an OT question on OS in the OC.

Origin writes, "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).


That sounds a lot like original sin. Thoughts?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Also,

"an infant... having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born... the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another"

-Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253].
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Myrrh,

My take on God's "omni" qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and ominipresence is that they are more based in Greek philosophy than the Bible. When the Bible talks about God "knowing us" it is always a statement not of God's ability to have exhaustive knowledge, but a statement of intimacy, "before a word was formed on my tongue you know it completely". The same goes for predestination, election, calling, etc. They are all not about God determining and controlling but about God loving us, desiring us, wooing us, even marrying us.

Well yes, but how does this God who can make this statement of intimacy come to be?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Original Sin.... [Smile]

Orthodox Church teaching is that children are born innocent - I don't know if Andreas is around, but he's far more knowledgeable on the 'fathers' than I - so baptism as washing away sins doesn't apply to them.

I don't now recall the detail, but that part of an Orthodox baptism which deals with sin wasn't used for children, over the years the two came to be used together, but with the understanding that children don't actually need it - baptism for the OC is primarily joining the Church which Christ established. A similar conjoining of two separate ceremonies is the marriage sacrament - in the Coptic Church the "betrothal" is still separate and some several months preceding the "marriage", while in the Orthodox Church "marriage" follows on from the "betrothal" in the same service.

Myrrh
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well yes, but how does this God who can make this statement of intimacy come to be?

Myrrh

Why do we need to know how God came to be?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
One of the reasons Augustine gives in helping him form his doctrine of Original Sin was his puzzlement about infant baptism, since it existed and since baptism cleansed from sin then infants must therefore be sinful.

That his doctrine, that we are born damned, estranged from God without the free will to turn to God etc., made no sense of Christ's teaching that we become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven doesn't seem to have bothered him, but I haven't read everything he's written...


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well yes, but how does this God who can make this statement of intimacy come to be?

Myrrh

Why do we need to know how God came to be?
How this God came to be.

..because it's of interest to those who are taught that we're created in His image and likeness?

Myrrh
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Orthodox Church teaching is that children are born innocent - I don't know if Andreas is around, but he's far more knowledgeable on the 'fathers' than I - so baptism as washing away sins doesn't apply to them.

That would seem to contradict the two early church fathers I quoted. Does the Orthodox church think they were wrong?

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I don't now recall the detail, but that part of an Orthodox baptism which deals with sin wasn't used for children

That's interesting. Can you quote me a source for this?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well yes, but how does this God who can make this statement of intimacy come to be?

Myrrh

Why do we need to know how God came to be?
How this God came to be.

..because it's of interest to those who are taught that we're created in His image and likeness?

Myrrh

Why? I don't see the relevance.

Being created in God's image has nothing to do with God's origin. It has to do with God's nature. God is good, we were created good.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Orthodox Church teaching is that children are born innocent - I don't know if Andreas is around, but he's far more knowledgeable on the 'fathers' than I - so baptism as washing away sins doesn't apply to them.

That would seem to contradict the two early church fathers I quoted. Does the Orthodox church think they were wrong?
Pious speculation. The 'fathers' aren't infallible...

I've never heard of infants being thought of a sinful in the OC, but as Chrysostom says somewhere, they are wholly innocent. It's a given, there's nothing to speculate about it..

OK, for example here's a typical inclusion of the concept as a given: (Patriarch Pavle Nativity 2001)


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I don't now recall the detail, but that part of an Orthodox baptism which deals with sin wasn't used for children

That's interesting. Can you quote me a source for this? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Father Ambrose in New Zealand, it came up in some discussion or other on an RCC board. I don't know where he got it from.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well yes, but how does this God who can make this statement of intimacy come to be?

Myrrh

Why do we need to know how God came to be?
How this God came to be.

..because it's of interest to those who are taught that we're created in His image and likeness?

Myrrh

Why? I don't see the relevance.

Being created in God's image has nothing to do with God's origin. It has to do with God's nature. God is good, we were created good.

I was referring back to the nature of God, OT knowing as personal as you described.


How do you know God is good?


Myrrh
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

How do you know God is good?

By Divine revelation, primarily in Jesus.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The 'fathers' aren't infallible...

Nor is the church.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Origin writes, "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

That sounds a lot like original sin. Thoughts?

I think that we must be careful about reading Origen with an Augustinian mindset. What did Origen mean by a "flesh soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin"? Well, given the "medical" approach to salvation of Orthodoxy, and bearing in mind Paul's teaching on human bondage to sin and death, I think it is highly probable that he was merely stating the obvious - that babies share human nature, and are therefore in the same bondage of all humans to the forces of decay. This would be even more obvious in a society where most infants died before their fifth birthday.

This idea, that the primary effect of sin in humans is not moral guilt, since that could readily be solved by forgiveness, but our ontological nature of bondage to decay, which would lead if unremedied, sooner or later, to eternal death, is totally consonant with the CV idea that the cross is not about forgiveness but ontological change.

So did Origen believe in OS. Well, kinda. But what he understood it to be was, I suspect, worlds apart from what Augustine would have thought. But maybe I'm being unjust on Augustine.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Origin writes, "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

That sounds a lot like original sin. Thoughts?

I think that we must be careful about reading Origen with an Augustinian mindset. What did Origen mean by a "flesh soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin"? Well, given the "medical" approach to salvation of Orthodoxy, and bearing in mind Paul's teaching on human bondage to sin and death, I think it is highly probable that he was merely stating the obvious - that babies share human nature, and are therefore in the same bondage of all humans to the forces of decay. This would be even more obvious in a society where most infants died before their fifth birthday.

This idea, that the primary effect of sin in humans is not moral guilt, since that could readily be solved by forgiveness, but our ontological nature of bondage to decay, which would lead if unremedied, sooner or later, to eternal death, is totally consonant with the CV idea that the cross is not about forgiveness but ontological change.

So did Origen believe in OS. Well, kinda. But what he understood it to be was, I suspect, worlds apart from what Augustine would have thought. But maybe I'm being unjust on Augustine.

Origen does not seem to be using medical language, more cleanliness language which is related. He does say that there is something in a baby that needs remission of sins.

Cyprian does use a medical model: "an infant...has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born... the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another"

So a baby is "sick" and "soiled" with Adam's sin.

I found this page, which says that Augustine would say that guilt is passed on from Adam, but the above guys are saying a condition of death is being passed on. It seems rather obvious to me that guilt cannot be inherited, while the consequences of guilt can. But I wonder what the consequences are of this "sin sickness" in an infant? What happens to an unbaptized infant who dies in the Orthodox view?

The above link seems quite pertinent to our CV discussion.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The Lord's prayer, like the parable I mentioned is about our forgiving debt as we are forgiven our debts by God. It does not say that God paid our debt, but that he simply waives our debt and expects us to do likewise with others.

Whether God 'just forgives' or 'pays the debt himself' is, of course, the difference between CV and PSA. My point was that the scripture speaks of sin as a 'debt' owed to God. In other words it is an objective 'thing' that needs to be dealt with.

Therefore I repeat my previous question - how is it different (qualitatively not quantitatively) to speak of us 'owing a debt' as to 'deserving a punishment'? (Again, how God deals with that problem is another matter.)

I have just come from someone who is just about to die. I was reading and praying with her and, as I often do, read from Romans 8. I was struck again how creation has been subjected to frutration by the will of God - i.e. however we describe the consequences of sin they are part of God's plan.

I think this is also relevant to the discussion of OS. Any atonement model has to come to terms with the whole 'package' of humanity's sinfulness ... consequences and guilt. I'm happy with cleansing metaphors but they are not enough if they do not deal with the root cause. Consequences are usually symptoms of an underlying disease. If we follow the medical model right through then the 'cure' involves the destruction and defeat of the disease.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
...there is post 9/11 an increased awareness of the problem of evil and suffering in the world that people are restling with. In fact I would say that as in Luther's time the question was "how can I find God's grace?" today our question is "how can a loving God allow abuse and tragedy".

Returning to this comment you made a while back. [Big Grin]

On reflection I think your observation needs looking at more closely. Although terrorism is a very real threat in the western world, I think suffering was much, much more of an every day issue in Luther's day - for example infant mortality meant that most families had to cope with death of a child. He lived in turbulent times when war, disease and death were very common. And yet he asked 'his' question, not 'ours'. Interesting. [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I found this page, which says that Augustine would say that guilt is passed on from Adam, but the above guys are saying a condition of death is being passed on. It seems rather obvious to me that guilt cannot be inherited, while the consequences of guilt can. But I wonder what the consequences are of this "sin sickness" in an infant? What happens to an unbaptized infant who dies in the Orthodox view?

The above link seems quite pertinent to our CV discussion.

Yes, it is. No one would argue that the purpose of the Incarnation was not generations in the making, or that it would not affect future generations.

Isn't the simplest explanation that many aspects of human nature are passed down hereditarily? These include characteristics such as tendencies towards anger, substance abuse, interest in power, laziness, immoral behavior, and many others. Everyone knows that these characteristics are more prominent in some families than others. Everyone also knows that they are exacerbated or improved through the environment that a child grows up in. Nor do I think that many people believe that they are completely helpless victims of their inherited nature - they have choices.

My version of CV involves Jesus inheriting these same characteristics, fighting against them, and overcoming them.

Babies, however, are not usually addicts, rage-aholics, megalomaniacs, intentionally cruel, or immoral. They are innocent. These characteristics don't show up until they begin to mature, and aren't fully there until adulthood.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Babies, however, are not usually addicts, rage-aholics, megalomaniacs, intentionally cruel, or immoral. They are innocent. These characteristics don't show up until they begin to mature, and aren't fully there until adulthood.

<tangent>

Have you met any toddlers?

Don't confuse the desire with the ability to carry out said desire!

<end tangent>
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Whether God 'just forgives' or 'pays the debt himself' is, of course, the difference between CV and PSA.

No it is not Johnny. Neither theory would say God "just forgives".

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My point was that the scripture speaks of sin as a 'debt' owed to God. In other words it is an objective 'thing' that needs to be dealt with.

Both CV & PSA are objective theories.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

Therefore I repeat my previous question - how is it different (qualitatively not quantitatively) to speak of us 'owing a debt' as to 'deserving a punishment'? (Again, how God deals with that problem is another matter.)

Well, first of all you are clearly not reading the intended point of these passages which are about generosity and forgiveness, and not a definition of sin as debt. Reading a passage as the author intended it is an extremely important factor in correct interpretation.

But as to your question, it is not obvious that if one does not pay a debt that they will receive physical punishment. This would not be the case in our legal system, and I am fairly certain it was also not the case in Hebrew law. Being physically punished for an outstanding debt was the case in the Feudal system of Anselm, but Anselm saw Christ paying our debt as a way to avoid punishment, he did not think that the punishment itself was what was desired, rather the payment was desired, which Anselm said was in Christ's obedient love, not in Christ being punished.

So there are several ways to interpret the idea of "paying a debt" that have nothing to do with punishing, including Anselmian satisfaction. Taking our human legal system, whether it is a Feudal system or a medieval one, and assuming that God must think the same way as us is natural theology and quite a dangerous assumption. In as much as PSA does this it is natural theology not biblical theology. I see absolutely nothing that would indicate that justice/restoration comes about through punishment in the Bible. Biblically, punishment is a bad thing that one wants to avoid, not the justice one wants to seek.


quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

If we follow the medical model right through then the 'cure' involves the destruction and defeat of the disease.

Yes. That's good right?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Babies, however, are not usually addicts, rage-aholics, megalomaniacs, intentionally cruel, or immoral. They are innocent. These characteristics don't show up until they begin to mature, and aren't fully there until adulthood.

<tangent>

Have you met any toddlers?

Don't confuse the desire with the ability to carry out said desire!

<end tangent>

You're right. I take it back. The characteristics show themselves pretty quickly. [Hot and Hormonal]

What I meant was that children are not fully responsible for their actions until they are mature. Nor are they fully responsible for their desires. I think that most people recognize this.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Neither theory would say God "just forgives".

[Confused] Tell me more. I have been told several times on this thread (unless I've got the wrong end of the stick) that PSA is so monstrous because God doesn't need anything to happen in order to forgive, he does it anyway.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Both CV & PSA are objective theories.

I know. Bear with me. I was trying to build an argument. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

But as to your question, it is not obvious that if one does not pay a debt that they will receive physical punishment.

I didn't mean my point that literally. My point was more to do with statements like 'the wages of sin is death'. If debts are owed to God then, whether or not he wipes them clean, there is an objective problem for God to deal with. Similarly, if (e.g. Romans 8) our present suffering is the result of God's will then God stands behind (in some sense) this cause and effect process which you call sin and judgment.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Being physically punished for an outstanding debt was the case in the Feudal system of Anselm, but Anselm saw Christ paying our debt as a way to avoid punishment, he did not think that the punishment itself was what was desired, rather the payment was desired, which Anselm said was in Christ's obedient love, not in Christ being punished.

You'll have to explain this more here. My instinctive reaction (although I expect you don't quite mean it like this) is ... of course Christ wanted to avoid our punishment that was the point of the cross. Of course the payment was desired over the punishment (no PSAer would say otherwise) the issue is whether it was demanded. But as I said, you probably didn't mean it like that.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Biblically, punishment is a bad thing that one wants to avoid, not the justice one wants to seek.

So why did Jesus speak about punishment and judgment so often then? Was he confused? Let's take that parable (in Matthew 18) about forgiving debts that you say is only about 'generosity and forgiveness'. How does it end?

"In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

Poor Jesus. He didn't get the point of his own story, and he certainly couldn't apply it properly. [Disappointed]


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

If we follow the medical model right through then the 'cure' involves the destruction and defeat of the disease.

Yes. That's good right?
Yep. We are all agree on this. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Neither theory would say God "just forgives".

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[Confused] Tell me more. I have been told several times on this thread (unless I've got the wrong end of the stick) that PSA is so monstrous because God doesn't need anything to happen in order to forgive, he does it anyway.

CV would say that God needed nothing to make us love him, but that we need to be cleansed of our sin. Athanasius for example says that if it were simply a matter of transgression (a personal/legal problem) that God could just let it go and forgive, but because it involves our corruption by the sickness of sin (a medical model) WE need to be cured by God. Hence Jesus dies "for sinners" not "for God".

To simply say that God says "that's ok, nevermind" underestimates the gravity of sin's internal hold on us, and is not CV at all.


quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My point was more to do with statements like 'the wages of sin is death'. If debts are owed to God then, whether or not he wipes them clean, there is an objective problem for God to deal with. Similarly, if (e.g. Romans 8) our present suffering is the result of God's will then God stands behind (in some sense) this cause and effect process which you call sin and judgment.

I agree. But would add that the medical model gives us further insight: a doctor would say that it is "right" that you have lung cancer after smoking 10 packs a day, but still do everything in her power to try and save your life now, and then tell you to quit smoking. Likewise Jesus does not condone sin, but nevertheless goes to sinners and loves them, defends them from the stone throwing mob, and then says "go and sin no more"

quote:
My instinctive reaction (although I expect you don't quite mean it like this) is ... of course Christ wanted to avoid our punishment that was the point of the cross. Of course the payment was desired over the punishment (no PSAer would say otherwise) the issue is whether it was demanded. But as I said, you probably didn't mean it like that.
You lost me here.

Anselm says that God did not desire nor demand the punishment of his beloved son, he desired obedience to love. It was Christ's obedience in fearlessly standing up to evil and loving sinners that God honored above and beyond Christ's sinless life. That act of love (which cost Jesus his life) was counted, Anselm says, as a superabundance of merit that was then transfered to us paying our debt of honor to God. So Anselm says Jesus paid our debt by his life, not by his being punished. Kind of like how we admire a firefighter for rushing into a burning building to save people, not that he died of smoke inhalation 12 hours later, as if we were desiring his death. For Anselm, it was Christ loving us despite the risk of death which was God's will, not his Son's punishment.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Biblically, punishment is a bad thing that one wants to avoid, not the justice one wants to seek.[QUOTE]So why did Jesus speak about punishment and judgment so often then?

So we would avoid the "krisis" we were headed for by repenting.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
To simply say that God says "that's ok, nevermind" underestimates the gravity of sin's internal hold on us, and is not CV at all.

Got that.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV would say that God needed nothing to make us love him, but that we need to be cleansed of our sin. Athanasius for example says that if it were simply a matter of transgression (a personal/legal problem) that God could just let it go and forgive, but because it involves our corruption by the sickness of sin (a medical model) WE need to be cured by God. Hence Jesus dies "for sinners" not "for God".

Got that too, but you still seem to be saying that God doesn't need anything to forgive... he forgives anyway, but we need to be cured...?


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
For Anselm, it was Christ loving us despite the risk of death which was God's will, not his Son's punishment.

Risk of death? Risk? According to Jesus (e.g. Mark's gospel) his death was not a risk but a certainty. He even rebuked Peter when he suggested otherwise.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
So why did Jesus speak about punishment and judgment so often then?

So we would avoid the "krisis" we were headed for by repenting.
I'm not sure many others on this thread would agree with you.

Also, whatever word games you try to play with krisis you cannot remove all sense of punishment. We keep coming back to this issue. When I discipline my children I often tell them that I do not want to punish them but they are merely receiving the consequences of their wrong choices. That is true, I do not want to punish them, out of love I want to discipline them. However, for me to try and remove all responsibility from myself and make out as if the 'punishment' is not part of my will is simply ridiculous. It happens precisely because of the moral worldview that my wife and I are trying to create in and around them.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Maybe spiderman can help? [Big Grin]

Tomorrow I've got to do a family service at church which wraps a holiday club for children about 'Junior Heroes'.

Looking at Spiderman3 the two main themes will be:

1. 'the greatest battle lies within' (Romans 7)
2. 'Jesus is the greatest superhero' (Colossians 2)


Okay, so in Colossians 2 I'll explain Jesus as per CV, as the hero who defeats the villains for us. However, unlike spiderman he does not defeat them by 'kapow' but by being 'kapowed'.

Okay so far. Now that begs one VERY big question - how? How does Jesus win by losing? If, as we believe, Jesus turns our natural world order on its head, he must show how his way is natural.

For example, if it is a soccer game and our team is losing, it is meaningless to speak of Jesus being a star striker who comes on to score the winning goal for us ... because he doesn't. He would 'win' us the game by losing it for us. That doesn't work. Now, I know that is the point. He made the world, he makes the rules. But that means that the cross must somehow make the 'old order' obsolete. Otherwise CV becomes a silly childish taunt when they suddenly 'change the rules' when they are losing and say 'ah, but its the one with the least goals wins!'

PSA 'works' because it does both of those things. It speaks of an end to revenge and punishment, an end to might makes right, but it does so by 'fulfilling' the old order. Jesus can say, as it were, I make the new rules because I fulfilled the old ones.

Faced with a 7 year old tomorrow asking, 'how did Jesus win when he lost?' How would you answer him / her?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
Why are Calvinists so fixated on punishment? It strikes me as a rather unhealthy obsession that reveals more about the kind of person who is attracted to Calvinism then it does about the Bible.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:


Okay so far. Now that begs one VERY big question - how? How does Jesus win by losing? If, as we believe, Jesus turns our natural world order on its head, he must show how his way is natural.

He wins by continuing to love even those who are murdering him, by forgiving them, and in doing so is our constant reminder that this love is our natural way.

I think attempts to put this in context of one side or another winning a soccer game are misplaced. They are however good examples of the nonsense we make of God and Christ's teaching in thinking we can claim God supports our personal vanities (our doctrines, our believes, our wars..) - what is more ridiculous than both teams praying to the same God for victory over the other?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Okay so far. Now that begs one VERY big question - how? How does Jesus win by losing? If, as we believe, Jesus turns our natural world order on its head, he must show how his way is natural.

This is the easiest question of all. As Myrrh points out, the victory is about having what is truly important triumph over what is less important. At its root it is about the priority of love and faith over our worldly and self centered desires.

Jesus taught repeatedly that everyone wins by losing:
quote:
Matthew 10:39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Matthew 16:25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

Mark 8:35 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.

Luke 9:24 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.

Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

John 12:25 He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

Luke 17:33 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.

Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.

Jesus is not saying that we win by losing our life. Rather, we win by placing faith in Him and obedience to Him ahead of our own lives. We win by valuing heaven over earth. We win by valuing others over ourselves. Worldly desires must in effect "die" so that heavenly ones can "live."

Jesus fit His own death into this same paradigm. He gives His life so that others may live. He wins by giving up His own life:
quote:
John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.

John 10:15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

John 10:17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.

John 12:24 Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.

The point in laying down His life is to defeat the power that would refuse to lay down its life. The "ruler of this world" values nothingmore highly than its own life and its pleasures. Jesus came to defeat him. He summarizes it in John 12:
quote:
John 12.23 But Jesus answered them, saying, “The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified. 24 Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. 25 He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor.
27 “Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour…
31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

The "ruler of this world" will be cast out because what Jesus is doing completely refutes his dominion. This is the central idea behind Jesus' temptations in the wilderness. Each temptation is about valuing self and the world over heavenly things.

The whole theme of winning by losing is addressed countless times by Jesus, as He urges people to give up worldly goals in favor of treasure in heaven:
quote:
Matthew 6:25 “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?

Luke 12:23 Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing.

John 6:27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Matthew 6:19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Luke 12:21 “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”

Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

A person who is struggling to overcome the obsession with wealth, power, comfort, good food, etc. will feel like they are losing their life. Jesus says that we win by losing. This is the sense in which Jesus talks about "the world" as something that opposes heavenly life:
quote:
Matthew 13:22 Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.

John 8:23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

John 14:30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.

Jesus victory will therefore not look like a worldly victory because it is a spiritual victory. This is why He says:
quote:
John 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”
By not being a worldly kingdom, Jesus means that His kingdom is about love and faith.

So, Johnny, how can you ask "How does Jesus win by losing?" Isn't this the whole game? [Confused]

Jesus turns our natural world order on its head, clearly explaining how his way is natural. It is natural because true order is for heaven to be valued over earth. Jesus is simply resotring order by preaching and demonstrating this.

When a person has their priorities straight, then life works as it should. If everyone had their priorities straight, life on earth would be like life in heaven. Isn't that the point of our prayer "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
For example, if it is a soccer game and our team is losing, it is meaningless to speak of Jesus being a star striker who comes on to score the winning goal for us ... because he doesn't. He would 'win' us the game by losing it for us. That doesn't work.

But He does win the game for us. [Axe murder]

He unselfishly gives everything He has. He cares only about us, not Himself. He puts every ounce of effort into winning the game. He then dies from pure exhaustion as He scores the winning goal. He may seem to lose, but the team wins. [Angel]

I agree with Myrrh that it is ludicrous for each team to ask God to help them defeat the other. But the metaphor still works.

Every player on a team needs to put the team first and himself or herself second. The person needs to play unselfishly, and the person has to be willing to put effort into the game, even when they would rather rest. Self-sacrifice is a lesson that athletics teaches in a tangible way, because when you are very tired, or feeling very defeated, intimidated or frustrated, you are asked to give of yourself in ways that go against everything in your nature.

So athletes win by losing by subordinating their own interests and needs to the interests and needs of the team or of the contest itself.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So, Johnny, how can you ask "How does Jesus win by losing?" Isn't this the whole game?

Yes it is the whole game! I whole heartedly agree with all your comments about Christ turning the world's values upside down. It is at the very heart of what I believe. We do not take revenge, instead, like him, we forgive.

My question is - how does Jesus win? I'm not so bothered about the mechanics, more 'how do we know that he won?' Assuming the answer for him is the resurrection then how do we know he won for us?


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But He does win the game for us. [Axe murder]

He unselfishly gives everything He has. He cares only about us, not Himself. He puts every ounce of effort into winning the game. He then dies from pure exhaustion as He scores the winning goal. He may seem to lose, but the team wins. [Angel]

[Confused] Yes, I'm with you so far ... however, you can guess what's coming next... [Big Grin]

How does he 'win'? We need some kind of explanation as to how, what seems to us a great failure, is in fact a great victory. Simply stating that it was a victory is (well for me at least) extremely unsatisfying. As Christians we believe that Jesus defeated sin on the cross, but how did he do that? It doesn't have to all the mechanics but at least an analogy or something that explains how the great 'defeat' was really a great 'victory'.

ISTM CV explains well the victory but gives no explanation as to 'how'. PSA may not have the cosmic scope but it does point to how a seeming failure is really God's salvation plan.

I realise that all of this is just about analogies, I'm not claiming that we need a literal explanation. And yet I don't think we can leave it as a magicians hat where victory is pulled out the hat in place of defeat.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Why are Calvinists so fixated on punishment? It strikes me as a rather unhealthy obsession that reveals more about the kind of person who is attracted to Calvinism then it does about the Bible.

Come on, don't give up so easily. [Big Grin]

IME people usually resort to ad hominem arguments when they've run out of steam.

This thread is discussing whether CV should replace PSA completely in atonement models. The big issue that most have against PSA is the 'penal' element (oh, you don't say. [Biased] )

Therefore, if I am going to drop PSA I obviously need convincing that punishment is not necessary in the model.

... hence is it really that surprising that what I want most clearly demonstrated is that God's punishment isn't in the bible?

[ 26. August 2007, 16:06: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
God's punishment is in the Bible, but it is a bad thing that you should avoid because it means you die and go to Hell.

So Jesus came to give us a way out. What could be more basic than that?

The solution to how he gives us a way out needs to go beyond punishment. Instead of an "eye for an eye" the new model is "love your enemies". That is how God makes the way out.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Together with the instruction to pick up our own cross and follow him.

Easier said than done.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Got that too, but you still seem to be saying that God doesn't need anything to forgive... he forgives anyway, but we need to be cured...?

Absolutely, you've got it. Because the problem that we have, that keeps us from experiencing God forever, is not our sin (dealt with by forgiveness, apart from the cross), but our ontological identity as bound to "sin and death". Without this change in our nature, the forgiveness of God would still leave us without eternal life. We are not separated from eternal life because of God's wrath, but because our nature is one of decay. Thus our most pressing need is not for forgiveness, but for healing, for ontological remaking.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
How does he 'win'? We need some kind of explanation as to how, what seems to us a great failure, is in fact a great victory. Simply stating that it was a victory is (well for me at least) extremely unsatisfying. As Christians we believe that Jesus defeated sin on the cross, but how did he do that?

One way to look at Jesus' whole life is as a series of contests in which Jesus is continually the victor. From the temptations in the wilderness, to debates with the religious authorities, to encounters with demons, sicknesses, and even death, Jesus always comes out on top. By the end we are told:
quote:
Matthew 22:46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.

Mark 12:34 After that no one dared question Him.

Luke 20:40 After that they dared not question Him anymore.

These contests, if we look at them that way, are for the most part not very substantial. Jesus is not defeating armies or swaying heads of state. So what is going on here?

Jesus Himself definitely seems to think that He has a major contest going on with Satan:
quote:
Matthew 12:26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.

Luke 10:18 And He said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."

Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.

John 14:30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.

John 16:8 He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

How is it that Jesus sees Himself as entering into contests with Satan, the devil, or the ruler of this world, and judging him, overcoming him, or casting him out?

It seems to me that Jesus is battling the devil in ways that aren't apparent in the text, and/or the conflicts described in the text are actually much deeper and more significant than they appear.

What was really happening in these conflicts?

When a person sins he gradually becomes a slave to whatever sin he enjoys doing. Isn't that what Jesus says? Doesn't everyone know that the more a behavior is repeated the harder it is to stop? The biblical model for this is that people who sin gradually come under the power of hell or the devil.

Conversely, the more that people "continue in My word", that is, refrain from sinning, the more they are freed from that sin. The biblical model for this is that the devil grows weaker and loses control over the person as the person invites God into their life.

So the New Testament describes Jesus repeatedly encountering the devil, repeatedly resisting or overcomign his power, and making him weaker and weaker. Except that whereas an ordinary person's resistance only affects them, Jesus' resistance affected the entire demonic population, weakening the devil.

By the time of the cross, Jesus had substantially defeated the devil. The cross, however, involved the most basic of human desires - the desire for life itself. In letting even that go He overcame once and for all "the ruler of this world" who wanted Him to value worldly life above all things.

Just as Jesus says of everyone that they gain life if they lose their life for His sake, the same was true of Jesus. He could not be killed - the crucifixion instead defeated His enemies, hell itself.

In essence He restored order to the spiritual world, restoring spiritual freedom to humanity. In this way He saved humanity from imminent destruction, or redeemed us.

This is how Jesus defeated sin. He did His Father's will, and not the devil's. The same is true for us:
quote:
John 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

This is the formula for defeating sin.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Absolutely, you've got it. Because the problem that we have, that keeps us from experiencing God forever, is not our sin (dealt with by forgiveness, apart from the cross), but our ontological identity as bound to "sin and death".

I'm not clear if you are fundamentally disagreeing with sharktacos here or not?


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Without this change in our nature, the forgiveness of God would still leave us without eternal life. We are not separated from eternal life because of God's wrath, but because our nature is one of decay. Thus our most pressing need is not for forgiveness, but for healing, for ontological remaking.

I like that idea but am struggling to divide two concepts which (ISTM [Big Grin] ) are fundamentally linked in scripture. For example, in Romans 1 and 8 Paul seems to link our present state of 'decay' with the wrath of God. How do you read those passages?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
[img]http://sharktacos.com/God/last_supper.gif[/img]



Here's a link in case the image does not work
CLICK ME
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Absolutely, you've got it. Because the problem that we have, that keeps us from experiencing God forever, is not our sin (dealt with by forgiveness, apart from the cross), but our ontological identity as bound to "sin and death".

I'm not clear if you are fundamentally disagreeing with sharktacos here or not?


We might quibble over exact formulations, but I think JJ and I are essentially in agreement here.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
For example, in Romans 1 and 8 Paul seems to link our present state of 'decay' with the wrath of God. How do you read those passages?

Are you saying that the wrath of God caused the decay? Paul says:
quote:
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
So the issue is that although people knew God they did not glorify Him, nor were they thankful, and their hearts were darkened. So God was angry.

Paul makes it sound as though God then gave up on them because He was angry:
quote:
Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.
Johnny, are you thinking that Paul means that God actually gave up on people and that this was a cause of sinful behavior? [Confused]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Having looked again at Colossians 2 over the weekend I was struck afresh by the 'victory' motif there.

However, a question for all you CVers:

My understanding is that the 'victory' of CV comes, primarily, in the resurrection. The resurrection is essential to Paul's argument (e.g. verse 12) but the victory of verse 15 is linked directly with Christ's death on the cross.

Perhaps it might focus my understanding of CV if anyone commented on how Paul saw specifically Christ's death as the victory?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
ISTM CV explains well the victory but gives no explanation as to 'how'.

ISTM that without a concept of the spiritual realm and how it affects humanity CV makes no sense.

Christ evidently did not defeat anyone in the physical world. Instead He consistently points to a kingdom that is not of this world. If that world is not seen as real, or if we don't believe that it affects us in the physical world, then you are right to wonder what His victory was and how it could affect anything.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Oops - cross-posted with above.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Johnny, are you thinking that Paul means that God actually gave up on people and that this was a cause of sinful behavior? [Confused]

Not really. I'm still exploring this idea of sufering and death being a consequence of sin.

I agree with that idea but don't see how we can see it entirely in a 'cause and effect' way of the physical universe. The bible also seems to add that the 'consequences' were put there deliberately by God expressing his anger at our sin.

I want to make it clear that I am NOT suggesting any kind of direct correlation between something bad happening to us and doing something wrong. A lot of suffering is undeserved. But Romans 1 (ISTM) says that, in a general way, bad stuff happens as a consequence of 'God handing us over to the consequences of our actions'.

I suppose that phrase 'handing us over' is key. I can see how some baulk at the concept of 'punishment' but at the same time there is some sense of God actively letting it happen rather than passively.

What do you think?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Perhaps it might focus my understanding of CV if anyone commented on how Paul saw specifically Christ's death as the victory?

Doesn't it depend on how Paul thought that Jesus "disarmed principalities and powers"?

He says:
quote:
Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
He "disarmed" them, made a public spectacle of the, and so triumphed over them.

Are we agreed that the "principalities and powers" here are the same as Satan, the devil, and "the ruler of this world" in Luke, Matthew and John?
quote:
Luke 10:18 And He said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."

Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.

How do you "disarm" these characters, making a public spectacle of them? Doesn't Paul mean that they were exposed by their efforts to destroy God?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I suppose that phrase 'handing us over' is key. I can see how some baulk at the concept of 'punishment' but at the same time there is some sense of God actively letting it happen rather than passively.

What do you think?

I see it as a poetic way of describing God's permission of evil. Paul describes Him as allowing it because He was angry.

He is just, in my opinion, explaining God in human terms. I don't think that God gets angry.

I especially do not think that God would punish by actively allowing evil to spread. God loves everyone and does not get angry. The reality is just that God permits evil to happen because it is more consistent with His love for humanity than forcing an alternative.

But since that is a sophisticated idea, requiring an ability to think seriously about causation, the Bible describes it as God's anger, which even children can understand.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
How do you "disarm" these characters, making a public spectacle of them? Doesn't Paul mean that they were exposed by their efforts to destroy God?

I think you are on to something, but surely there must be more to it than that? Disarming someone by exposing their wrong actions only 'works' if there is a superior power who will 'enforce' justice. Otherwise what difference does it make?

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But since that is a sophisticated idea, requiring an ability to think seriously about causation, the Bible describes it as God's anger, which even children can understand.

I'm sure you are right about anthropomorphism being involved. However, I'm not so bothered by exactly what word we use to describe it. My questions is about causation. Romans 1 (ISTM) says that God is actively involved in this process, more than just passively allowing it to happen.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Disarming someone by exposing their wrong actions only 'works' if there is a superior power who will 'enforce' justice. Otherwise what difference does it make?

One "superior power" is public opinion. Exposing fraud to the public has enormous consequences. Jesus makes many statements about "the power of darkness" and how He came to expose it to the light of day.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Romans 1 (ISTM) says that God is actively involved in this process, more than just passively allowing it to happen.

Yes, as does the rest of the Bible. The biblical principle is that God is active, not passive. This is the truth.

But the active workings of God are beyond our powers to comprehend. So He is explained in human terms that we can comprehend. The statements about His anger and punishments fall into that category.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
ISTM CV explains well the victory but gives no explanation as to 'how'.

ISTM that without a concept of the spiritual realm and how it affects humanity CV makes no sense.
Just to elaborate on this, it seems to me that the spiritual world is a necessary part of the explanation of how CV works. It answers the questions of who Christ triumphed over, where this took place (since we can't see it), and how it affects us.
On the other hand, if demons and devils don't exist, and if there is no spiritual realm, then I can't see how CV can work at all. The biblical accounts assume that these things actually exist.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The biblical principle is that God is active, not passive. This is the truth.

But the active workings of God are beyond our powers to comprehend. So He is explained in human terms that we can comprehend. The statements about His anger and punishments fall into that category.

That's a cop out Freddy. [Roll Eyes]

You are saying that the bible does use the language of anger and punishment in relation to God, but it isn't really like that, it is beyond comprehension... and so we should give PSA the boot! [Ultra confused]

If you agree that the language is there at least, and if you think that what really happens is beyond our understanding then your reasons for ditching PSA in favour of CV must be very flimsy.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You are saying that the bible does use the language of anger and punishment in relation to God, but it isn't really like that, it is beyond comprehension... and so we should give PSA the boot! [Ultra confused]

That's right. God's wrath, anger and punishment are common themes in the Bible. But God isn't really angry, nor does He punish, so PSA goes right out the window.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you agree that the language is there at least, and if you think that what really happens is beyond our understanding then your reasons for ditching PSA in favour of CV must be very flimsy.

I didn't say that there wasn't an explanation that we could comprehend, just that God as He is in Himself is beyond our understanding. So it's no wonder that people struggle to grasp how He works.

My understanding is that God is depicted as angry and punishing because these things are consistent with the human perspective of a God who controls everything. It is harder to understand that a God who loves humanity will not wish to control us but to make us free.

As I see it, a principle about the Bible is that the most important ideas are the ones that are emphasized, even if their implications are inconsistent with other biblical teachings. God's god-ness is a primary biblical concept, so this is emphasized even when it seems to conflict with His goodness. Goodness is a more subtle concept than power and right vs. wrong. Even intelligent theologians struggle to understand how permitting evil is consistent with a loving, omnipotent God.

So my "flimsy" reason for ditching PSA in favor of CV is that the biblical language that describes God as angry and punishing is actually inconsistent with the biblical language that describes Him as loving and omniscient.

One or the other must be true, and I choose God's love and wisdom over His anger and punishments.

References to God's wrath and punishments are therefore, in my opinion, accomodations to our anthropocentric understanding - which we can transcend. [Angel]
 
Posted by Fauja (# 2054) on :
 
ok, apologies for not making direct references but I'd like to throw in a few points relating to the overall gist of what I've been reading.

1) I believe God does get angry, being one who is 'slow to anger but quick to bless'. We are advised 'in your anger do not sin'. The way I see it, there's nothing wrong with being angry provided that it is kept in check and doesn't lead to violent destructive outbursts. With God, I believe He is sometimes angry for us, rather than with us, because He doesn't want sin to destroy us or make the world more fallen than it already is.

2) Romans 1:28. In the NIV it is translated 'he gave them over'. Like the Prodigal father in the parable, God lets us make our own choices, 'giving us over' can be understood as 'giving us permission and freedom to...'. I don't see it as God giving up on anyone.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


One or the other must be true, and I choose God's love and wisdom over His anger and punishments.

References to God's wrath and punishments are therefore, in my opinion, accomodations to our anthropocentric understanding - which we can transcend. [Angel]

Okay, got you.

What criteria (other than wishful thinking) do you use to work out when the bible is describing God in ways we can transcend and ways we can't?

quote:
Originally posted by Fauja:
God lets us make our own choices, 'giving us over' can be understood as 'giving us permission and freedom to...'. I don't see it as God giving up on anyone.

Thanks Fauja, I think that is where we've got to. I'm trying to explore what that really means though - doesn't it make God contingent on us? Clearly when he gives us freedom (e.g. to kill him, which we did on the cross) that is not complete freedom or he wouldn't over rule us (e.g. through the resurrection).

I think saying that suffering is entirely (as opposed to partly) due to our freedom is just a way of avoiding hard questions that we'd rather not tackle.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


One or the other must be true, and I choose God's love and wisdom over His anger and punishments.

References to God's wrath and punishments are therefore, in my opinion, accomodations to our anthropocentric understanding - which we can transcend. [Angel]

Okay, got you.

What criteria (other than wishful thinking) do you use to work out when the bible is describing God in ways we can transcend and ways we can't?

Comparison of passages.

The Bible is actually fairly long, and it repeats itself. If you compare what it says in one place with what it says in another place, it ends up explaining itself. It is especially helpful to compare what Jesus says with what is said elsewhere.

Do you use this method?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Comparison of passages.

The Bible is actually fairly long, and it repeats itself. If you compare what it says in one place with what it says in another place, it ends up explaining itself. It is especially helpful to compare what Jesus says with what is said elsewhere.

Do you use this method?

I suppose I'm fairly similar.

But my problem is that Jesus said so much about hell, punishment and judgment. I find his teaching very disconcerting.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But my problem is that Jesus said so much about hell, punishment and judgment. I find his teaching very disconcerting.

Do you prefer what Paul says?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Do you prefer what Paul says?

Not really.

I just find putting all this together hard work. Soooooo many people pit Jesus against the OT (exhibit A the thread about two gods) or Jesus against Paul. But I read Jesus and discover that, actually, he says as much about judgment as elsewhere.

I'm not saying I like it, or relish it at all. I just think coping with the 'dissonance' is a lot harder than some are making out.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
I agree that the Bible is more harmonious than people often make it out to be. The righteous are praised and the wicked are not.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But I read Jesus and discover that, actually, he says as much about judgment as elsewhere.

You wouldn't happen to be seeking a system in which sin has no consequences would you?

If so, then isn't PSA the right one for you?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
You wouldn't happen to be seeking a system in which sin has no consequences would you?

If so, then isn't PSA the right one for you?

[Razz]

I thought I was the one who was always bringing it back to PSA? [Biased]

Actually, this is the one accusation that cannot be levelled at PSA. The whole point of PSA is that sin must always have consequences (punishment) but that Jesus takes those consequences for us.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Actually, this is the one accusation that cannot be levelled at PSA. The whole point of PSA is that sin must always have consequences (punishment) but that Jesus takes those consequences for us.

So we don't have to worry about them?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So we don't have to worry about them?

[Confused] What do you mean worry?

Yes - any I sin (even those in the future) I commit causes / caused Christ suffering. I am deeply troubled that Christ had to suffer for me.

No - I will no longer receive the punishment I deserve.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
No - I will no longer receive the punishment I deserve.

Then why do you say:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But my problem is that Jesus said so much about hell, punishment and judgment. I find his teaching very disconcerting.

It sounds to me as though PSA is a way around these disconcerting statements.

Isn't CV more consistent with what Jesus says? Doesn't He say that we need to abide with Him by keeping His commandments or else we will be cast out?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't CV more consistent with what Jesus says? Doesn't He say that we need to abide with Him by keeping His commandments or else we will be cast out?

He does say that but I don't see what it has to do with PSA or CV?

Both models see our efforts in keeping Christ's commandments as a response to Christ's victory on the cross.

I think you are confusing PSA with the 'easy believism' of 'praying the prayer' as a ticket to heaven.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Both models see our efforts in keeping Christ's commandments as a response to Christ's victory on the cross.

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, CV says that Christ's victory on the cross sets all people free to do good or evil as they choose. Before that victory humanity had become increasingly enslaved by the devil as a result of millennia of sinful behavior. So Christ's victory simply restored the balance.

Our efforts in keeping Christ's commandments are enabled by His victory on the cross, and those efforts could never be successful without God's help, but we are still responsible for our actions. Christ's "judgmental" words apply to all of us.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think you are confusing PSA with the 'easy believism' of 'praying the prayer' as a ticket to heaven.

No, I am more thinking of this:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
No - I will no longer receive the punishment I deserve.

Unless I am mistaken, this only fits with PSA. Jesus says that we will receive the punishment we deserve.
quote:
Matthew 25:45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

John 15:6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned...10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

But I think that it is also clear that we only suffer for what we are actually guilty of, no more:
quote:
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

Luke 12:47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

Luke 6:38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.

Revelation 2:23 And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

Revelation 22:12 And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.

PSA, as I understand it, effectively denies that these statements mean that Christians receive the punishment they deserve after death.

These statements make sense according to CV, however, because in that model each person needs to overcome sin in their life, with Christ's help, just as He did. At least that is how I understand it.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
Okay, I've been dipping in and out of this thread as it's progressed, and I've just caught up on the recent pages. I've just got back from Contagious, a Christian youth conference of conservative evangelical bent. Last year, the subject we were looking at for the week was The Cross, and so there was quite a strong emphasis on PSA. This year, the topic was The Resurrection, and there was a big emphasis on Jesus' triumph over the powers of sin, death and evil, his victory to the highest place, and how we share in this by being united to him by faith, so bringing out the Christus Victor side of things. So I come to the discussion with a renewed interest. I'm still working through these things, trying to understand them, so hopefully joining in this discussion might sharpen up my understanding!

It seems to me that Jesus' victory, and our liberation from the power of sin and death, rests on him dying in our place to satisfy God's wrath. In Romans 8, for example, it says:
quote:
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.
We are set free from the control of sin and death by Jesus dying as a sin offering. Death is a result of sin, and sin the sting of death. For us to be set free from the sin and death, our objective guilt has to be dealt with.

So it seems to me CV doesn't exclude PSA, but requires it as a foundation. Our forgiveness is effected by Christ's substitutionary death, which enables and effects our union with Christ.

Freddy - in what sense are we forgiven if we are still punished? And what do you think is a fair punishment? The Bible seems to me to say that the punishment for sin is death, so if we do still receive the punishment we deserve, how can we be free from death? How can we have any hope of the resurrection life?

As I see it, we are still judged by our actions in one sense, but because we are in Christ, his actions, his perfect life, his death to sin, his resurrection and victory, are counted as our own. We live holy lives not to become holy, but because we already are holy in Christ. Sanctification is not a matter of "become something you aren't yet", but "be what you are in Christ".
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Freddy - in what sense are we forgiven if we are still punished?

We are forgiven if we accept and do as Christ teaches. Then we are not punished. So if we are punished it is only because we have failed to follow Christ - not that Christ punishes but that sin carries ots own punishment. He forgives everyone, but we only accept the forgiveness in our response to God.
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
And what do you think is a fair punishment? The Bible seems to me to say that the punishment for sin is death, so if we do still receive the punishment we deserve, how can we be free from death? How can we have any hope of the resurrection life?

Doesn't it say that it will be according to our own response?
quote:
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

Luke 12:47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

Luke 6:38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.

Revelation 2:23 And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

Revelation 22:12 And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.

How do you read this?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
After sharktacos' comments about Martin Luther I have been reading his commentary on Galatians ... well it is my day off. [Big Grin]

I think sharktacos is on to something about the CV manner in which Luther's speaks about the atonement. However, I am still puzzled as to how you can read Luther without thinking that Christ bore the consequences of God's anger.

For example, here is part of what Luther wrote on Galatians 2 v 13,

"...Let us see how Christ was able to gain the victory over our enemies. The sins of the whole world, past, present, and future, fastened themselves upon Christ and condemned Him. But because Christ is God He had an everlasting and unconquerable righteousness. These two, the sin of the world and the righteousness of God, met in a death struggle. Furiously the sin of the world assailed the righteousness of God. Righteousness is immortal and invincible. On the other hand, sin is a mighty tyrant who subdues all men. This tyrant pounces on Christ. But Christ's righteousness is unconquerable. The result is inevitable. Sin is defeated and righteousness triumphs and reigns forever.

In the same manner was death defeated. Death is emperor of the world. He strikes down kings, princes, all men. He has an idea to destroy all life. But Christ has immortal life, and life immortal gained the victory over death. Through Christ death has lost her sting. Christ is the Death of death.

The curse of God waged a similar battle with the eternal mercy of God in Christ. The curse meant to condemn God's mercy. But it could not do it because the mercy of God is everlasting. The curse had to give way. If the mercy of God in Christ had lost out, God Himself would have lost out, which, of course, is impossible....

Holy Writ does not say that Christ was under the curse. It says directly that Christ was made a curse. In II Corinthians 5:21 Paul writes: "For he (God) hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Although this and similar passages may be properly explained by saying that Christ was made a sacrifice for the curse and for sin, yet in my judgment it is better to leave these passages stand as they read: Christ was made sin itself; Christ was made the curse itself. When a sinner gets wise to himself he does not only feel miserable, he feels like misery personified; he does not only feel like a sinner, he feels like sin itself.

To finish with this verse: All evils would have overwhelmed us, as they shall overwhelm the unbelievers forever, if Christ had not become the great transgressor and guilty bearer of all our sins. The sins of the world got Him down for a moment. They came around Him like water. Of Christ, the Old Testament Prophet complained: "Thy fierce wrath goeth over me; thy terrors have cut me off." (Psalm 88:16.) By Christ's salvation we have been delivered from the terrors of God to a life of eternal felicity."


- Luther explains how Christ overcame three great enemies... sin, death and God's curse. Note that the 'curse of God' is handled as a third enemy, apart from sin and death. Luther depicts it as an internal struggle within God between his mercy and his curse.

- Luther applies Psalm 88: 16 to Jesus. He experienced the wrath and terrors of God so that we might be delivered from them.

Overall, I can see many of the elements of CV that are here and why others are rightly stressing them. However, I am frankly baffled as to how anyone can seriously claim that Luther's thought rejects PSA altogether. [Ultra confused]

Nuanced, yes. Outright rejection, no.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, I am frankly baffled as to how anyone can seriously claim that Luther's thought rejects PSA altogether. [Ultra confused]

Nuanced, yes. Outright rejection, no.

I agree. I have always thought that Luther taught a nuanced version of PSA. He especially did this by emphasizing that salvation was by faith alone. According to
Wikipedia:
quote:
Martin Luther elevated sola fide to the principal cause of the Protestant Reformation, the rallying cry of the Protestant cause, and the chief distinction between Protestant Christianity and Roman Catholicism.
While PSA and sola fide are not the same thing, they are closely linked.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
After sharktacos' comments about Martin Luther I have been reading his commentary on Galatians ...
Overall, I can see many of the elements of CV that are here and why others are rightly stressing them. However, I am frankly baffled as to how anyone can seriously claim that Luther's thought rejects PSA altogether. [Ultra confused]

Nuanced, yes. Outright rejection, no.

Luther's view includes substitutionary atonement, but I do not think it is accurate to call it penal substitution. Notice in the passages you quote that Luther makes wrath one of the enemies of God.

Now what Luther is saying is complex. It is not just "God against the devil" (simple CV) nor is it just "God punishing sin" (simple PSA). Luther talks about a battle within God, of Divine mercy overcoming Divine wrath. It is not simply Christ being punished instead of us (as if any other human might have done) but God incarnate becoming humanity in all of its wretchedness (including not only taking on our guilt, but also bearing the sin and injustice done to us) and then dying not instead of us, but with us and as us.

This is a much larger view of substitutionary atonement then PSA can contain. So while there may be PSA elements in Luther, ultimately one needs a larger understanding of substitutionary atonement couched in a larger understanding of Christus Victor to really enclose what Luther is saying.

Aulen has a chapter on Luther in Christus Victor, I'd recommend reviewing it if you are trying to work through Luther's perspective.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Luther's view includes substitutionary atonement, but I do not think it is accurate to call it penal substitution. Notice in the passages you quote that Luther makes wrath one of the enemies of God.

No, Luther seems to speak of the wrath of God being an enemy of his mercy, but to pit wrath and mercy against each other is classic PSA.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
This is a much larger view of substitutionary atonement then PSA can contain. So while there may be PSA elements in Luther, ultimately one needs a larger understanding of substitutionary atonement couched in a larger understanding of Christus Victor to really enclose what Luther is saying.

What do you mean here?

We have already established (pages back) that this thread is looking at CV as a replacement for PSA. Right from the beginning all those who support PSA have argued that it is just one model that needs to be nuanced with other models (e.g. CV) but that we do not think the biblical data warrants getting rid of it altogether.

In the light of that your paragraph above doesn't make sense. If you are arguing that we should follow Luther then surely you must be arguing for a nuanced atonement model that includes elements of PSA? [Confused]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you are arguing that we should follow Luther then surely you must be arguing for a nuanced atonement model that includes elements of PSA? [Confused]

The thing is that IF we are going to develop a nuanced atonement model THEN we MUST change aspects of PSA to be able to fit into it. PSA unchanged (a legal model based on the human idea of appeasing God and violent retribution) does not fit into a nuanced model.

Therefore, PSA offers only at best a limited understanding of the substitutionary aspects of the cross, and at worst a wrong understanding of it.

It is Limited in that it is not only "penal" because it includes Christ bearing our unjust suffering which is certainly not penal. So it is only one small part of the substitutionary nature, let alone the CV part.

It is Wrong in so far as PSA says the cross is about appeasing God through punishment, or bringing about justice through punishing.

So if one removes the wholly unbiblical "appeasing through violence" aspects, and incorporates PSA
1) into a larger understanding of substitution
2) then incorporates that into a nuanced version of CV... THEN I would agree with PSA.

But I would find it misleading to call it PSA at that point. It would be like calling Fillet Mignon "hamburger".
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

We have already established (pages back) that this thread is looking at CV as a replacement for PSA.

Also to clarify:
The choice is not between a victory motif (CV) or a substitution motif (PSA)

Rather, the reason that it is CV instead of PSA is because CV contains a nuanced and different understanding of substitutionary atonement. So it is CV's understanding of substitution replacing PSA's understanding of substitution.

Luther is giving us here a CV understanding of substitution. Luther is not sticking two separate theories together (CV + PSA), he has one big theory of CV that includes the CV understanding of substitution.

[ 30. August 2007, 00:15: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[. [QUOTE] In II Corinthians 5:21 Paul writes: "For he (God) hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Although this and similar passages may be properly explained by saying that Christ was made a sacrifice for the curse and for sin, yet in my judgment it is better to leave these passages stand as they read: Christ was made sin itself; Christ was made the curse itself.

How on earth is this NOT saying Christ is a penal substitute?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[. [QUOTE] In II Corinthians 5:21 Paul writes: "For he (God) hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Although this and similar passages may be properly explained by saying that Christ was made a sacrifice for the curse and for sin, yet in my judgment it is better to leave these passages stand as they read: Christ was made sin itself; Christ was made the curse itself.

How on earth is this NOT saying Christ is a penal substitute?
Because of why Luther says Christ became sin. Not to appease judgment or punishment, but to overcome them.

PSA says that mercy needs to satisfy the demands of justice and wrath. Luther says the opposite: "The curse meant to condemn God’s mercy. But it could not do it because the mercy of God is everlasting. The curse had to give way." Vengeance is not satisfied, it in conquered by God's mercy. "Sin, death, the wrath of God, hell, the devil are mortified in Christ."

Wrath is not satisfied or appeased, it is killed, conquered, overcome, by mercy. That ain't PSA.

The only way to see PSA in there is to read it out of context.

[ 30. August 2007, 07:15: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Thanks for spelling it out a bit further. I think I can see more clearly where you are coming from.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:


It is Limited in that it is not only "penal" because it includes Christ bearing our unjust suffering which is certainly not penal.

This is a new idea. Who said that any suffering is unjust? It is often personally unjust but that is not quite the same thing.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
It is Wrong in so far as PSA says the cross is about appeasing God through punishment, or bringing about justice through punishing.

So if one removes the wholly unbiblical "appeasing through violence" aspects, and incorporates PSA
1) into a larger understanding of substitution
2) then incorporates that into a nuanced version of CV... THEN I would agree with PSA.

But I would find it misleading to call it PSA at that point. It would be like calling Fillet Mignon "hamburger".

But the same is also true the other way round. It is disingenuous to suggest that CV contains penal elements when everyone I talk to (and converse with on this thread) who wants to ditch PSA does so precisely to remove the penal elements from the atonement.

Personally, I would not talk about God being angry with the son, rather that Jesus bore the penalty of our sin. But that is still both penal and substitutionary.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Wrath is not satisfied or appeased, it is killed, conquered, overcome, by mercy. That ain't PSA.

Ummh. It's not that simple. If it is Penal and Substitutionary then how can it not be PSA?

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The only way to see PSA in there is to read it out of context.

[Razz] Nice one. The only way to see any atonement model in Luther's writing is to read it 'into' it! That is the whole point. Luther was not writing in the 21st century to settle an argument over contemporary models.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This is a new idea. Who said that any suffering is unjust? It is often personally unjust but that is not quite the same thing.

You need to think that through a lot more. Do you really want to say that when a person is raped, or a child is born with some crippling disease that this is a form of just punishment?

There is a great deal of emphasis in the Bible, in the psalms and Gospels for example on the idea of unjust suffering. In fact the Bible even says we will not only suffer unjustly, but that we will suffer for righteousness.

To limit our understanding suffering to punishment, has huge consequences for our understanding of the Gospel. If this is a new idea for you, then you need to spend some time working through this, reading the Gospels, and thinking about compassion for the "least". To frame all of our huma problem in the context of just punishment is to miss 90% of the Gospel.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This is a new idea. Who said that any suffering is unjust? It is often personally unjust but that is not quite the same thing.

You need to think that through a lot more. Do you really want to say that when a person is raped, or a child is born with some crippling disease that this is a form of just punishment?

There is a great deal of emphasis in the Bible, in the psalms and Gospels for example on the idea of unjust suffering. In fact the Bible even says we will not only suffer unjustly, but that we will suffer for righteousness.

To limit our understanding suffering to punishment, has huge consequences for our understanding of the Gospel. If this is a new idea for you, then you need to spend some time working through this, reading the Gospels, and thinking about compassion for the "least". To frame all of our human problem in the context of just punishment is to miss 90% of the Gospel.

Woah, slow down.

I never meant to say that suffering cannot be unjust. I was merely picking up your assertion earlier that unjust suffering cannot have a penal element to it. If my shorthand reply fooled you then apologies for that, but I thought that my next sentence made it clear that I was being more specific.

I think it is quite possible to talk about a penal aspect to suffering, in the general sense of the consequences of living in a sinful world, without saying that when some suffers innocently that means God is punishing them.

I make these comments precisely because I find the issue of suffering a very complex and difficult one and I have found no easy answers - although people frequently try to fob me off with them.

If you expect others to see a sophistication in your arguments then please expect to see the same in others.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I never meant to say that suffering cannot be unjust. I was merely picking up your assertion earlier that unjust suffering cannot have a penal element to it.

That does not make sense. If suffering is unjust, then it makes no sense to speak of it as punishment.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I never meant to say that suffering cannot be unjust. I was merely picking up your assertion earlier that unjust suffering cannot have a penal element to it.

That does not make sense. If suffering is unjust, then it makes no sense to speak of it as punishment.
We're obviously talking past each other here. I am talking about a simple fact of life - people are punished unjustly all the time. Jesus would fit into that category! [Big Grin]

It is penal and it is unjust. The question is - how do we deal with this?

PSA says that this injustice is made right, it is cancelled out. CV says ... well, what does it say? I can see that it offers empathy in innocent suffering but what else? If all it does is 'unmake' the consequences then basically it is saying 'tough luck' to the person who suffered innocently to the person who didn't.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

PSA says that this injustice is made right, it is cancelled out.

Um no, PSA does not say this. PSA says that Jesus bears our just punishment, period. It says nothing about unjust punishment.

CV's understanding of substitution on the other hand does.

"I can see that it offers empathy in innocent suffering but what else?"

No, that is the moral example theory not CV.

CV is all about overcoming evil, which is a lot bigger than our individual guilt. You should read Moltmann.

[ 30. August 2007, 23:37: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Um no, PSA does not say this. PSA says that Jesus bears our just punishment, period. It says nothing about unjust punishment.

Says who? Did you get that from the Official handbook on PSA ? [Biased]

How do you think PSAers understand 1 Peter 2: 25 and Romans 12: 19?

What you mean is that your version of PSA that you want to ditch says nothing about unjust punishment.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV is all about overcoming evil, which is a lot bigger than our individual guilt. You should read Moltmann.

I've read Moltmann and think his stuff on eschatology is great but he tends to universalism. That is my big beef with the debate over CV so far. I still think that the 'demise' of PSA is linked with an increasing latent universalism. (I know JJ disagrees with me on this one [Big Grin] ). PSA makes 'sense' in a world where God does 'punish' sinners who refuse to repent by casting them over to the consequences of their actions ... what we call hell. If you accept that God does 'punish' (in some sense the final judgment has to fit into that category) then it is much easier to see how PSA 'fits' into things. I would argue for a much more nuanced view of PSA than the popular caricature but while there is 'hell' then there surely has to be some penal element to the atonement.

Therefore I think that you cannot hold onto a belief in the final judgment and let go of PSA altogether. I assume you will disagree with me here. However, you should read Moltmann on this one. That is exactly where he runs with it ... a CV understanding of the cross leads to Christ conquering all sin everywhere ... hence universalism.

Is that where you are headed?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Um no, PSA does not say this. PSA says that Jesus bears our just punishment, period. It says nothing about unjust punishment.

Says who? Did you get that from the Official handbook on PSA
By the definition on wikipedia, the definition on theopedia (a Reform wiki), by the definition we have established here several pages back, by the definition of major proponents of PSA such as John Stott or JI Packer... PSA is not just a "fill in the blank" theory, being Reform it is quite well defined. Look it up in any theological dictionary and you will see that I am right on this point. PSA says nothing about Christ bearing our unjust suffering. The Bible of course does, you may too, but PSA does not.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
By the definition on wikipedia, the definition on theopedia (a Reform wiki)...

Would those just happen to be the first two sites that come up if you google 'PSA'? [Disappointed]

What you mean is that those articles don't mention it. And .... ?

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
PSA says nothing about Christ bearing our unjust suffering.

Just because some wikipedia article doesn't mention it means nothing. This is no different from me saying that the 'medical' aspect is not there in CV. "Yes, but it is an out working of Christ's victory." Exactly - give the same slack to PSA.

I notice that you managed to miss my (more substantial) question about Moltmann and Universalism though! [Razz]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
No dice Johnny. I listed them because they are readily accessible and included th definitions of Stott and Packer. Feel free to site any reputable definition you like of PSA, and you will see that I am right on this point. PSA deals with our avoiding just punishment, period.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
No dice Johnny. I listed them because they are readily accessible and included th definitions of Stott and Packer. Feel free to site any reputable definition you like of PSA, and you will see that I am right on this point. PSA deals with our avoiding just punishment, period.

Come on, this is getting embarrasing now - try reading chapter 13 of John Stott's The Cross of Christ ... it is called 'Suffering and glory'. [Razz]

Funny that, the last chapter (before the conclusion) and he wants to finish by applying his view of the atonement to suffering, including the suffering of the innocent. At the very least Stott clearly sees all this as completely combatible with PSA, but if you read it you will see that some points arise directly from it.

One of his points is that living between the two 'poles' of the Cross and the last judgment enables those who have suffered unjustly to take comfort in a just God - his argument being that both are linked by a penal element (injustice will be punished).

... still no sign of any comments on Moltmann and Universalism. [Snore] [Snore] [Snore]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
1) Stott may combine other views with PSA, that is not the same thing as his definition of PSA. Sorry but I am not budging here.

2) I am certainly not a universalist, I also doubt that Moltmann is (I'd like to see your evidence for this accusation), and find your thesis that CV arises out of a rise in universalism unfounded. I would say instead it arises out of a much larger disillusionment with (abusive) authority and increased awareness of personal and structural evil in the lager culture in contrast to the optimism of modernism.

Also I have to ask: are you trying to imply that if we lose the concept of punishment that this will lead to universalism?


quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
No dice Johnny. I listed them because they are readily accessible and included th definitions of Stott and Packer. Feel free to site any reputable definition you like of PSA, and you will see that I am right on this point. PSA deals with our avoiding just punishment, period.

Come on, this is getting embarrasing now - try reading chapter 13 of John Stott's The Cross of Christ ... it is called 'Suffering and glory'. [Razz]

Funny that, the last chapter (before the conclusion) and he wants to finish by applying his view of the atonement to suffering, including the suffering of the innocent. At the very least Stott clearly sees all this as completely combatible with PSA, but if you read it you will see that some points arise directly from it.

One of his points is that living between the two 'poles' of the Cross and the last judgment enables those who have suffered unjustly to take comfort in a just God - his argument being that both are linked by a penal element (injustice will be punished).

... still no sign of any comments on Moltmann and Universalism. [Snore] [Snore] [Snore]


 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
You know I just re-read the chapter in Stott you mentioned. I did not find the reference you made of comfort to suffering in the knowledge of God punishing injustice. Can you site the page? What I did find is that the part that is in Stott's own words, the most important aspect of what the cross has to say of unjust suffering is heavily based on the ideas of Moltmann and liberation theology.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
1) Stott may combine other views with PSA, that is not the same thing as his definition of PSA. Sorry but I am not budging here.

[brick wall] PSA is a M O D E L.

It is not specifically mentioned in scripture nor was it established at some church council or other. The way to interact with models is to point out inconsistencies, show where they contradict scripture or other models, and look at how other theologians have interacted with them. If you want to demonstrate how PSA fails to take innocent suffering into account then ... be my guest ... but please stop telling people what they believe.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
You know I just re-read the chapter in Stott you mentioned. I did not find the reference you made of comfort to suffering in the knowledge of God punishing injustice. Can you site the page? What I did find is that the part that is in Stott's own words, the most important aspect of what the cross has to say of unjust suffering is heavily based on the ideas of Moltmann and liberation theology.

p328-329 includes this "So between the cross, where God's love and justice began to be clearly revealed, and the day of judgment when they will be completely revealed, it is reasonable to trust in him."

That 'day of judgment', according to Stott, includes punishment. (See below.)

p332 After quoting Moltmann Stott goes back to Luther [Big Grin] , to explain how Christ suffers alongside us (including innocent suffering). "For the 'pain of God' results from the love of the One who intercepts and blocks his wrath towards us, the One who himself is smitten by his wrath."


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Also I have to ask: are you trying to imply that if we lose the concept of punishment that this will lead to universalism?

Yes, without punishment eventually any atonement model will collapse into universalism.

Even annihilationism grants no opportunity for change and therefore cannot be remedial. I give my children pocket money each week. If I decide not to give it one week as a punishment for wrong behaviour, then it is really a discipline since the intent is not to 'punish' but to bring about a change in behaviour. If God withholds eternal life from those who die in unbelief then that cannot be remedial - it has to be punishment, there can be no other way.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
2) I am certainly not a universalist, I also doubt that Moltmann is (I'd like to see your evidence for this accusation), and find your thesis that CV arises out of a rise in universalism unfounded. I would say instead it arises out of a much larger disillusionment with (abusive) authority and increased awareness of personal and structural evil in the lager culture in contrast to the optimism of modernism.

Have you read The Coming of God by Moltmann? A great book. He does not duck hard questions. I love his sense of hope and of 'making all things new'. Also his emphasis on 'cosmic redemption' is much needed.

However, his understanding of double judgment must collapse down into universalism. He too starts with Luther, and particularly with Christ's descent into hell. From here he builds a model of atonement that is so 'Reformed', so strong on sovereignty and predestination, that Christ even redeems hell and those who don't want to be saved.

Balthasar had tried to mediate between the universal assurance of salvation held by the Eastern Fathers and the emphasis on freedom in the west. Moltmann thought that he had resolved the tension but he did not...
There is no way that this view does not end up as universalism. We all end up 'predestined' for salvation and therefore robots who end up in heaven whether we like it or not.

I repeat. If we reject any kind of punishment then we have to reject God's judgment altogether and thus embrace universalism. PSA may raise difficult issues itself but if you reject it then it is a question of when rather than if you end up at universalism.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
PS I've just noticed that this thread has broken the 1500 barrier! [Yipee]

Surely that deserves some kind of celebration? [Cool]
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Yes, without punishment eventually any atonement model will collapse into universalism.

I think this may be the crux of our disagreement.

Punishment as you say is not redemptive. It's motivation is fear. Fear is a terrible foundation for morality. So to say that there can be no morality without fear-based punishment, reflects imho a profoundly flawed moral vision.

Further you say:

quote:
From here he builds a model of atonement that is so 'Reformed', so strong on sovereignty and predestination, that Christ even redeems hell and those who don't want to be saved.
and suggest that this would mean that people are forced to be redeemed as puppets. This again reflects the view of sin as transgression where a person can simply choose to sin or not sin. I would say that this is ultimately not a model that reflects the Bible or reality. Sin is in fact more like an enslaving sickness that we need to be set free from, healed of. So Christ redeeming those who do not "want to be" is like saving someone from downing who is lashing about it panic. There is in the nature of sin an "eminity" we have agasint God that God needs to "overcome" in us. Salvation is not merely us doing ggod stuff to avoid punishment. It is a change in identity of goig from being a slave to sin who is self-focused to becoming God-centered where we are truly free.

I do hope that God redeems everyone, that he breaks past our blindness and foolishness. The Bible tells me also that God "does not desire our destruction" in non-redemptive punishment, but "that all people would be saved". So God gave his life to break us out of the road to death we were on and to give us life. You seem tp be arguing for the goodness and necessity of non-redemptive punishment and against the hope of redemption. Tell me how that is not anti-Gospel? It seems to me in championing punishment and opposing redemption you are opposing the purpose of God.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
PS I've just noticed that this thread has broken the 1500 barrier! [Yipee]

Surely that deserves some kind of celebration? [Cool]

Yay. [Tear]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

I do hope that God redeems everyone, that he breaks past our blindness and foolishness.

Ah, but that is the crux of your problem, why do you only 'hope'? What stops him from doing so? Is he not able to save us all?


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The Bible tells me also that God "does not desire our destruction" in non-redemptive punishment, but "that all people would be saved". So God gave his life to break us out of the road to death we were on and to give us life. You seem tp be arguing for the goodness and necessity of non-redemptive punishment and against the hope of redemption. Tell me how that is not anti-Gospel? It seems to me in championing punishment and opposing redemption you are opposing the purpose of God.

[Confused] The tension between God's sovereignty and our free will is hardly a new one and I doubt if we can sort it out with a few posts!

CV, if left on its own as an 'umbrella' model must eventually collapse into universalism since, according to your description, Christ has conquered all opposition and God desires everyone to be saved ... so everyone must be saved. What could possibly prevent it from being so?

The only way you could possibly hold onto CV without becoming universalist is if Christ's victory was not complete, not exhaustive, not fully effective.

Attractive though I find that position the teaching of Jesus specifically rules it out. Too frequently and too explicitly Jesus speaks about eternal punishment - e.g. Matthew 25. It strikes fear within me, and I don't like it, but I cannot ignore the clear teaching of Jesus. According to him Hell will not be empty.

So, as you ask, how can I champion the gospel, about God's love and his desire for all people to be saved?

Well, let me tell you about an alternative atonement model, you may have heard about it before ... PSA! [Razz]

With PSA I am able to state the following:

1. Christ's death is completely effective for everyone.
2. God wants all people to be saved.
3. All our sin will receive punishment, either on the cross or at the last judgment.
4. Therefore whether we experience God's punishment or not is down to whether we accept Christ's death and resurrection for us.

Call it crude and simplistic if you like, but PSA can hold together the following: God's desire for all to be saved / Christ's victory being effective for everyone / Christ's teaching about the last judgment. "I do hope that God redeems everyone" - I hope that too, but whether or not he does depends on our response to the gospel. There is no 'need' for any to perish. It is great news and I want to tell everyone.

I can't see how CV can do that. If you can explain how CV avoids universalism then I'd love to hear. AFAIK PSA is what stops CV collapsing into universalism.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
CV, if left on its own as an 'umbrella' model must eventually collapse into universalism since, according to your description, Christ has conquered all opposition and God desires everyone to be saved ... so everyone must be saved. What could possibly prevent it from being so?

But if everyone was saved that would good. Sign me up. Go Jesus!


quote:

The only way you could possibly hold onto CV without becoming universalist is if Christ's victory was not complete, not exhaustive, not fully effective.

This is a pretty weird definition of universalism. Usually universalism means that one denies that there is a problem, not that one desires to solve the problem. If a universalist is one who desires for people to be saved and is moved to trusting God, evangelizing, and caring for the least, then again, sign me up.

quote:
With PSA I am able to state the following:
1. Christ's death is completely effective for everyone.

so according to your own definition you are a universalist?

quote:
"I do hope that God redeems everyone" - I hope that too, but whether or not he does depends on our response to the gospel.
Here we agree.

quote:
I can't see how CV can do that. If you can explain how CV avoids universalism then I'd love to hear. AFAIK PSA is what stops CV collapsing into universalism.
I think you have created an imaginary problem. CV would say just as much as PSA that we need to respond to the Gospel. It would not claim that everything was fine. It does not deny the reality of sin and the reality of Hell. In fact it sees the problem of sin, death, and the devil as being much bigger than PSA does. It does not think our solution is as simply as us "deciding" for Christ, but that we need to be saved not only from wrath but saved from the bondage of sin, healed of our moral cancer, and ransomed from our satanic identity. We play a part in this, which is simply to believe (by faith alone) in God's redeeming action in Christ (by grace alone), but it primarily God's action that actively saves us, not ours. God acts, we receive.

And again, to return to the point of Stott and suffering. He may have incorporated the insights of Moltmann and accept the idea of God's solidarity with us in our suffering, he may even be able to hold that view in addition to PSA, but it is not a perspective that grew out of PSA soil, but one that grew clearly out of CV soil (Moltmann, liberation theology, etc).PSA alone would never lead there, and in fact it leads in the opposite direction towards seeing all suffering as deserved.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

quote:
With PSA I am able to state the following:
1. Christ's death is completely effective for everyone.

so according to your own definition you are a universalist?
No. This is the whole point, PSA enables a transference of guilt from me to Christ. This means that while his work is for all, I have to want for my guilt to be transferred.

CV doesn't have such a mechanism. Either Christ defeat sin, death and the devil or he didn't. Again, I ask if Christ is fully victorious, accoridng to CV what is there to stop universalism?


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I think you have created an imaginary problem. CV would say just as much as PSA that we need to respond to the Gospel. It would not claim that everything was fine. It does not deny the reality of sin and the reality of Hell.

Ah, but it does. Sin and hell are real but Christ has destroyed them. If hell is still a future reality then doesn't that undermine his victory? (But only if you remove punishment out of the equation! [Biased] )


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
And again, to return to the point of Stott and suffering. He may have incorporated the insights of Moltmann and accept the idea of God's solidarity with us in our suffering, he may even be able to hold that view in addition to PSA, but it is not a perspective that grew out of PSA soil, but one that grew clearly out of CV soil (Moltmann, liberation theology, etc).PSA alone would never lead there, and in fact it leads in the opposite direction towards seeing all suffering as deserved.

[Confused] Perserverance is often a good quality, but not always. [Big Grin]

PSA addresses innocent suffering in various ways that Stott acknowledges. At the very least Stott clearly saw no contradiction between PSA and these issues... and thus what for you is a reason to ditch PSA is very obvious not for him.

Most, but not all, innocent suffering is caused by other people. PSA says that innocent suffering matters very much to God and therefore those who cause it will be punished. Even if it were possible to 'undo' it I'm not sure if that would take innocent suffering seriously enough. I'm not talking about revenge, but about an objective acknowledgement of wrong.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

[QUOTE]

I do hope that God redeems everyone, that he breaks past our blindness and foolishness. The Bible tells me also that God "does not desire our destruction" in non-redemptive punishment, but "that all people would be saved". So God gave his life to break us out of the road to death we were on and to give us life. You seem tp be arguing for the goodness and necessity of non-redemptive punishment and against the hope of redemption. Tell me how that is not anti-Gospel? It seems to me in championing punishment and opposing redemption you are opposing the purpose of God.
[/

Interesting discussion.

It is not anti gospel to believe in non redemptive punishment. Jesus virtually cursed the temple and the generation he was born into when he said "Your house is left unto you desolate." When he spoke of "Offences must come but woe unto the one by whom they come." In Jesus teaching there is outer darkness where there is weeping wailing and gnashing of teeth.

It is both unscriptural and foolish to dismiss all the Bible says about judgement and punishment. Foolish because It demands we re invent the God we worship which then demands that we embrace relativism.

The Universalist position while seductive simply doesn't run scripturally. It makes a nonsense of evangelism and as I said on about P 2 of this thread, if CV does logically suggest it as a bottom line, reveals a weak understanding of sin as a concept or its seriousness to God.

Incidentally if Hell is empty, then why try to be holy?

If the charge of universalism as a bottom line is denied, then CV faces the problem of what are the consequences of of rejecting the Gospel, or even more fundamentally what precisely IS the gospel? If one embraces PSA the whole Gospel devolves into the 4 Spiritual Laws
1. God loves me
2. I'm separated from this love by my sin.
3. Christ died to redeem me so I don't havre to be judged though I deserve it
4. I have to accept this by faith.

Viz:

I'm a sinner saved by grace because my Lord died in my place so don't you be surprised if I sinf hallelujah."

[ 02. September 2007, 09:20: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:

[QUOTE]

I do hope that God redeems everyone, that he breaks past our blindness and foolishness. The Bible tells me also that God "does not desire our destruction" in non-redemptive punishment, but "that all people would be saved". So God gave his life to break us out of the road to death we were on and to give us life. You seem tp be arguing for the goodness and necessity of non-redemptive punishment and against the hope of redemption. Tell me how that is not anti-Gospel? It seems to me in championing punishment and opposing redemption you are opposing the purpose of God.
[/

Interesting discussion.

It is not anti gospel to believe in non redemptive punishment. Jesus virtually cursed the temple and the generation he was born into when he said "Your house is left unto you desolate." Also,when he said, "Offences must come but woe unto the one by whom they come." In Jesus teaching there is "outer darkness" where there is weeping wailing and gnashing of teeth.

It is both unscriptural and foolish to dismiss all the Bible says about judgement and punishment. Foolish because It demands we re invent the God we worship which then demands that we embrace relativism.

The Universalist position, while seductive simply doesn't run scripturally. It makes a nonsense of evangelism and as I said on about P 2 of this thread, if CV does logically suggest it as a bottom line, then this reveals a weak understanding of sin as a concept, or its seriousness to God.

Incidentally,if Hell is empty, then why try to be holy?

If the charge of universalism as a bottom line is denied, then CV faces the problem of what are the consequences of of rejecting the Gospel, or even more fundamentally, what precisely IS the gospel? If one embraces PSA the whole Gospel devolves into the 4 Spiritual Laws
1. God loves me
2. I'm separated from this love by my sin.
3. Christ died to redeem me so I don't have to be judged though I deserve it
4. I have to accept this by faith.

Viz:

I'm a sinner saved by grace because my Lord died in my place so don't you be surprised if I sing hallelujah."

Sorry for double posting, pushed wrong button nand missed edit window.

The mileage of this thread surely must reveal something of the seriousness of the issues being discussed here. I really want to thank you guys Shark ,JJ, Johnny, Freddy, Karl and Numpty plus others I can't remember for what has been quite a discussion... one that has demanded quite a lot of soul searching and been such a good debate.

It has been a good eg of 'iron sharpening iron' and I can remember only minor incidences of real acrimony and none of personal attack though we might have got close on occasion.

It is hard to find a forum like this one so,
"Go the ship!"
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I really want to thank you guys Shark ,JJ, Johnny, Freddy, Karl and Numpty plus others I can't remember for what has been quite a discussion... one that has demanded quite a lot of soul searching and been such a good debate.

It has been a good eg of 'iron sharpening iron' and I can remember only minor incidences of real acrimony and none of personal attack though we might have got close on occasion.

Likewise!


quote:
It is not anti gospel to believe in non redemptive punishment.
I believe that non-redemptive punishment is a reality, but that Gospel specifically does not embrace or advocate non-redemptive punishment but instead provides a way for us to escape non-redemptive punishment.

quote:
if CV does logically suggest it as a bottom line, then this reveals a weak understanding of sin as a concept, or its seriousness to God.
It is completely false to claim that CV suggests or entails universalism. It most certainly does not. Anyone who says otherwise has completely misunderstood CV.

quote:
Incidentally,if Hell is empty, then why try to be holy?
Because it is right. If holiness looks like Jesus, then Jesus wanted to empty hell hen he went down there and "led captivity on his train" precisely because he was holy. Holiness is characterized by a desire love for sinners and a desire for redemption because Jesus is the ultimate direct revelation of God's holiness.

quote:
CV faces the problem of what are the consequences of of rejecting the Gospel
Let's be clear: Atonement theories are about what God has done to make grace available. Soteriolgy (ie the Gospel) is about what we must do to receive grace. Therefore it is a misnomer to say that CV or PSA "rejects the Gospel".

I can for example reject PSA and still embrace all of your 4 spiritual laws:
1. God loves me
2. I'm separated from this love by my sin.
3. Christ died to redeem me so I don't have to be judged though I deserve it
4. I have to accept this by faith.

I would guess that we would agree on what the Gospel is, even though we disagree on the atonement. Let's not confuse the two.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
It is completely false to claim that CV suggests or entails universalism. It most certainly does not. Anyone who says otherwise has completely misunderstood CV.

So enlighten us then. You still haven't answered the questions repeated below - if I have misunderstood CV completely then here is your chance to put that right:

quote:
CV doesn't have such a mechanism to explain why Christ's victory is applied to some but not to all. Either Christ defeated sin, death and the devil or he didn't. Again, I ask if Christ is fully victorious, according to CV what is there to stop universalism?

...


If hell is still a future reality then doesn't that undermine his victory? (But only if you remove punishment out of the equation!)

It makes sense, under PSA, to say that the benefits of Christ's victory are only credited to those who believe in him, since it is a transactional model. It does not make sense under CV to make the same assertion. Why isn't Christ's work efficacious for all, and therefore hell empty and heaven full?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
I already answered this.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I already answered this.

Where? (At least give me a hint. [Biased] )

Whether or not I believe something happened or not makes no difference to the objective nature of the event. Without a transactional component I still cannot see how CV does not collapse into universalism.

And if that transactional component is not penal then I can't think of anything else that would fit the bill. The medical model, on its own, is not transactional. (I'm not disputing that the 'medical' model is useful or biblical, just whether it can stand as an umbrella model.)
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
The simple fact is that no proponent of CV has ever advocated universalism. That alone ought to be a pretty clear indicator that it does not lead to universalism. Theory meet reality.

On top of that your theory is a logical fallacy.
A medical model requires there to be a personal appropriation: each individual must go to the doctor to be healed. Medicine is always and only individual.

The legal model of PSA does not require there to be a personal appropriation: Christ pays the price to acquit all of humanity and thus there is no need for any personal appropriation. Everyone is acquitted, or if you prefer Calvinism's take, the elect are all automatically acquitted and the reprobate Christ did not die for anyway.

Your logic is backwards. PSA has a danger of leading to universalism, and historically in the past within some forms of Calvinism it has.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The simple fact is that no proponent of CV has ever advocated universalism.

[Confused] So Moltmann was anti-CV then?


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
That alone ought to be a pretty clear indicator that it does not lead to universalism. Theory meet reality.

That's because no one has used CV exclusively as an umbrella model before. As I keep saying, CV is a great model, it just needs the other biblical models alongside it.

No one really holds to one model exclusively. My point is that if CV is going to gain momentum as an umbrella model then we are heading towards universalism.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
On top of that your theory is a logical fallacy.
A medical model requires there to be a personal appropriation: each individual must go to the doctor to be healed. Medicine is always and only individual.

I think you are confusing a model with reality. We all know how going to a doctor works, the question is - how does this help to explain the cross? Where is the transactional element? How does 'going to Jesus' bring healing? Cue more hand-waving.

quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The legal model of PSA does not require there to be a personal appropriation: Christ pays the price to acquit all of humanity and thus there is no need for any personal appropriation. Everyone is acquitted, or if you prefer Calvinism's take, the elect are all automatically acquitted and the reprobate Christ did not die for anyway.

[Ultra confused] If your point holds at all then it must be true for CV as well. (Unless Christ's victory wasn't really for everyone.)

BTW There was a court ruling in America (back in the 19th century I think) that a pardon must be accepted in order to be valid. The man in question refused his pardon and was executed.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Your logic is backwards. PSA has a danger of leading to universalism, and historically in the past within some forms of Calvinism it has.

Remember this thread is about PSA, not about Calvinism. How you can make your opening point about CV not leading to universalism and then finish with this is beyond me. How many current proponents of PSA do you know who are universalists?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
That's because no one has used CV exclusively as an umbrella model before.

The early church almost without exception used CV as their sole model for the 1st 1000 years of church history. The entire Eastern Orthodox church still does. Neither were or are universalists.

quote:
If your point holds at all then it must be true for CV as well.
No that is illogical. If at all, it would only hold for a legal model.

quote:
How many current proponents of PSA do you know who are universalists?
1) it would be highly unwise to diregard 2000 years of history.
2) Many 5-point Calvinists today are. Thankfully most Calvinists have rejected the heresy of 5-point Calvinism.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
p.s. I think 1000 years of church history and the entire Orthodox church clearly trump Moltmann, but I would have to add that having read him extensively I find it highly suspect that he is a universalist. It would go against his whole line of thought. So I remain completely unconvinced that he is until you can quote me chapter and verse from him where he claims this. By your (il)logic you would conclude that I am a universalist, which I certainly am not.

[ 03. September 2007, 16:06: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The early church almost without exception used CV as their sole model for the 1st 1000 years of church history. The entire Eastern Orthodox church still does. Neither were or are universalists.

Is this a joke?

Following on from the influence of Gregory of Nyssa, Universalism has always found fertile soil on Eastern Orthdoxy.

Also it is Aulen's thesis that CV was the dominant model for the early church fathers. I think he has a case but very few would accept that it was their sole model, and of course that is entirely the point.

Indeed you give the game away somewhat when you talk about CV being dominant for the 1st 1000 years of the church. The ransom theory has antiquity but CV (as used today) dates all the way back to the 1930s. I'm not being a pedant, I'm just pointing out that there are huge assumptions being made in a statement like 'CV was the sole model for the first 1000 years'. Huge assumptions that are widely disputed.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
No that is illogical. If at all, it would only hold for a legal model.

If my position is illogical then it should be as easy for you to demonstrate that as to simply assert it.

Please notice that I never make statements like 'that is a contradiction, or that is illogical' without giving evidence for you to interact with. Otherwise the post is futile.


quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
How many current proponents of PSA do you know who are universalists?
Many 5-point Calvinists today are. Thankfully most Calvinists have rejected the heresy of 5-point Calvinism.
[Ultra confused] Not only have you not answered my question, but you have even taken the time to post my original question alongside your answer to a completely different question. Your fixation with Calvinists points towards a straw man syndrome.

Again I ask, and I'll even spread it out across history if you like - is universalism common among proponents of PSA?
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
You have my answer. I am not going to go around and around with you on this.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
... Moltmann, but I would have to add that having read him extensively I find it highly suspect that he is a universalist. It would go against his whole line of thought. So I remain completely unconvinced that he is until you can quote me chapter and verse from him where he claims this.

Well, I'll dig up all the quotes for you if you want, but you could just google 'Moltmann universalism' and the thousands of hits should give you enough to go on. [Biased]

I'm reluctant to 'tarnish' your great hero in your eyes because I think he is a great theologian. (Of course plenty of folk think he is great because of his views on universalism!) However, this stuff about his universalist views is not some whispering campaign. It is common currency in theological faculties across the globe. Hey, one of my tutors set us an essay on it over 10 years ago!
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally if Hell is empty, then why try to be holy?

I don't mean to be rude Jamat, but that question betrays that your sole motivation for seeking holiness is fear, specifically of Hell. You cannot see that holiness brings you closer to being the person God wants you to be. You cannot see that through holiness this world might be transformed. You cannot see that seeking holiness is trying to emulate Christ Jesus, our example and our king.

Peculiar that I hear these arguments against universalism from a sector of Christianity that tends to emphasise the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus. I've observed that when you love somebody, doing things that please them and avoiding things that piss them off goes with the territory.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Universalist but I hope and pray Hell will be empty. Yes, there is a difference.
 
Posted by sharktacos (# 12807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:

Disclaimer: I'm not a Universalist but I hope and pray Hell will be empty. Yes, there is a difference.

Hey Grey, I hope it is empty too.

I was really disturbed by the idea of Hell and told God that I could not have joy in heaven if I knew that those I loved where in Hell. God showed me that this was the reason that he left heaven himself, and came among the lost, condemned, and broken giving his life. Why he was willing to take any pain and pay any price just to save one of us.

I think the central question with universalism is whether we think
A) there is no problem, and are passive
B) there is a problem but have faith that God can overcome it

I would agree with "B" and say that because of this hope and trust in God's ability to overcome the evil in us and our world, I am driven to share the Gospel not out of fear of God, but motivated by God's compassion for the real hurts and lostness in people. I think that was Christ's motivation as well, just as it was his desire that ALL people wold come to him.

I don't see that as a guarantee, but as a hope based on trusting in the power of love over the power of evil.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:

Disclaimer: I'm not a Universalist but I hope and pray Hell will be empty. Yes, there is a difference.

Hey Grey, I hope it is empty too.

I was really disturbed by the idea of Hell and told God that I could not have joy in heaven if I knew that those I loved where in Hell. God showed me that this was the reason that he left heaven himself, and came among the lost, condemned, and broken giving his life. Why he was willing to take any pain and pay any price just to save one of us.

I think the central question with universalism is whether we think
A) there is no problem, and are passive
B) there is a problem but have faith that God can overcome it

I would agree with "B" and say that because of this hope and trust in God's ability to overcome the evil in us and our world, I am driven to share the Gospel not out of fear of God, but motivated by God's compassion for the real hurts and lostness in people. I think that was Christ's motivation as well, just as it was his desire that ALL people wold come to him.

I don't see that as a guarantee, but as a hope based on trusting in the power of love over the power of evil.

I guess that my take on this is pretty similar to yours, Sharktacos, but I would venture to call myself a "weak" (ie empty hell) universalist. I think that there are bits of the bible that seem to me to support universalism and the ultimate triumph of God (Paul's writings, in particular, seem to be replete with universalist references) and other bits that seem to speak differently. I think we must treat both voices with appropriate respect. However, given that as the case, I think that the case in reason that, at the end, God will be able to acheive His aim as stated by Peter (who, otherwise, seems to be an annihilationist), is pretty strong. How could God be truely said to be triumphant, if he is not capable of rescuing, even against their own will, those who are forever perishing in hell. As (I think) Karl pointed out, if most, or even some of those for whom Jesus died end up in hell, however we conceive it, then the cross looks more like ignominious defeat than glorious victory.

Of course, there are other models of ultimate judgement. The Orthodox take on things (pretty much Freddy's position, IIRC) that we continue into eternity pretty much with the character and values which we have grown into in this life, and that hell, rather than a place of punishment, is merely the experience of heaven for those who have rejected God's way in this life, springs to mind.

So the position I hold is pretty much in line with that which Greyface and Sharktacos have outlined, and separated only from them by the degree of expectation that we place on ultimate reconciliation, ISTM. I do believe that, in the end, all will be saved, but it is a belief I hold from heart conviction rather than due to the overwhelming weight of scriptural evidence one way or the other, and thus it is a view I hold tentatively.

As to where CV sits within this framework, I think that both CV and PSA are compatible either with a universalist or a non-universalist approach. Universalists will be able to draw comfort from the victory motifs in both models, whilst non-universalists will as much see the need to "take the medicine", to join themselves to Christ in order to partake of the fruits of His victory under CV, as will PSAers see the necessity of accepting the penal substitution of Christ for them. In fact, both models are, in a sense, transactional, but in different ways. As Sharktacos has developed at some length, PSA is essentially a legal model, so the transaction is more easily discertnable, but CV also has more subtle transactional elements, whereby the ontolgical state of being slaves to the forces of decay, of spiritual entropy, which bind us to this fallen, mortal existance, is exchanged for that of being "in Christ" (and therefore being freed from the law of sin and death). Sort of like "new lives for old". I really dont see that belief or otherwise in universalism is per se tied to a CV understanding.

The wicked part of me just wants to add the rider "other than that Paul seemed to believe in both"! [Two face] )
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I really dont see that belief or otherwise in universalism is per se tied to a CV understanding.

That's how I see it too. You could easily say that Christ's victory implies evil being completely destroyed and the resulting universal salvation.

But since the Bible depicts this victory as having taken place in the past, and since evil has obviously not been completely destroyed since it continues to do its work, this can't be the correct inference.

Instead I think that Christ's victory means that people are free to do as they choose - good or evil. Hopefully this means that humanity as a whole will eventually choose good over evil, as the Bible seems to predict.

This can be seen as a kind of universalism, but it is the prediction that peace will eventually come to the world and that everyone will love God. It is not a prediction that the hells will be emptied.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[I guess that my take on this is pretty similar to yours, Sharktacos, but I would venture to call myself a "weak" (ie empty hell) universalist.

Thanks JJ, that's helpful.

My point about Moltmann etc. is that I think CV leads towards this form of 'weak' universalism. Maybe that's where some confusion has arisen. I don't think that CVers are universalists, but I do think (and I know you disagree) that it leads to an empty hell. As Moltmann put it hell itself is conquered by Christ.

Now I want to make it clear that universalism appeals strongly to me, and that I too hope and long for an empty hell. However, what I long for is not always reality ... and so the questions and debate must continue! [Biased]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally if Hell is empty, then why try to be holy?

I don't mean to be rude Jamat, but that question betrays that your sole motivation for seeking holiness is fear, specifically of Hell. You cannot see that holiness brings you closer to being the person God wants you to be. You cannot see that through holiness this world might be transformed. You cannot see that seeking holiness is trying to emulate Christ Jesus, our example and our king.

Peculiar that I hear these arguments against universalism from a sector of Christianity that tends to emphasise the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus. I've observed that when you love somebody, doing things that please them and avoiding things that piss them off goes with the territory.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Universalist but I hope and pray Hell will be empty. Yes, there is a difference.

You're right. I'm told in Proverbs that 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom'.

The issue for me is really quite dualistic when it comes to holiness. I seem to have a Ro 7 instinct that I like the idea of holiness but I'm continually seduced by the flesh, et al, towards wanting to sin even if I don't actually do it. What often stops me in the end is the injunction "The wages of sin is death" and as stated in Hebrews, "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

There is also the idea that sin brings its own kind of punishment in terms of consequence. If I speed I'll get a fine (rady rah).

Perhaps it is a red herring but just like I don't jump off cliffs for fear of breaking a leg, I have over the years got quite tired of the torment of guilt which is best avoided, I'm sure you'd agree, simply by doing right.

Unfortunately, I'm convinced Hell is quite full and probably a significant number of its denizens thought it was empty till they ended up there.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Unfortunately, I'm convinced Hell is quite full and probably a significant number of its denizens thought it was empty till they ended up there.

I think so too. The indicator, I think, is the number of people in the world who are unhappy. Not the ones who are miserable because they are oppressed by others, but the ones who are unhappy because of their own choices.

Christus Victor, I think, deals with this unhappiness by leading the way to overcoming it in the long term. It doesn't do this by forgiving the sins, but by changing the choices.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
quote:
Unfortunately, I'm convinced Hell is quite full and probably a significant number of its denizens thought it was empty till they ended up there.
Do you ever worry you might be in their number? If not, is that because, as you sort of imply, you don't sin?

This isn't meant agressively, and if you think it's too personal, don't reply. I won't mind. But having tried to help somebody who was caught in the conviction that hell was the only place they were going, I could find no way of convincing them.

The logic was perfect: If any man sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice etc etc ad infernam. This person had sinned after conversion and did it deliberately. Ergo - well work it out for yourself.

I don't see any way out other than by believing that you actually aren't sinning deliberately, which must land in some sort of unreality - unless it is actually true. After all both Wesley and Finney believed that faith was incompatible with any sin, and than any who do sin are bound for hell until they get back on track.

Which is one reason why I don't believe in Hell.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
Unfortunately, I'm convinced Hell is quite full and probably a significant number of its denizens thought it was empty till they ended up there.
Do you ever worry you might be in their number? If not, is that because, as you sort of imply, you don't sin?

This isn't meant agressively, and if you think it's too personal, don't reply. I won't mind. But having tried to help somebody who was caught in the conviction that hell was the only place they were going, I could find no way of convincing them.

The logic was perfect: If any man sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice etc etc ad infernam. This person had sinned after conversion and did it deliberately. Ergo - well work it out for yourself.

I don't see any way out other than by believing that you actually aren't sinning deliberately, which must land in some sort of unreality - unless it is actually true. After all both Wesley and Finney believed that faith was incompatible with any sin, and than any who do sin are bound for hell until they get back on track.

Which is one reason why I don't believe in Hell.

My arrogance doesn't extend to the assumption of perfect holiness, that is only an aspiration.

You might refer your friend to 1 Jn 5:16 which seems to leave a loophole for those of us who aren't perfect "There is a sin not leading to death.."

More seriously, think of your life with God as a train on a track. How hard is it to derail? Pretty hard!.. Anyone with a heart to follow the Lord, I'm convinced, God will rescue. Had your friend actually made shipwreck of their faith, they probably wouldn't care enough to give it second thought!

[ 06. September 2007, 03:48: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Unfortunately, I'm convinced Hell is quite full and probably a significant number of its denizens thought it was empty till they ended up there.

Oh, you may well be right.

I just wanted to point out that a hope or even a strong belief that Hell will ultimately be empty doesn't leave you without motivation to seek God and that other motivations are almost certainly higher - without criticising the desire to avoid Hell which is after all a good and valid reason to turn to Christ for help. I need the stick as well as the carrot too but that doesn't mean everybody does.

In fact, I speculate that the fear of Hell as a possibility might be the means by which God begins to bring to fruition the rescue of those who see the danger, without obliterating their free will. It's like a school trip involving a walk along a cliff top. The teacher warns the kids to stay away from the edge. If the trip concludes without incident, that doesn't mean the cliff wasn't there or the danger wasn't real.

Something else occurs to me. A sort of interim motivation I haven't mentioned yet involves the purgatorial question - given that we humans seem to grow and change (be changed) through our actions and choices and experiences in time, will the completion of our transformations from sinners into heavenly creatures not require some sort of process that might be as painful and difficult as change can be in this world? A universalist might believe that all will eventually end up in heaven but find the prospect of a billion years of purgatorial preparation a good kick up the backside.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Something else occurs to me. A sort of interim motivation I haven't mentioned yet involves the purgatorial question - given that we humans seem to grow and change (be changed) through our actions and choices and experiences in time, will the completion of our transformations from sinners into heavenly creatures not require some sort of process that might be as painful and difficult as change can be in this world?

Great thought, Greyface.

When considering this idea I think that it is important to keep in mind the role played by the differences between the spiritual and natural worlds.

That is, if you believe that there is a spiritual world that people pass into after death - which I think that your idea assumes.

The main relevant difference, I think, is that there is no time or space in the spiritual realm. This means that if we humans seem to grow and change (be changed) through our actions and choices and experiences in time, the process will be different, since time is lacking in that world. I think that we also know that change has an organic component as well, since thoughts and actions form or modify our chemistry and physiology. But if the body is spiritual, does it work the same way?

I think that these considerations mean that change may be harder in the next life.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:

In fact, I speculate that the fear of Hell as a possibility might be the means by which God begins to bring to fruition the rescue of those who see the danger, without obliterating their free will.

Dr. Michael Watts gave a really interesting lecture on that subject in 1995 as part of the Dr. Williams' Library series, he entitled his lecture "Why did the English stop going to church?"

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Something else occurs to me. A sort of interim motivation I haven't mentioned yet involves the purgatorial question - given that we humans seem to grow and change (be changed) through our actions and choices and experiences in time, will the completion of our transformations from sinners into heavenly creatures not require some sort of process that might be as painful and difficult as change can be in this world? A universalist might believe that all will eventually end up in heaven but find the prospect of a billion years of purgatorial preparation a good kick up the backside.

I thought at first that you were talking about purgatorial questions (appropriately since we are in purgatory) and then I realised you were talking about the purgatory question.

It had crossed my mind earlier to bring it up about universalism but thought it might complicate things even further.

I appreciate that it is difficult to draw too much 'description' from a parable, but how do you read The Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16? Isn't the point that there is a great chasm fixed preventing this kind of 'painful process'?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I appreciate that it is difficult to draw too much 'description' from a parable, but how do you read The Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16? Isn't the point that there is a great chasm fixed preventing this kind of 'painful process'?

I agree. That was my point above.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:

In fact, I speculate that the fear of Hell as a possibility might be the means by which God begins to bring to fruition the rescue of those who see the danger, without obliterating their free will.

Dr. Michael Watts gave a really interesting lecture on that subject in 1995 as part of the Dr. Williams' Library series, he entitled his lecture "Why did the English stop going to church?"

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Something else occurs to me. A sort of interim motivation I haven't mentioned yet involves the purgatorial question - given that we humans seem to grow and change (be changed) through our actions and choices and experiences in time, will the completion of our transformations from sinners into heavenly creatures not require some sort of process that might be as painful and difficult as change can be in this world? A universalist might believe that all will eventually end up in heaven but find the prospect of a billion years of purgatorial preparation a good kick up the backside.

I thought at first that you were talking about purgatorial questions (appropriately since we are in purgatory) and then I realised you were talking about the purgatory question.

It had crossed my mind earlier to bring it up about universalism but thought it might complicate things even further.

I appreciate that it is difficult to draw too much 'description' from a parable, but how do you read The Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16? Isn't the point that there is a great chasm fixed preventing this kind of 'painful process'?

Actually, ISTM that the language which Jesus uses is chosen specifically to guard against this parable being used to teach in detail about the afterlife per se. Unusually (uniquely) for the parables, the participants are named, suggesting that what Jesus was actually doing was re-interpreting a story with which the hearers would already have been familiar. Furthermore, If Jesus was talking about heaven as He understood it, then why the "Abraham's Bosom" terminology? And, of course, the parable is actually about countering the view that riches and/or membership of the family of Abraham are a guaranteed sign of God's favour, and the afterlife aspects of it are merely incidental.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Actually, ISTM that the language which Jesus uses is chosen specifically to guard against this parable being used to teach in detail about the afterlife per se.

Yes, the parable is rich in improbable detail - Lazarus in Abraham's bosom, the rich man seeing him, being thirsty, calling out to him and being heard, there being a physical gulf between them.

But if its general message is not consistent with Jesus' knowledge of the afterlife it makes no sense. The point is that riches are of no use in the afterlife, that the poor may be comforted there while the rich suffer, and that it is too late if you wait until you die.

If any of these are untrue then the parable is meaningless. So I think that Johnny's point is valid.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I can for example reject PSA and still embrace all of your 4 spiritual laws:
1. God loves me
2. I'm separated from this love by my sin.
3. Christ died to redeem me so I don't have to be judged though I deserve it
4. I have to accept this by faith.

I would guess that we would agree on what the Gospel is, even though we disagree on the atonement. Let's not confuse the two. [/QB]

Well rule three infers that Christ was judged in my place ie that he was a 'penal substitute'.

Regarding what the Gospel is, I would say that the real good thing about the good news is that I have escaped the righteous judgement of God on my sinfulness because he has redeemed me out of same. I said to JJ a mile or two back that if Christ did not bear our sins then we still do. Now that would be BAD news unless we can find a loophole that centres forgiveness around something other than the blood of Christ. The OT maxim of a life for a life becomes a NT maxim when Christ's IS that life.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Well rule three infers that Christ was judged in my place ie that he was a 'penal substitute'.
I think you mean "implies", not "infers". Inferring is what the reader does. But I disagree; it only implies that if you think that "redemption" requires judgement and punishment. Consequently, although infer PSA from redemption, I think you do so wrongly. I think, in fact, that you're begging the question.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think, in fact, that you're begging the question.

This time I agree.

In fact so much of this debate comes down to presuppositions (doesn't it always!?). On both sides we are quick to read into ambigiuous phrases what we expect to see there.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Well rule three infers that Christ was judged in my place ie that he was a 'penal substitute'.
I think you mean "implies", not "infers". Inferring is what the reader does. But I disagree; it only implies that if you think that "redemption" requires judgement and punishment. Consequently, although infer PSA from redemption, I think you do so wrongly. I think, in fact, that you're begging the question.
Well we are all entitled to our prejudices Karl. Far be it from me to gainsay yours. However, I remain convinced that Christ needed to be judged for my sin since deep in God's nature there is an integrity that we call 'holiness' which cannot be compromised without him ceasing to be God.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
And I'm convinced that there is something called unconditional love and forgiveness deep within God without which He is not God.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And I'm convinced that there is something called unconditional love and forgiveness deep within God without which He is not God.

Without coming up with some kind of oxymoron (i.e. putting conditions on unconditional love), I'm not sure that Jamat's assertion has to contradict unconditional love and forgiveness...

God's love and forgiveness can be unconditionally offered to us and yet his holiness can create a problem for him (as it were) that he too solves through Christ.

I'm not sure that PSA has to be set against God's unconditional love.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
It does if you're going to assert that God is bound, forced, against His will, to punish people when He wants to forgive, so that He has to create the PSA legal fiction to resolve the conflict. I struggle with the concept of a God who is forced to act in a way contrary to His own will. If God's desire is to forgive, then He can just do that if He wants to. He's God. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone has a problem with that.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If God's desire is to forgive, then He can just do that if He wants to. He's God. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone has a problem with that.

Let me put it this way - saying he can do that 'because he's God' doesn't necessarily say anything about how he does it.

For example, if one of my children broke next door's back window I would forgive them. However, forgiving them would probably cost me the replacement of the window.

Now I realise that the above analogy could equally fit CV but my point is just that PSA is not necessarily incompatible with God's unconditional love.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It does if you're going to assert that God is bound, forced, against His will, to punish people when He wants to forgive, so that He has to create the PSA legal fiction to resolve the conflict. I struggle with the concept of a God who is forced to act in a way contrary to His own will. If God's desire is to forgive, then He can just do that if He wants to. He's God. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone has a problem with that.

If he did that he would be excusing evil (sin) and thereby contradict his own nature or integrity.

I can forgive, because I am enjoined to, but only because of a work done in me on the basis of forgiveness recieved. All devolves from the basis on which I am forgiven which is Christ's substitution for me as an object of judgement.

Incidentally, I don't understand it either, I only believe it.

[ 19. September 2007, 03:30: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
I can forgive, because I am enjoined to, but only because of a work done in me on the basis of forgiveness recieved.
Really? Are you incapable of forgiving purely out of your forbearance? I know I can.

And why does forgiving compromise His integrity? I would suggest that being a rigid disciplinarian who MUST punish would compromise His integrity as the epitome of love.

[ 19. September 2007, 08:41: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
God will punish because he has promised justice. You will say that, when it comes to God, true 'justice' and unconditional forgiveness are synonymous: I don't think they are. A conception of unconditional forgiveness that equates it with sweeping sin under the rug of the universe is false in my view.

In my opinion the unconditionality of God's forgiveness rests on the fact that we cannot create conditions in ourselves that induce God to forgive us. If we are forgiven it is categorically not because we have met a create a condition through our own effort whereby God must forgive us.

It does not, however, mean that the unconditionality of God's forgiveness binds him to forgive us. No. God reserves the right to forgive unconditionally (not on the basis of us deserving forgivness) and to punish righteously (on the basis that we deserve to die).
 
Posted by Liverpool fan (# 11424) on :
 
Excuse me for asking, I imagine the answer is in this thread somewhere, but what does CV stand for?
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
]If he did that he would be excusing evil (sin)

Excusing and forgiving are mutually exclusive.

Excusing is saying that it was not the offender's fault. Somebody else made them do it. They couldn't help it. It was an accident, and so on. If an action is excused, there is nothing to forgive.

Forgiving is choosing not to apply the punishment that the offence deserves according to simple justice. You can argue about whether repentance must come before forgiveness is possible but either way it seems certain to me that acknowledgement that there is something to forgive is a necessary component of forgiveness. Ideally it is then a first step to reconciliation, the restoration of the damaged relationship.

So, I have to conclude that it is impossible to excuse something by forgiving. It's a logical contradiction, quite literally nonsense.

So what about the idea of mercy and justice meeting in Christ and specifically his crucifixion and resurrection? I theorise that mercy and justice don't actually present a dilemma that needs solving but they're two separate aspects of God's intent. Mercy is dealt with by forgiveness, justice is about God's implacable hatred of sin - of sin, not of the sinners he loves - and so the events of Good Friday and Easter Day are about the defeat of sin and death satisfying the demands of justice. Divine justice is not that sinners must be punished but that sin must lose, must ultimately be destroyed.

I'm not allergic to the language of substitution, even penal substitution here in that I think it's fair to describe this as Christ suffering in our place, bearing the cost of the sin for which we deserve punishment. But I think you have to be very careful not to fall into the trap of thinking this means God could not forgive us without punishing somebody else, and that if not for Christ's suffering he would have taken it out on us. He forgives freely, he restores creation to righteousness freely. It's all grace, it's not about getting Himself out of a bind caused by contradictory aspects of his nature.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
what does CV stand for?

Christus Victor, an Atonement viewpoint that says on the Cross and in his Resurrection Christ battled and defeated the powers of sin and death (and the devil in some expressions).
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
]If he did that he would be excusing evil (sin)

Excusing and forgiving are mutually exclusive.

Excusing is saying that it was not the offender's fault. Somebody else made them do it. They couldn't help it. It was an accident, and so on. If an action is excused, there is nothing to forgive.

Forgiving is choosing not to apply the punishment that the offence deserves according to simple justice. You can argue about whether repentance must come before forgiveness is possible but either way it seems certain to me that acknowledgement that there is something to forgive is a necessary component of forgiveness. Ideally it is then a first step to reconciliation, the restoration of the damaged relationship.

So, I have to conclude that it is impossible to excuse something by forgiving. It's a logical contradiction, quite literally nonsense.

So what about the idea of mercy and justice meeting in Christ and specifically his crucifixion and resurrection? I theorise that mercy and justice don't actually present a dilemma that needs solving but they're two separate aspects of God's intent. Mercy is dealt with by forgiveness, justice is about God's implacable hatred of sin - of sin, not of the sinners he loves - and so the events of Good Friday and Easter Day are about the defeat of sin and death satisfying the demands of justice. Divine justice is not that sinners must be punished but that sin must lose, must ultimately be destroyed.

I'm not allergic to the language of substitution, even penal substitution here in that I think it's fair to describe this as Christ suffering in our place, bearing the cost of the sin for which we deserve punishment. But I think you have to be very careful not to fall into the trap of thinking this means God could not forgive us without punishing somebody else, and that if not for Christ's suffering he would have taken it out on us. He forgives freely, he restores creation to righteousness freely. It's all grace, it's not about getting Himself out of a bind caused by contradictory aspects of his nature.

[Overused] [Overused]
 
Posted by Liverpool fan (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
what does CV stand for?

Christus Victor, an Atonement viewpoint that says on the Cross and in his Resurrection Christ battled and defeated the powers of sin and death (and the devil in some expressions).
Cheers.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:


So what about the idea of mercy and justice meeting in Christ and specifically his crucifixion and resurrection? I theorise that mercy and justice don't actually present a dilemma that needs solving but they're two separate aspects of God's intent. Mercy is dealt with by forgiveness, justice is about God's implacable hatred of sin - of sin, not of the sinners he loves - and so the events of Good Friday and Easter Day are about the defeat of sin and death satisfying the demands of justice. Divine justice is not that sinners must be punished but that sin must lose, must ultimately be destroyed.

Isn't this the key issue though?

I know evos often use nice sounding platitudes of 'loving the sinner and hating the sin' but surely this is reductionism of the grossest kind?

For the purpose of discussion I can talk about 'sin' as alien to humanity - it is certainly not what God created us for. However, it is impossible to follow this through all the way. Sin is not completely alien to me, it is a part of me. If I choose, as an action of my will, to rebel against God, then it is rather misleading to say that God loves the chooser but hates the choice. I can agree with that last statement but not with what it implies - sin is a part of me and in some sense if God hates sin then my sin must spoil his love for me.

I think we use the word 'love' in different ways at different times in this debate.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Johnny - there's some taking apart I'd like to do of part of that.

quote:
Sin is not completely alien to me, it is a part of me.
Yes. And no. (Go not to the elves for counsel...)

It is part of you as you are. It is not part of you as you could be.

quote:
If I choose, as an action of my will, to rebel against God
That's rather hypothetical. I don't know anyone who's ever done that. Certainly I haven't.

quote:
I can agree with that last statement but not with what it implies - sin is a part of me and in some sense if God hates sin then my sin must spoil his love for me.
No, no and thrice no. God's love for you makes Him want to perfect you. I can see what you're getting at, but as someone said "Love is patient, love is kind...it keeps no record of wrongs". I think focus on God's attitude to our sins in this way is unhelpful; God's hatred of sin comes because of His great love for us. If He didn't care much about us, then would sin matter much to Him? My son sometimes does things which I wish he wouldn't, but I care far more about it because of my love for him; certainly in no way does it spoil that love; if it did, I would put it down to my human imperfection, not my imago Dei.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I know evos often use nice sounding platitudes of 'loving the sinner and hating the sin' but surely this is reductionism of the grossest kind?

I hate to go all proof-texty on you, but... Romans 5:8 for starters.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Just to expand on that last bit Johnny, I don't know if you have kids or not but I have to say I don't love my kids any less when they misbehave. Even if the matter is serious. Even if it's life-threatening.

Ultimately I suppose it comes down to whether you think God's more like our Father (now who told us to refer to him that way?) or our Policeman.

[ 19. September 2007, 14:33: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I repeat what I said at the end of my last post - I think we are using the word 'love' in different ways at different times.

No one is disputing that God carries on loving us despite our sin (a la Romans 5: 8) but, as I tried to say last time, that love is complex.

So, for example, a parent can 'just forgive' their child but they will also discipline them. As a father I know that my children's disobedience never stops me loving them but it does harm the relationship between us.

Following through your analogy, human parents should always 'just forgive' and never discipline them ... surely you are not advocating that?

To describe sin as completely alien to us is, in effect, to absolve us of responsibility... Karl you must have reached a level of sanctification way beyond me, I have known occasions when I knew what was the right thing to do and selfishly choose not to do it.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Johnny -
quote:
So, for example, a parent can 'just forgive' their child but they will also discipline them. As a father I know that my children's disobedience never stops me loving them but it does harm the relationship between us.
But this discipline is not done because there is some kind of moral imperative to punish - it is done because it will benefit the child. When we're talking about punishments of death - whether it be physical or spiritual, then there is no question that this benefit will occur. It won't. It's purely punishment. Certainly as a parent I don't subscribe to punishment for its own sake, simply because some abstract concept of justice "demands" it.

quote:
Following through your analogy, human parents should always 'just forgive' and never discipline them ... surely you are not advocating that?
No, but again the same point applies. I do not advocate that because it would be bad for the child to never have their behaviour checked.

quote:
To describe sin as completely alien to us is, in effect, to absolve us of responsibility
Not at all. It actually makes us more culpable. If sin is alien to us then we have less excuse for it. If it really is part of us then it's hardly our fault when we act according to type. Saying sin is alien to us means that we have to turn towards what we could be, and strive for it.

quote:
Karl you must have reached a level of sanctification way beyond me, I have known occasions when I knew what was the right thing to do and selfishly choose not to do it.
Me too. I don't, however, equate that with rebellion against God.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
No one is disputing that God carries on loving us despite our sin (a la Romans 5: 8) but, as I tried to say last time, that love is complex.

Perhaps I'm being a bit thick but I'm not sure how you can say "love the sin and hate the sinner" is platitudinous reductionism without disputing it.

quote:
So, for example, a parent can 'just forgive' their child but they will also discipline them.
But this is a completely different matter. The purpose of discipline here is to teach, not to satisfy the demands of a justice that cannot give way to forgiveness. I've never heard PSA presented as Christ suffering the corrective discipline we need to become less sinful.

quote:
As a father I know that my children's disobedience never stops me loving them but it does harm the relationship between us.
Quite so. So you agree with me then? Your children's disobedience never stops you loving them. Case dismissed.

quote:
Following through your analogy, human parents should always 'just forgive' and never discipline them ... surely you are not advocating that?
You've mixed disciplinary punishment intended to bring about repentance in with criminal justice. Frankly this has zero application to the arguments presented in favour of PSA, namely that sin must be punished because justice demands it, or as you seemed to be saying above because God hates sinners.

In an earlier post, I said we could have a debate about whether or not repentance must come before forgiveness - perhaps that's where this comes into it. I suspect that forgiveness is a prerequisite of being able to impose a fair disciplinary punsishment as opposed to a vengeful one but that's maybe something for another thread. The point is, if you're going to use disciplinary punishment to support the premise of PSA that God must punish sin according to his just nature, you've completely undermined the argument.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Perhaps I'm being a bit thick but I'm not sure how you can say "love the sin and hate the sinner" is platitudinous reductionism without disputing it.

Isn't the clue in the word 'reductionism'?

My point was that it is oversimplifying matters.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
But this is a completely different matter. The purpose of discipline here is to teach, not to satisfy the demands of a justice that cannot give way to forgiveness. I've never heard PSA presented as Christ suffering the corrective discipline we need to become less sinful.

Woah there, slow down! Who said anything about the cross being a form of corrective suffering? You are jumping ahead.

You used parenthood as an example of love and 'just forgiving'. My point is that parents do not 'just forgive' ... there is more involved. In our discussion about love that, for the moment, was my only point. It is not true to say that ideal relationships 'just forgive'. There is more involved.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
So you agree with me then? Your children's disobedience never stops you loving them. Case dismissed.

[Confused] Back to reductionism again. I carry on loving them, but it is far more complex than 'just forgiving' them.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I suspect that forgiveness is a prerequisite of being able to impose a fair disciplinary punsishment as opposed to a vengeful one but that's maybe something for another thread. The point is, if you're going to use disciplinary punishment to support the premise of PSA that God must punish sin according to his just nature, you've completely undermined the argument.

Since you are jumping ahead to PSA then yes, perhaps this might be relevant.

However, as I say above, I was distinguishing two issues here:

1. Disciplinary punishment demonstrates that we do not 'just forgive' those we love.

2. Divine justice - does it require some kind of retributive justice?

My comments about children were to do with the first point, not the second. On the second I'm not sure that discipline is only about teaching and not about 'justice'. One question that keeps me awake at night is this - is it possible to have an objective morality that is not enforced?

I was passing your metaphor back to you. If we accept your definition of God's love then how does he discipline us (in a corrective sense)?
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... 2. Divine justice - does it require some kind of retributive justice?

I find the idea of the all-powerful Creator being the sort who feels the need to get revenge on a puny, completely-powerless-by-comparison human being quite disturbing. So I'd say no. But I would say that, wouldn't I? [Biased] God doesn't need retribution, God wants reconciliation. No more eye for an eye, it's turn the other cheek time.
quote:
... On the second I'm not sure that discipline is only about teaching and not about 'justice'. ... If we accept your definition of God's love then how does he discipline us (in a corrective sense)?
Metaphorically, I don't think God does "discipline" (otherwise we'd have a TV show called "Spanked by an Angel" [Snigger] ). Jesus is God teaching and leading by example. I think we're expected to learn to discipline ourselves. OliviaG
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Metaphorically, I don't think God does "discipline" (otherwise we'd have a TV show called "Spanked by an Angel" [Snigger] ). Jesus is God teaching and leading by example. I think we're expected to learn to discipline ourselves. OliviaG

But that's my point.

This recent discussion arose over what it means for God to 'love' the sinner.

According to the definition that Karl and GreyFace gave then God is less loving than human parents if he 'only' forgives and does not discipline.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
According to the definition that Karl and GreyFace gave then God is less loving than human parents if he 'only' forgives and does not discipline.

If we're going to use human parenting as an analogy in our discussion, then let's not ignore the fact that there comes a time when parents can no longer actually control their children's behaviour and decisions. That would be the part of the analogy representing free will. Now, I'm going to make a grotesque generalization based on very little data: IME, children who have all their discipline imposed by their parents don't always have the ability to discipline themselves when they grow up. Yes, it is loving to discipline your children, but surely it is done in the hope that they will also learn to discipline themselves.

So, it's not all or nothing by any means, but if I had to generalize, I would say that giving someone the ability (as well as the freedom) to make their own good choices is more loving - and probably more effective pedagogy - than punishing them for making wrong choices.

By the way, I sincerely hope you (plural) don't mind me dropping into the discussion occasionally. (I really have been reading everything!) Cheers, OliviaG
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
If we're going to use human parenting as an analogy in our discussion, then let's not ignore the fact that there comes a time when parents can no longer actually control their children's behaviour and decisions. That would be the part of the analogy representing free will.

Yes, but even then their freedom is limited by societal authority - e.g. the legal system. However you put it, it is impossible to escape the fact that the loving action is never just to forgive, but always to forgive plus take some kind of remedial step... even if such a step was merely to tell them that what they did was wrong, or try to restrain them from doing it again.

When Jesus told his disciples to turn the other cheek I don't think he meant that God turns the other cheek in the same way as we do. Otherwise it would be possible for evil to defeat God. I can turn the other cheek because I know that (eventually) God will bring all evil to an end. Without such an end point the ethic becomes meaningless.

Imagine an island with 10 people on it. Mr. Black is angry with Mr. White. Mr. White 'turns the other cheek' and is killed by Mr. Black. This scenario continues until Mr. Black is the only one left on the island. Now what? I can live with such a situation because I believe in the resurrection of the dead and final judgment. God will one day put an end to Mr. Black's killing.

This 'God just forgives' business only works if we remove human freewill. Otherwise we are left with the problem of people who don't want to be forgiven, who want to oppose God forever.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
When Jesus told his disciples to turn the other cheek I don't think he meant that God turns the other cheek in the same way as we do. Otherwise it would be possible for evil to defeat God.

As Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating." God turning the other cheek and being defeated by evil is how I personally interpret the Crucifixion. Jesus submitted to it all without resisting and died. And guess what? Evil didn't win. There was a Resurrection, and God pops right back up again, better than ever, and challenges us to do the same, not literally, but spiritually.

But that's probably quite enough of my dodgy, idiosyncratic theology for now. Cheers, OliviaG
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I know I keep banging on about it but I think it all comes back to universalism. I still haven't had a clear answer as to why CV does not eventually collapse into universalism. (I think that is what happens if you remove PSA from the model.)

It took me a while but, as promised, I asked a friend about Moltmann. She is doing a PhD on him and her comments were very interesting:

quote:

"The key things about Moltmann are that 1) the Father creates by withdrawing into himself and making a space (zimzum), which is essentially 'hell' as it is a place where God is not. 2) Into that space he creates the world. Into that space he sends Christ to be the true man, the exempler of humanity and by his Spirit he will ultimately indwell that space so that all that God has created will be taken up into the very life of God. 3) In a nutshell, it is panentheism, and it is unmistakably universalism as God cannot forsake anything that he has created."

Not only did she confirm my theory about Moltmann ending up in universalist territory but she also put me onto the link with panentheism. This makes sense to me since it also explains the CV connection with Eastern Orthodox thought. (She says that his best work is The Trinity and the Kingdom of God)

Now this thread is about CV and not about universalism, so...

I just think that some want to have their cake and eat it. They want to reject a penal understanding of God but hold onto some sense of divine judgment.

I want to make it clear, again, that this is not out of some sadistic enjoyment of punishment. I long for hell to be empty too.

My logic is as follows:

- Jesus himself describes hell as being populated
- Therefore I can't go for universalism
- Therefore I can't accept any atonement model that collapses into universalism.


... so, if any of you can convince me that CV need not be universalistic then I'd be much obliged. [Smile]
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
According to the definition that Karl and GreyFace gave then God is less loving than human parents if he 'only' forgives and does not discipline.

That's not strictly fair according to what I was arguing. I did say that I suspect applying punishment of some sort as a means of teaching rather than retribution requires forgiveness in advance. If you have not forgiven someone, your purpose in punishing them is certainly vengeance, and if you have then your teaching punishment has nothing to do with justice in the sense of paying for your crimes - though I think it has a great deal to do with restoring things to the way they should be, what I take divine justice to be.

But as I said, this is not applicable to Christus Victor versus Penal Substitutionary Atonement. PSA requires the punishment to be vengeful, not instructive.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
- Jesus himself describes hell as being populated

Where?

quote:
... so, if any of you can convince me that CV need not be universalistic then I'd be much obliged.
Okay, I'll have a go. I'm pretty sure I've done this already fairly recently though.

PSA and CV have exactly the same problem when it comes to universalism. Neither answers the question. There is no reason under PSA why Christ's substitutionary atoning death need not suffice for all people, because the mechanism proposed for God's forgiveness - that justice is satisfied by Christ's suffering and death in our place - relies only on Christ's action and not on our state of repentance or our actions.

If you want to add the possibility of universalism being wrong you need an additional doctrine that explains why Christ's atoning action is effective only for some, and if you can do that for PSA you can certainly do it for CV. It might be free will. It might be God's arbitrary choice. Take your pick. But don't think that PSA answers the question - it doesn't.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
God will one day put an end to Mr. Black's killing.

Since I've got the double post I might as well go for the triple...

Matt, don't panic [Biased]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

It took me a while but, as promised, I asked a friend about Moltmann. She is doing a PhD on him and her comments were very interesting:

quote:

"The key things about Moltmann are that 1) the Father creates by withdrawing into himself and making a space (zimzum), which is essentially 'hell' as it is a place where God is not. 2) Into that space he creates the world. Into that space he sends Christ to be the true man, the exempler of humanity and by his Spirit he will ultimately indwell that space so that all that God has created will be taken up into the very life of God. 3) In a nutshell, it is panentheism, and it is unmistakably universalism as God cannot forsake anything that he has created."

Not only did she confirm my theory about Moltmann ending up in universalist territory but she also put me onto the link with panentheism. This makes sense to me since it also explains the CV connection with Eastern Orthodox thought. (She says that his best work is The Trinity and the Kingdom of God)

Now this thread is about CV and not about universalism, so...

I just think that some want to have their cake and eat it. They want to reject a penal understanding of God but hold onto some sense of divine judgment.

I want to make it clear, again, that this is not out of some sadistic enjoyment of punishment. I long for hell to be empty too.

My logic is as follows:

- Jesus himself describes hell as being populated
- Therefore I can't go for universalism
- Therefore I can't accept any atonement model that collapses into universalism.


... so, if any of you can convince me that CV need not be universalistic then I'd be much obliged. [Smile]

Good grief, I thought Augustine's version of God damning all to hell for the disobedience of Adam and Eve eating from the forbidden tree was bad enough, but that God actually created man in hell?

Is this view particular to Moltman or is it a basic belief of a particular group of Christians? Are there any other variations on the Manichean theme similar to these?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
That's not strictly fair according to what I was arguing. I did say that I suspect applying punishment of some sort as a means of teaching rather than retribution requires forgiveness in advance. If you have not forgiven someone, your purpose in punishing them is certainly vengeance, and if you have then your teaching punishment has nothing to do with justice in the sense of paying for your crimes - though I think it has a great deal to do with restoring things to the way they should be, what I take divine justice to be.

But as I said, this is not applicable to Christus Victor versus Penal Substitutionary Atonement. PSA requires the punishment to be vengeful, not instructive.

Why would you couple any kind of punishment with God's forgiveness?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[qb]
It took me a while but, as promised, I asked a friend about Moltmann. She is doing a PhD on him and her comments were very interesting:

[QUOTE]
"The key things about Moltmann are that 1) the Father creates by withdrawing into himself and making a space (zimzum), which is essentially 'hell' as it is a place where God is not. 2) Into that space he creates the world. Into that space he sends Christ to be the true man, the exempler of humanity and by his Spirit he will ultimately indwell that space so that all that God has created will be taken up into the very life of God. 3) In a nutshell, it is panentheism, and it is unmistakably universalism as God cannot forsake anything that he has created."

Not only did she confirm my theory about Moltmann ending up in universalist territory but she also put me onto the link with panentheism. This makes sense to me since it also explains the CV connection with Eastern Orthodox thought. (She says that his best work is The Trinity and the Kingdom of God)


P.S. That can't be panentheism which is that God is in all things.


Myrrh
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Why would you couple any kind of punishment with God's forgiveness?

You could try reading it again.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
I still get punishment even after forgiveness, one vengence the other 'teaching'.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
That of course should be 'vengeance', but anyway, will try again tomorrow, it's late here.

Good night

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I did say that I suspect applying punishment of some sort as a means of teaching rather than retribution requires forgiveness in advance. If you have not forgiven someone, your purpose in punishing them is certainly vengeance, and if you have then your teaching punishment has nothing to do with justice in the sense of paying for your crimes - though I think it has a great deal to do with restoring things to the way they should be, what I take divine justice to be.

Fine, but you still haven't explained what discipline God exerts through CV... unless God is less loving than a human parent!?

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:

Originally posted by Johnny S:
- Jesus himself describes hell as being populated

Where?
Matthew 25 for a start - "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.... Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Sadly, there are plenty more where that come from. [Frown]


quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:

PSA and CV have exactly the same problem when it comes to universalism. Neither answers the question. There is no reason under PSA why Christ's substitutionary atoning death need not suffice for all people, because the mechanism proposed for God's forgiveness - that justice is satisfied by Christ's suffering and death in our place - relies only on Christ's action and not on our state of repentance or our actions.

[Confused] Have you ever encountered a version of PSA that does not rely on repentance and faith?

That is one of the fundamental differences between PSA and CV. PSA is a transactional model, and as such there are millions of everyday examples of how transactional models need us to actively (as opposed to passively) use them in order to reap the benefits.

CV, on the other hand, is about victory. If Christ defeats the enemy of sin and death completely then there is nothing in the model to allow for free will or some other such factor. Others have tried (for example sharktacos likes the medical idea of going to the doctor) but they only 'work' if you try to turn CV into a transactional model. If Christ has destroyed sin and death then they are defeated, end of story. Having CV as an umbrella model must lead to universalism.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Fine, but you still haven't explained what discipline God exerts through CV... unless God is less loving than a human parent!?

I don't understand what you're getting at. Do you think God only teaches us through the atonement? I don't think he does that at all other than by what we learn when we meditate on the cross and what followed.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Matthew 25 for a start

Acknowledged but I don't think these are knock-down arguments. There are gospel passages I have trouble interpreting but not these. I don't feel it does any violence to the text to interpret this and the others as prophetic warning rather than fortune-telling.

quote:
[Confused] Have you ever encountered a version of PSA that does not rely on repentance and faith?
Yes, lots of times. There are universalist Calvinists on the Ship, for example.

quote:
That is one of the fundamental differences between PSA and CV. PSA is a transactional model, and as such there are millions of everyday examples of how transactional models need us to actively (as opposed to passively) use them in order to reap the benefits.

CV, on the other hand, is about victory. If Christ defeats the enemy of sin and death completely then there is nothing in the model to allow for free will or some other such factor.

It's possible I'm misunderstanding you but let me lay out my argument plainly, and see what you make of it.

PSA works something like this:
According to God's justice, the fact that we are all sinners means we should be all condemned to death or annihilation or eternal torment in hell. God however allows Christ to suffer punishment in order that justice is satisfied because he loves us, and is thereby able to forgive us which he then does.

Where is the transaction you say is at the heart of PSA here? Hint: it doesn't exist. It only exists when you start to ask for whom this is effective, but if you do that it's no different to the answer you get for CV. And no offence but please don't start posting your theology graduate friend's opinion of Moltmann. CV didn't originate with him and I won't lose any sleep at night if either of them are wrong about something.

quote:
If Christ has destroyed sin and death then they are defeated, end of story.
If Christ has suffered the punishment we deserve then justice has been satisfied and God's wrath will not fall upon us, end of story.

quote:
Having CV as an umbrella model must lead to universalism.
Having PSA as an umbrella model must lead to universalism.

I'm not doing this to score points. You genuinely haven't shown how selection criteria are built into PSA in a way that's not there for any other atonement model. If you can't do that, then you can't argue against CV on the grounds that it leads to universalism. I can argue quite easily that Christ's victory over sin and death is only effective for those who are in him whether by free will or God's choice before the foundation of the world or both/same thing a la Boethius. You have to do the same to make PSA transactional and not universal.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I don't understand what you're getting at. Do you think God only teaches us through the atonement? I don't think he does that at all other than by what we learn when we meditate on the cross and what followed.

Okay then forget the cross for a moment, how does God discipline us?

What I'm trying to get at is this - PSA is often critiqued from a perspective of a loving parent (i.e. love is incompatible with retributive justice.) My point is that we should be consistent and then we would see the failings of other models when compared with the same analogy. If it is loving to forgive and to discipline then our understanding of God must include all of the same. You are using an analogy to shoot down PSA but not applying the analogy to your perception of God.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Acknowledged but I don't think these are knock-down arguments. There are gospel passages I have trouble interpreting but not these. I don't feel it does any violence to the text to interpret this and the others as prophetic warning rather than fortune-telling.

That's not a knock-down argument, it isn't even an argument! [Biased] Please explain to me how a warning can be a warning if there is no intention to act upon it?

I used to be a Secondary School teacher - picture a teacher who always warns but never, ever, ever carries out the threat of punishment. Ask yourself, is that a good teacher ... is that a loving teacher?


quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
It's possible I'm misunderstanding you but let me lay out my argument plainly, and see what you make of it.

PSA works something like this:
According to God's justice, the fact that we are all sinners means we should be all condemned to death or annihilation or eternal torment in hell. God however allows Christ to suffer punishment in order that justice is satisfied because he loves us, and is thereby able to forgive us which he then does.

Where is the transaction you say is at the heart of PSA here? Hint: it doesn't exist. It only exists when you start to ask for whom this is effective, but if you do that it's no different to the answer you get for CV.

You seem to forget that PSA is not just a penal metaphor but also a fiscal one too. The credit and debit language (e.g. Paul in Romans 4) fits perfectly with PSA. Our sin and punishment transferred to Christ's account, his righteousness transferred to our account. In such banking transactions the 'cash' may come from outside but the transaction, by definition, needs our consent. It is easy to see with this model how the potential is there for all but only used by those who 'accept' the transaction. I don't see how you can apply that kind of 'transaction' to CV unless you buy into the whole 'debit / credit' language of PSA?
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Okay then forget the cross for a moment, how does God discipline us?

I'm not willing to get into that here because it's a derailment. I'm trying to point out it has no relevance. If you want to have a go on another thread I'd be up for it.

quote:
What I'm trying to get at is this - PSA is often critiqued from a perspective of a loving parent (i.e. love is incompatible with retributive justice.)
Yes, that's fair.

quote:
My point is that we should be consistent and then we would see the failings of other models when compared with the same analogy.
But the other models do not rely on the necessity of retributive justice. They just don't, and I don't know why you can't see that.

quote:
If it is loving to forgive and to discipline then our understanding of God must include all of the same.
[brick wall]

Look, retributive justice and disciplining with the intention of teaching, are two different things. You're saying that if it is loving to forgive and to discipline, it is loving to forgive and then exact vengeance. On what grounds? vengeance and disciplinary teaching are very different things.

quote:
Please explain to me how a warning can be a warning if there is no intention to act upon it?
Example: a teacher warns her class that anyone caught cheating in the exam will be expelled. Perhaps as a result of the warning, nobody cheats. The warning was real, the result was universal salvation from the consequences of disobedience.

quote:
I used to be a Secondary School teacher - picture a teacher who always warns but never, ever, ever carries out the threat of punishment. Ask yourself, is that a good teacher ... is that a loving teacher?
Once again you haven't drawn the distinction between disciplinary punishment and vengeance, particularly if the vengeance is final and destructive, and to be a fit analogy for soteriology you'd have to be talking about exterminating your students. That would not be loving.

quote:
You seem to forget that PSA is not just a penal metaphor but also a fiscal one too.
This is just not true. It's penal substitutionary atonement, not fiscal or satisfaction theory. What it does show is that you require an addition to PSA to make it into a transactional model.

quote:
I don't see how you can apply that kind of 'transaction' to CV unless you buy into the whole 'debit / credit' language of PSA?
Debit and credit isn't PSA language, unless you seriously think you can justly buy your way out of punishment for crimes. It applies to CV as follows - admittedly less clearly but perhaps more closely than your version which I think you'll agree is in danger of making God look like a moneylender. The debt that must be paid is a metaphor for that which we need to give in order to become both worthy of and capable of possessing eternal life which involves the defeat of sin and death. We are unable to pay that debt, to do what needs to be done. Christ offers to do it for us, and does so for any who accept the offer.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Let's all [brick wall] together!

It appears I'm not understanding you, and it is obvious (to me [Biased] ) that you are not getting my point.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'm not willing to get into that here because it's a derailment. I'm trying to point out it has no relevance. If you want to have a go on another thread I'd be up for it.

I think it is highly relevant.... but then again, I would! [Razz]

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
But the other models do not rely on the necessity of retributive justice. They just don't, and I don't know why you can't see that.

Look, retributive justice and disciplining with the intention of teaching, are two different things. You're saying that if it is loving to forgive and to discipline, it is loving to forgive and then exact vengeance. On what grounds? vengeance and disciplinary teaching are very different things.

This is where the [brick wall] really kicks in. I wasn't talking about vengeance at all at this point.

You, and others, have pointed to the apparent lack of love in a retributive system. Of course punishment and discipline can be two different things. So precisely because of that point, I have been repeatedly asking you for examples of how God can discipline us without punishing us.

My question is not, how can a parent discipline without punishing? It is how does God do that to us ... if indeed, discipline (NB in a non-retributional way) is part of a loving response?

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Example: a teacher warns her class that anyone caught cheating in the exam will be expelled. Perhaps as a result of the warning, nobody cheats. The warning was real, the result was universal salvation from the consequences of disobedience.

There is one teeny-weeny problem with your example ... it is called reality.

Read Matthew 25 again, are you telling me that civilisation in the 2000 years since Jesus said those words has paid even the slightest bit of attention? Even at a very conservative estimate 80% of the world's population needs to be expelled.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Once again you haven't drawn the distinction between disciplinary punishment and vengeance, particularly if the vengeance is final and destructive, and to be a fit analogy for soteriology you'd have to be talking about exterminating your students. That would not be loving.

And once again you have jumped 3 steps ahead to the issue of retribution. Retribution, I admit and have admitted, is a problem I struggle with. However, you still haven't explained how God disciplines us in a non-retributive way. That was my original question.


quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Debit and credit isn't PSA language, unless you seriously think you can justly buy your way out of punishment for crimes.

This is where I agree that PSA and CV point in the same direction. The NT speaks of salvation being 'in Christ' - so it is not that Jesus is unfairly punished even though he is innocent, but that my sins are justly punished in him. Although I think CV would see that same element.


quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
It applies to CV as follows - admittedly less clearly but perhaps more closely than your version which I think you'll agree is in danger of making God look like a moneylender. The debt that must be paid is a metaphor for that which we need to give in order to become both worthy of and capable of possessing eternal life which involves the defeat of sin and death. We are unable to pay that debt, to do what needs to be done. Christ offers to do it for us, and does so for any who accept the offer.

I'll have to think about that last bit more but I can't see how you can use 'debt' as an analogy for sin while removing the penal element entirely. However, I am willing to admit that it could be because I don't want to see the connection! [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Johnny, I didn't mean anything personal by the brick wall smiley. I'm just finding it quite frustrating to be unable to communicate my point.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You, and others, have pointed to the apparent lack of love in a retributive system. Of course punishment and discipline can be two different things. So precisely because of that point, I have been repeatedly asking you for examples of how God can discipline us without punishing us.

I don't get you. Precisely because of that point? You seem to want to be able to say that punishment can be loving towards the object of punishment. I agree. What you can't do is say that because one form of punishment can be loving in that way, so can vengeance by virtue of it also being a form of punishment. Logic doesn't work like that. It's like saying oranges are fruit, so are bananas, therefore bananas are orange.

My point is that ultimately discipline has nothing to do with vengeance - not that they can be different, but that they really are mutually exclusive in essence - that discipline may well be and in my view and yours probably is loving, that vengeance is not.

Asking about discipline is therefore completely irrelevant to questions of the love or lack thereof in vengeance unless you're going to claim a similarity between the two. I say there's no similarity at all beyond the superficial question of method. The two are as unalike as a dentist extracting a rotten tooth and a loan shark pulling your teeth out with a pair of pliers for failure to make a payment on time.

quote:
Read Matthew 25 again, are you telling me that civilisation in the 2000 years since Jesus said those words has paid even the slightest bit of attention?
Of course I am! Are you seriously suggesting that nobody has heard those words and listened to them in all that time? Or that the number of people who've done so has been vanishingly small? I don't mean to be offensive but that's ludicrous. There are two billion Christians in the world today for starters. Have none of them read Matt 25?

quote:
Even at a very conservative estimate 80% of the world's population needs to be expelled.
I'm very glad you're not the One who's going to judge us.

quote:
However, you still haven't explained how God disciplines us in a non-retributive way. That was my original question.
It's to do with intention and outcome. Let me define terms once again:

Retribution - to satisfy the demands of a particular aspect of justice namely that a criminal deserves punishment in retaliation and unless that happens, an injustice takes place. The world is wrong because the person's crime wins unless the person suffers negative consequences as a result. Once this happens the balance of righteousness is restored.

Discipline - the application of some form of negative consequence in order to bring about a change in the mind or the behaviour of a criminal or potential criminal. Righteoussness is restored when the criminal ceases to be a criminal.

An act of punishment may be both disciplinary and retributive. Our criminal justice system is I think both. The problem is, PSA requires retribution and not discipline to be the punishment which Christ suffers and from which we are saved. Not an ounce of discipline there. Disciplinary punishments from God, if they exist, should be welcomed albeit with trepidation because they are intended to produce a good outcome in us, and as you've been tangentially arguing are good for us.

Now, you might argue that retribution can be good for the recipient because having endured it the recipient is then restored to the good graces of whichever authority imposed the punishment. But this is once again ruled out of court because a) it's Anselmian satisfaction theory not PSA and b) the punishment in question for PSA is eternal, everlasting so no recipient ever reaps the benefit. I cannot see how it could be loving to impose a punishment that in no way at all benefits the recipient.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I don't get you. Precisely because of that point?

Yep, you don't get me. On that we are agreed. [Big Grin]

This thread, and others, have rehearsed all the questions about retribution being unloving. I was not trying to prove that it could be.

As I keep trying to say I want to put CV in the spotlight for once (rather than PSA - the irony is that this thread is supposed to be about CV but whenever I ask questions about CV I get back rants about PSA [Biased] !)

My question was, is still, and will always be this - please give me an example of how God disciplines us in a non-retributive way?


quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Are you seriously suggesting that nobody has heard those words and listened to them in all that time? Or that the number of people who've done so has been vanishingly small? I don't mean to be offensive but that's ludicrous. There are two billion Christians in the world today for starters. Have none of them read Matt 25?

I don't know about them but I am seriously beginning to wonder if you ever have. [Big Grin]

Where does Jesus say that it is the Christians who go off to eternal life? Those who are sent away to eternal punishment are those who have, on any occasion offered to them, failed to feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, clothe the naked and visit those in prison.

Do you still think my 80% is wildly off the mark?

According to your example a threat may not need to be carried out if everyone obeyed the teacher's command. Forget 80%, if even 1 person didn't fulfil the list above then, according to your example, hell would not be empty.

I just don't see how you can look at the words of Jesus then look at the world today and conclude that his 'bluff' worked.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Disciplinary punishments from God, if they exist, should be welcomed albeit with trepidation because they are intended to produce a good outcome in us, and as you've been tangentially arguing are good for us.

Oh ... great ... he's going to answer my question ... he's going to give an example of a disciplinary punishment from God ... oh ... maybe not. [Disappointed]


This is a thread about CV If I ask questions about CV is it really too much to expect answers about CV instead of banging on about retribution? I know what the opponents of PSA think about retribution - we've had over 1500 posts on this thread alone.

If we are agreed that non-retributive discipline is a loving action, then I'd like to see how (in a CV world, if not explicitly in the model) God actually does that?
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This thread, and others, have rehearsed all the questions about retribution being unloving. I was not trying to prove that it could be.

So what are you getting at with your questions about disciplinary punishment, then?

quote:
As I keep trying to say I want to put CV in the spotlight for once (rather than PSA - the irony is that this thread is supposed to be about CV but whenever I ask questions about CV I get back rants about PSA [Biased] !)
I don't believe I have ranted once, joking smileys aside. Perhaps if you could ask a question about CV, I could answer it. You haven't shown me how your question about disciplinary punishment has any relevance.

quote:
My question was, is still, and will always be this - please give me an example of how God disciplines us in a non-retributive way?
Could you just tell me what answer you want and I'll give it? If you want specific examples from my life I'm not prepared to do that. This isn't a confessional thread and even if it was, you're not a priest and neither are the majority of people reading it.

Non-retributive action is any punishment intended to bring about a change of heart in the recipient. What more do you want from me? You can make up examples as well as I can. I genuinely don't understand where you're going with this. And I'm convinced it has nothing whatsoever to do with either CV or PSA. So could you please explain what your purpose is in asking the question?

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Are you seriously suggesting that nobody has heard those words and listened to them in all that time? Or that the number of people who've done so has been vanishingly small? I don't mean to be offensive but that's ludicrous. There are two billion Christians in the world today for starters. Have none of them read Matt 25?

I don't know about them but I am seriously beginning to wonder if you ever have. [Big Grin]
There's no need for that.

quote:
Where does Jesus say that it is the Christians who go off to eternal life?
Where did I say he did? You don't need to tell me what Matt 25 says. I've read it many times and I'd appreciate you not doubting my word.

quote:
Do you still think my 80% is wildly off the mark?
Well, in the spirit of your post, if you'd actually read Matt 25 and applied more than five seconds of thought to it you'd realise that the criteria given are wildly open to interpretation unless every human alive only had one chance to feed the hungry etc. Most people will, I suggest have fed the hungry on some occasions and not on others so where does that get you? As I said before I'm very glad you're not the judge.

The only way I can make sense of our Lord's words then is that he's trying to teach people how to be sheep and not goats. Not to tell us how many people will end up in hell or to provide a cast-iron selection rule. The passage doesn't do that.

quote:
I just don't see how you can look at the words of Jesus then look at the world today and conclude that his 'bluff' worked.
If it rescued a single lost sheep would it have been worth it? If all the other lost sheep turn out to rescued by other means, would that make it invalid? And what has any of this got to do with Christus Victor, about which you claim to be arguing?

quote:
This is a thread about CV If I ask questions about CV is it really too much to expect answers about CV instead of banging on about retribution?
If you ask questions about CV I'll start answering them. Where you have, I've tried to answer. Where you haven't, I've either tried to answer or tried to show that the question is not CV-specific.

quote:
If we are agreed that non-retributive discipline is a loving action, then I'd like to see how (in a CV world, if not explicitly in the model) God actually does that?
See above. Tell me why it's relevant. The answer will be the same in a CV world as in a PSA world, just as it was when you brought in the debt/credit model.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Perhaps our correspondence reveals some of the weaknesses of non face-to-face communication. It seems that neither of us seem to understand each other.

Apologies for my sarcasm - my mother was always punishing me ... errr ... I mean disciplining me because of that. [Big Grin]

Still, I think, at last, we are getting somewhere. I'll try and start again:


quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Perhaps if you could ask a question about CV, I could answer it. You haven't shown me how your question about disciplinary punishment has any relevance.

This thread is about the possibility of replacing PSA with CV as an umbrella atonement model. One of the most common objections to PSA, first articulated well by JJ, is that retributive justice is not loving. Indeed it is less loving than a human parent.

Okay, that is taken as read. I am not discussing retribution. My question involves putting CV under the same spotlight. How does it measure up to the analogy of a loving parent? If we remove all retributive justice from God's actions - how does he discipline us? You say that I can think of all sorts of examples, but I can't! [Confused]

Sure people talk about events in their lives where God was disciplining them, but how can they tell that it was God disciplining them? If God is just as loving as a human parent then we would expect to see examples of his active discipline.

We've agreed that a parent who loves their children will not only teach them how to behave but also actively discipline them. How does God do that?

That is why I referred to hell - because if any talk of eternal punishment is nothing more than a bluff I don't see how that could be discipline either.


quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Most people will, I suggest have fed the hungry on some occasions and not on others so where does that get you? As I said before I'm very glad you're not the judge.

You keep mentioning how glad you are that I'm not the judge - when did I say I was? I am worried by the words of Jesus - my 80% was just a random figure picked from the air for effect, I have no idea who God is going to judge - like you I am VERY glad that I am not the judge.

However, back to Matthew 25. Jesus does not say that as long as you've done it once you are okay. In verse 44 he puts it the other way round. It is a sin of ommission. The goats are sent away to eternal punishment if they have ever omitted, even if just once, to carry out Christ's command 'to love my neighbours as my self'. I can only speak for myself, but that worries me. I fall way short of that.

The reason why hell got involved is to do with universalism. My argument was, is, and continues to be that CV inevitably leads to universalism.


quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
The answer will be the same in a CV world as in a PSA world, just as it was when you brought in the debt/credit model.

I'm still not convinced. I was thinking about the credit / debit model last night and trying to view it in CV terms. I freely admit that it may well be because I lack the imagination, but I can't see it.

When I was at school we were given 'demerits' for bad behaviour. I we got 3 in a term then we had a detention on a Saturday morning. Using that as an analogy I can see how a penal understanding fits with the debit side of Paul's argument. Sin = debt because each time we sin we notch up a 'black mark'. I appreciate how crude that analogy is, but at least there is some correspondence with real life. I can't do the same with CV. I can see how the credit side works - Christ's victory creditted to us, but not the debit side.

So my other question is this - in CV what does the debit represent? What negative thing is put to our account when we sin if it is not deserved punishment?
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
Perhaps the problem here is the idea that atonement 'should' have anything to do at all with God's disciplining of us? I'm not convinced of that.

I think God's disciplining of humanity is a difficult concept since we can not speak with God or experience God face to face. The only analogy for discipline is consequence for bad choices; and some people find this wanting because they don't experience a strict one-to-one relationship of bad deeds with 'appropriate' consequences.

I do not see for the life of me how PSA disciplines. What it does is threaten. It threatens infinite everlasting punishment for even the smallest of misdeeds. Which some people seem to think is A Good Thing and I think is a rather bad thing.

I repeat. Perhaps atonement is not about discipline. Simply about the 'at one ment' of God and humanity.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
When I was at school we were given 'demerits' for bad behaviour. I we got 3 in a term then we had a detention on a Saturday morning. Using that as an analogy I can see how a penal understanding fits with the debit side of Paul's argument. Sin = debt because each time we sin we notch up a 'black mark'. I appreciate how crude that analogy is, but at least there is some correspondence with real life. I can't do the same with CV. I can see how the credit side works - Christ's victory creditted to us, but not the debit side.

So my other question is this - in CV what does the debit represent? What negative thing is put to our account when we sin if it is not deserved punishment?

I've had a thought. ... but it's back to Augustine to explain it. This emphasis on "punishment" comes from Augustine against the Orthodox view of "consequence" - there is a great deal of difference between a legalistic, and a particular 'other', relationship with God as judge and jury and meting out punishment for sin as a crime and a relationship with God as an ideal to reach with sin as "missing the mark" of that perfection (from which comes hospital, etc.) in a law of cause and effect - what goes around comes around as they say here, 'as you sow so shall you reap', 'those who live by the sword, die by the sword'.

The emphasis Augustine put on the legalistic relationship became the basis on his theory about God and whether he got it first from his misreading of Genesis II or he mangled Genesis II to fit, as he did Paul, is a bit chicken and egg, but what he did was to perceive the words of God re eating from the tree as a threat against Adam and Eve in a particular relationship which actually can't be read from Genesis II and which was never read as such by the Jews, they don't have Augustine's Original Sin view of this event.

What he read was that God punished Adam and Eve for disobeying him by eating "from the tree", i.e. knowledge of good and evil, while Orthodox reading takes God's words as a warning - the consequence of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil will lead to death, eating the fruit has consequences - and not all evil, the fruit is also knowledge of good.

So the emphasis was changed from the 'fathers' reading and explanations generally that Adam and Eve were warned off because of immaturity, as a child is warned off from touching a hot pot that will burn, and it was a knowledge they would grow into in time with a God who wanted them to know the difference (created in image and likeness, 'they have become like us') to an act of disobedience against a God who didn't want them to know (as JPII put it, that this was taking knowledge which belonged to God only) and so the disobedience was against God himself and God punished them with death for it.

(I go with the other reading that it was in the natural course of events in the creation of man at the point of self-reflection, that there is no idea of disobedience or punishment as man was created to reason and question, straight consequence, in other words, when they reached the point of making the decision to eat they were old enough to learn from it).

CV then doesn't require a "punishment" element of this particular relationship with God at all, but still applicable within the results of sin as consequence, and salvation then from the whole mess of consequence of sin from the beginning.

Myrrh
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I mean disciplining me because of that. [Big Grin]

[Big Grin] Apology accepted, but not necessary. I was tired and shouldn't have been so grumpy.

quote:
This thread is about the possibility of replacing PSA with CV as an umbrella atonement model.
Acknowledged although the majority of Christians don't have PSA as their umbrella model to start with, you know. So it's about convincing you, not about a new doctrine.

quote:
One of the most common objections to PSA, first articulated well by JJ, is that retributive justice is not loving. Indeed it is less loving than a human parent.

Okay, that is taken as read. I am not discussing retribution.

Okay, fair enough.

quote:
My question involves putting CV under the same spotlight.
Just to be clear before we drop it, it seems to me that in order for you to say this you must accept that the basis of PSA is retribution, not discipline. Talking about retribution is in your terms (and I agree) putting PSA under the spotlight. Fair?

quote:
How does it measure up to the analogy of a loving parent? If we remove all retributive justice from God's actions - how does he discipline us?
Do you not see the contradiction in your question? Your question assumes that retribution is a disciplinary method. I'm arguing that it is not, and you haven't contested that so your question makes no sense. In any view - CV, PSA or something else, discipline must be achieved by something other than retribution.

quote:
You say that I can think of all sorts of examples, but I can't! [Confused]
Okay, I'll try to make something up but be warned that it's a theological and theodicial (is that a word? It is now) minefield and these things can legitimately be interpreted other ways. A man acquires faith but is too apathetic or unwilling to give up aspects of his life enough to actually go to church on Sunday. He might pray to overcome this. God therefore might permit him to experience anxiety or upset in his life until he gets off his backside and does what he's supposed to do all along. This would be experienced as disciplinary punishment, but God's intention (if he did such a thing) would I suspect be to save the man from eventually a far worse state further down the line. His intention would not I suspect be to see criminal justice served in punishment for the sins of apathy or laziness.

quote:
Sure people talk about events in their lives where God was disciplining them, but how can they tell that it was God disciplining them? If God is just as loving as a human parent then we would expect to see examples of his active discipline.
See above, but you raise an interesting point. To me it seems a question of faith that asserts or discerns a meaning in something that could just as easily be taken as a random event. The outcome determines the validity of the choice - does it lead to repentance and ultimately greater happiness?

quote:
That is why I referred to hell - because if any talk of eternal punishment is nothing more than a bluff I don't see how that could be discipline either.
But hell, if it is hell and not purgatory, it can't be discipline. The purpose is not to bring about a change of heart in the denizen of hell, he's stuck there for eternity. It is therefore either a) pure retribution if he's stuck there by God and God has a choice in the matter, or b) something that God cannot prevent at all or cannot prevent without doing more harm to the victim. For example, see the Orthodox conception of hell as the love of God experienced directly by those who freely hate him - what can be done without obliterating their free will?

Contrast this with the warning of hell. The warning is clearly disciplinary. It causes fear and therefore suffering in those who take notice and don't have a perfect conscience. Its purpose is to rescue people.

quote:
However, back to Matthew 25. Jesus does not say that as long as you've done it once you are okay. In verse 44 he puts it the other way round. It is a sin of ommission. The goats are sent away to eternal punishment if they have ever omitted, even if just once, to carry out Christ's command 'to love my neighbours as my self'. I can only speak for myself, but that worries me. I fall way short of that.
I don't get what you get there. What I do get is:

a) If you feed the hungry etc, you're a sheep.
b) If you don't feed the hungry etc, you're a goat.

Most people fall into both categories so as I said, it's useless as a hard and fast rule. If you take the worst possible interpretation as you seem to be doing, that b) trumps a) (which you can't do from the text), then all of us might as well give up right now because repentance will not change our status with respect to this rule and we are truly and irrevocably damned.

So I'm suggesting that you don't really believe what you've written. You believe that if Christ is giving a rule at all, it's not the one you've said or you'd be certain you're hell-bound and give up. Therefore it must be up to Christ to judge and he's giving us a strong hint about what he likes and doesn't like, or what will make us a sheep and not a goat.

quote:
The reason why hell got involved is to do with universalism. My argument was, is, and continues to be that CV inevitably leads to universalism.
You haven't addressed my response to this at all, as far as I can tell. I know I keep going back to PSA but that's only to demonstrate that CV is no different to it with respect to universalism.

In both models you have Christ doing everything necessary for the salvation of everyone. If any are lost, you then have to come up with a reason why Christ's actions were ineffective for them. The same sort of answers appear whatever the atonement model you make central.

quote:
When I was at school we were given 'demerits' for bad behaviour. I we got 3 in a term then we had a detention on a Saturday morning. Using that as an analogy I can see how a penal understanding fits with the debit side of Paul's argument. Sin = debt because each time we sin we notch up a 'black mark'. I appreciate how crude that analogy is, but at least there is some correspondence with real life.
Okay, you have a point here and it does fit more directly with PSA than CV. I'll have a go at the question you asked and then try to bring in ransom theory, which certainly fits CV better than PSA and is equally biblical.

The debt/credit model is an analogy that describes a situation where you need to do something (pay off the debt) to get out of a bad situation (being in debtor's prison for example) and specifically one where we have nothing with which to pay the debt. In CV this is perhaps best described as us being in a situation where our sin - ancestral, original or personal - leaves us with this thing we need to do (overcome the power of sin and death) in order to avoid eternal death. But we can't do it. So we need somebody to do it for us and that's Christ. Debt/credit works for me as an analogy but your mileage may of course vary.

quote:
So my other question is this - in CV what does the debit represent? What negative thing is put to our account when we sin if it is not deserved punishment?
The wages of sin. Separation from God and ultimately death, as a natural consequence as much as by condemnation through penal justice, if you see what I mean. This is one reason I think it's a more useful model by the way - atonement is about us being rescued from the consequences of our actions rather than God solving a problem of logic in his own nature.

Now, ransom theory. If Christ pays a ransom for us, as is perfectly biblical, to whom does he pay it? The early Church fought theological battles over this. To God? Peculiar, paying a ransom to oneself. To the devil? Perhaps so in that the powers of evil - be they personal or metaphorical - take hold of us when we sin with some legitimacy as we chose sin and death over God and life, yet this is not God's plan for us and therefore they overstep the mark, and in killing the sinless and innocent Christ any claim they have over Christ and his people is forfeit. This fits quite well for CV but not PSA, wouldn't you agree?
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Essentially I agree with you Myrrh, but I think there is a way to reconcile the Augustinian and the Orthodox viewpoints.

It's like this. If an act has consequences, did God make it so? Being omnipotent, could he not change the consequence? If a person shoots another in the head, that person probably dies. God could intervene and prevent it, if he chose.

The question arises, are the consequences of our sin something that God cannot prevent (a limit on his omnipotence) or rather something that he permits because he will turn it to good? If the latter, then you have a correlation between consequence and disciplinary (that is, teaching or correcting or amending) punishment and Augustine agrees with the Orthodox as long as the punishment is a permitted consequence for our eventual good and not retribution to satisfy the demands of a God who will not forgive.

Am I making sense?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I don't know, I just pop out for a funeral ... [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Perhaps the problem here is the idea that atonement 'should' have anything to do at all with God's disciplining of us? I'm not convinced of that.

I wasn't claiming that it should. When I encounter a new model I like to walk around in its world in order to see if there are any inconsistencies. My question was to do with how God shows his love to us in a world where CV is king!

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
So the emphasis was changed from the 'fathers' reading and explanations generally that Adam and Eve were warned off because of immaturity, as a child is warned off from touching a hot pot that will burn, and it was a knowledge they would grow into in time with a God who wanted them to know the difference (created in image and likeness, 'they have become like us') to an act of disobedience against a God who didn't want them to know (as JPII put it, that this was taking knowledge which belonged to God only) and so the disobedience was against God himself and God punished them with death for it.

I think you may be onto something as far as emphasis is concerned but I am rather puzzled as to how you can read Genesis 3 without seeing God acting in some sense in punishment upon Adam & Eve. Even the 'if you touch the hot pot you will get burnt' is a cause and effect relationship which God put into the world when he created it.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Acknowledged although the majority of Christians don't have PSA as their umbrella model to start with, you know. So it's about convincing you, not about a new doctrine.

Fair point. Although there is history on this thread. About 15 pages back (or so!?) I suggested that the controversy over Steve Chalke etc. was because conevos see PSA being removed altogether, not just that CV should be a 'bigger player' in the atonement models brigade. Seeker thought I was overstating the case, however most of those opposed to PSA disagreed with her and came clean that, yes, they did want to remove PSA entirely.

So, yes, for some (e.g. Orthodox) PSA was never there. However, for those of us in Protestant circles this is about removing PSA entirely and replacing it completely with CV. My point (back then but we've moved on since) was that it is hardly surprising if conevos react a little if they feel that a doctrine they hold to is directly under attack. (If I make a public statement declaring the Pope to be the anti-Christ it would hardly be fair to then accuse the RCs for picking a fight!)

Now, maybe you are right. But if you are you have to do more than take pot shots at PSA, you have to demonstrate (for us Protestants admittedly) that CV can take the strain on its own. Hence my questions. No model is perfect. I have questions about PSA. But does CV fair any better?

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Just to be clear before we drop it, it seems to me that in order for you to say this you must accept that the basis of PSA is retribution, not discipline. Talking about retribution is in your terms (and I agree) putting PSA under the spotlight. Fair?

Fair.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:
Johnny S:
How does it measure up to the analogy of a loving parent? If we remove all retributive justice from God's actions - how does he discipline us?

Do you not see the contradiction in your question? Your question assumes that retribution is a disciplinary method. I'm arguing that it is not, and you haven't contested that so your question makes no sense. In any view - CV, PSA or something else, discipline must be achieved by something other than retribution.
I don't see a contradiction. Perhaps I could just put the question thus - how does God actively discipline us? (Assuming that a loving parent would do so.)

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
See above, but you raise an interesting point. To me it seems a question of faith that asserts or discerns a meaning in something that could just as easily be taken as a random event. The outcome determines the validity of the choice - does it lead to repentance and ultimately greater happiness?

Okay, so you are beginning to cotton on to my bizarre train of thought. That is how I would respond to your examples. How is your worldview theistic, because it seems deist to me? ... but then maybe you are happy with that.

I passionately believe in God's love. I can't believe that God is loving if he creates the world and then just leaves us alone.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Contrast this with the warning of hell. The warning is clearly disciplinary. It causes fear and therefore suffering in those who take notice and don't have a perfect conscience. Its purpose is to rescue people.

I don't think we are making much progress here though. How can a warning be a warning if nothing is going to happen? Rescue people from what?

Think about how we would respond if the government got us to change our behaviour by threatening things that they knew definitely wouldn't happen, ever.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
You haven't addressed my response to this at all, as far as I can tell. I know I keep going back to PSA but that's only to demonstrate that CV is no different to it with respect to universalism.

I thought I had. Linking PSA with the debt/credit transaction it is at least logically consistent to say that it only happens if we accept the transaction. (There is a famous case in American history where a pardon was not accepted and therefore the accused was hanged.) However, I don't see the same kind of analogies for CV. If Jesus defeats sin and death for me then they are defeated no matter whether or not I accept the fact.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
The wages of sin. Separation from God and ultimately death, as a natural consequence as much as by condemnation through penal justice, if you see what I mean. This is one reason I think it's a more useful model by the way - atonement is about us being rescued from the consequences of our actions rather than God solving a problem of logic in his own nature.

Could you explain this more? How is separation from God not a punishment? Separation is down purely to a choice of God, if he chooses to remove us from himself (and vice-versa) how is that not an act of punishment, in some sense?

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Now, ransom theory. If Christ pays a ransom for us, as is perfectly biblical, to whom does he pay it? The early Church fought theological battles over this. To God? Peculiar, paying a ransom to oneself. To the devil? Perhaps so in that the powers of evil - be they personal or metaphorical - take hold of us when we sin with some legitimacy as we chose sin and death over God and life, yet this is not God's plan for us and therefore they overstep the mark, and in killing the sinless and innocent Christ any claim they have over Christ and his people is forfeit. This fits quite well for CV but not PSA, wouldn't you agree?

I agree, but then I thought that the church had rejected the notion of paying a ransom to the devil as dualistic - i.e. the devil / evil powers are not equal with God in that they have any 'rights' to demand payment.

I thought that a clearer articulation of PSA arose partly in order to avoid having to pay a ransom to the devil.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My question was to do with how God shows his love to us in a world where CV is king!

As you know, my frustration with this conversation is the fact that I need to limit myself to 'CV only' in order to be within the paramaters of the thread.

However, even I can see that getting rescued from a burning building is pretty salvific.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Essentially I agree with you Myrrh, but I think there is a way to reconcile the Augustinian and the Orthodox viewpoints.

It's like this. If an act has consequences, did God make it so? Being omnipotent, could he not change the consequence? If a person shoots another in the head, that person probably dies. God could intervene and prevent it, if he chose.

The question arises, are the consequences of our sin something that God cannot prevent (a limit on his omnipotence) or rather something that he permits because he will turn it to good? If the latter, then you have a correlation between consequence and disciplinary (that is, teaching or correcting or amending) punishment and Augustine agrees with the Orthodox as long as the punishment is a permitted consequence for our eventual good and not retribution to satisfy the demands of a God who will not forgive.

Am I making sense?

I'll reply to the first part, last.

Yes you're making sense, but this comes back to the problem of seeing God in a relationship of authority over another, the two kinds of punishment are still punishment by a superior against the will of an inferior who has to act according to a superior's will or face the punishment/consequences. Pelagius describes man in this aspect of Augustine's doctrine as robotic.

It's really does come back to Augustine who posited a completely different God to relate to in his OS package and it was his reasoning from your above explanation which concluded that it was OK to bloodily force someone back into the Church because it was for their good..., which also led on to such things as the just war theory and so on, oh, and particularly the one doctrine from this line of thinking we knew enough about to argue against - purgatory.

CV as umbrella could include both the above, retribution/chastisement, as concessions, but cannot be contained by either or both; just as Pascha has nothing to do directly with Yom Kippur and blood sacrifice for sin, but all kinds of sacrificial views can be included in a final sacrifice of lamb as food and life blood as marking acknowledgment.

Consequences of sin need not be either of the two punishment models above which for those who hold neither would make Christ redundant as a solution for mankind if there were no other ways of looking at it.

Back to the first part, I can't see any reason for rejecting Christ's words on God's omnipotence, 'for God all things are possible'. In God's relationship to creation not of man as robot/inferior, but as created in image and likeness, a relationship of synergy develops (what is known in the West as Semi-Pelagianism and rejected by the Augustine camp at Orange, but is Orthodox, and actually also Pelagian because free will is a given, as Pelagius describes it, God wouldn't have given us the commandments if we were incapable of keeping them as Augustine claimed) in which God and mankind work in partnership - and in which there are certain full stops as a given, such as God cannot act against our will and is always merciful and forgiving and so on with the aim for us to become as God, (in Eden Adam and Eve were neither mortal nor immortal and at the beginning of choice, they didn't 'fall from a perfect state'), to love as God loves and so on. Relationships aren't always easy..

Myrrh
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Hope you don't mind Johnny but I'm dropping bits of the conversation where I think we've adequately covered them - it's getting out of hand a bit. If you think I've been overzealous please feel free to put something back.

quote:
I suggested that the controversy over Steve Chalke etc. was because conevos see PSA being removed altogether, not just that CV should be a 'bigger player' in the atonement models brigade. Seeker thought I was overstating the case, however most of those opposed to PSA disagreed with her and came clean that, yes, they did want to remove PSA entirely.
I'm not sure where I stand on this to be honest. I'm torn between being able to see that heavily nuanced PSA is a good description of the atonement, acknowledging that a lot of people see the love of God in it, and wanting it thrown out because as taught by a lot of people it really does paint God badly wrong in the way its detractors say. But I'm not out to stick the boot in here, just argue the relative merits of truth-claims.

quote:
My point (back then but we've moved on since) was that it is hardly surprising if conevos react a little if they feel that a doctrine they hold to is directly under attack.
Not surprising, but I would say you can't really be an evangelical with integrity and not be willing to question and defend your doctrines from scripture and whatever secondary authorities you acknowledge.

quote:
(If I make a public statement declaring the Pope to be the anti-Christ it would hardly be fair to then accuse the RCs for picking a fight!)
I see what you're getting at but the two situations aren't really analogous. One is saying "You're wrong, about a deeply held belief, but here's the truth and you can still love and follow Christ" whereas the other is saying "That bloke you love over there and believe to be a holy leader, is in fact an evil bastard one step up from Satan." I'm not RC but I imagine the latter is a bit like someone calling your mother a bitch.

quote:
Now, maybe you are right. But if you are you have to do more than take pot shots at PSA, you have to demonstrate (for us Protestants admittedly) that CV can take the strain on its own.
Mea culpa to a degree but by and large when I bring in PSA, it's only to show that where CV has an apparent weakness, PSA has the same weakness and so it's not necessarily even a question of soteriology. See what I'm saying?

quote:
How does it measure up to the analogy of a loving parent? If we remove all retributive justice from God's actions - how does he discipline us?
I'm going to bring out the brickwall smiley again, no offence intended. Haven't you already accepted that retribution and discipline are not the same thing? I thought we'd settled that.

quote:
How is your worldview theistic, because it seems deist to me? ... but then maybe you are happy with that.
I'm genuinely stunned by this. How can what I've said be deism? You've plucked this out of thin air as far as I'm concerned.

quote:
How can a warning be a warning if nothing is going to happen? Rescue people from what?
Look at it on an individual level. God warns Johnny that if he wants to avoid hell he should stop mugging beggars [Biased] and start feeding them instead. Johnny takes that seriously and does so. God however being omniscient knew the outcome beforehand and that Johnny wasn't going to go to hell, so by your argument he was either lying or giving a pointless warning. But if the warning was the means (or one of them) whereby he brought about the foreseen outcome, everything fits. Multiply this to the desired number of people and you have your answer. Of course you will say that few people have listened, but I'm not sure we can say that's true. It's up to Christ.

quote:
Linking PSA with the debt/credit transaction it is at least logically consistent to say that it only happens if we accept the transaction.
But as I've tried to show, there is no need for the transaction in PSA and it's an add-on. Some Calvinists deny there's any need for us to take up the offer, and deal with the universalist assault by having God make an arbitrary selection.

Similarly, there is no need for a transaction in CV but there are add-ons that do exactly the same thing as the add-ons for PSA.

quote:
If Jesus defeats sin and death for me then they are defeated no matter whether or not I accept the fact.
If Jesus suffers the punishment due to me on the Cross then justice has been served whether or not I accept the fact (Universalist Calvinism 101).

Do you see my point?

quote:
Could you explain this more? How is separation from God not a punishment?
It may be a punishment and not retribution, if it's intended to help us turn back to God. It may be a consequence - as some evangelical quarters are fond of saying, sin cannot bear the presence of God - and if it's a permanent state perhaps it's the most merciful option for God to withdraw. The eternal presence of someone you hate not being all that nice. I know I'm harping on about this but it seems to me you still haven't seen the difference between retribution and disciplinary punishment and consequence.

quote:
I agree, but then I thought that the church had rejected the notion of paying a ransom to the devil as dualistic - i.e. the devil / evil powers are not equal with God in that they have any 'rights' to demand payment.
Perhaps, I'd have to check with Orthodox sources and re-read Aulen but I think you can very easily come up with a similar formulation that leaves the devil out of it, based on restoration of creation as righteous. Which almost, but not quite ties in with what I said at the end of page 31 about penal substitutionary language that isn't what most people understand PSA to be. I'll have a go at explaining that in more detail if you like.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It's really does come back to Augustine who posited a completely different God to relate to in his OS package and it was his reasoning from your above explanation which concluded that it was OK to bloodily force someone back into the Church because it was for their good

I'm not sure. If this is where Augustine went, and he went there because he erred too far in the direction of denying the remnant of our free will in ability to choose God, then my argument stands.

It's not that God will not discipline us, just that without an adequate account of free will abuses such as you describe cannot be seen to be false. They are false because they don't work, forcing someone to love freely is a contradiction, not because God will not lead us back to him in ways that seem unpleasant or even cause outright suffering to us sometimes.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:


However, even I can see that getting rescued from a burning building is pretty salvific.

So can I - the question is ... what are we being rescued from?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Hope you don't mind Johnny but I'm dropping bits of the conversation where I think we've adequately covered them - it's getting out of hand a bit. If you think I've been overzealous please feel free to put something back.

No problems. I'm not sure we are going to get any further on some points.


quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'm genuinely stunned by this. How can what I've said be deism? You've plucked this out of thin air as far as I'm concerned.

I did miss out a few steps. I thought the post was long enough without giving all my working! [Big Grin]

If our experience of God disciplining us is only through our subjective experience of natural events then isn't that a form of deism? How does God act directly in your world view?

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Look at it on an individual level. God warns Johnny that if he wants to avoid hell he should stop mugging beggars [Biased] and start feeding them instead. Johnny takes that seriously and does so. God however being omniscient knew the outcome beforehand and that Johnny wasn't going to go to hell, so by your argument he was either lying or giving a pointless warning. But if the warning was the means (or one of them) whereby he brought about the foreseen outcome, everything fits. Multiply this to the desired number of people and you have your answer. Of course you will say that few people have listened, but I'm not sure we can say that's true. It's up to Christ.

No, this would be leading me to immaturity not towards maturity. If Jesus is leading me to maturity he would tell me the truth.

BTW it has been a while since I last mugged a beggar. [Razz]


quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
If Jesus suffers the punishment due to me on the Cross then justice has been served whether or not I accept the fact (Universalist Calvinism 101).

Fair point. On this point alone I can see CV and PSA on a level footing... I'm still not convinced that CV fits with the transactional metaphor though ... but we've been here already.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
It may be a punishment and not retribution, if it's intended to help us turn back to God. It may be a consequence - as some evangelical quarters are fond of saying, sin cannot bear the presence of God - and if it's a permanent state perhaps it's the most merciful option for God to withdraw. The eternal presence of someone you hate not being all that nice. I know I'm harping on about this but it seems to me you still haven't seen the difference between retribution and disciplinary punishment and consequence.

But I do understand the difference. You are the one who is playing semantic games to try to keep the distinction. I agree with your post above about the most merciful option for God. Yet if God is the source of all life and goodness how can withdrawing his presence permanently not be some form of punishment?

I think we are probably closer in our views of God than it always appears. Some of the time (but not all) I think you are simply using different words to describe what I believe.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Which almost, but not quite ties in with what I said at the end of page 31 about penal substitutionary language that isn't what most people understand PSA to be. I'll have a go at explaining that in more detail if you like.

Yes please.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:


However, even I can see that getting rescued from a burning building is pretty salvific.

So can I - the question is ... what are we being rescued from?
In my view of atonement, which is not strictly CV, we are being rescued from sin. Not insignificantly, we are being saved from the idea that victory and salvation are acheived by wielding power over other people and enslaving them for our own purposes.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'm not sure. If this is where Augustine went, and he went there because he erred too far in the direction of denying the remnant of our free will in ability to choose God, then my argument stands.

It's not that God will not discipline us, just that without an adequate account of free will abuses such as you describe cannot be seen to be false. They are false because they don't work, forcing someone to love freely is a contradiction, not because God will not lead us back to him in ways that seem unpleasant or even cause outright suffering to us sometimes.

Certainly Augustine erred in denying us free will to turn to God, but that's where reasoning goes from the God he posited, one who punishes either as retribution or as 'chastisement for our own good' is a bully denying free will and as such is coercive and we're back to the God who threatened A&E with death if they dared to disobey him. Christ's teaching on how we should deal with bullies is clear, we should resist being treated as inferiors - turning the other cheek makes it impossible for the one who perceives himself as superior from delivering another disdainful back hand across his perceived inferior's face.

Abraham walked as God's friend, how could one walk with a bully God as friend? Our every misdemeanour judged and punished or chastised with pain to bring us back to him? Who'd want to go back to such a God?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Certainly Augustine erred in denying us free will to turn to God, but that's where reasoning goes from the God he posited, one who punishes either as retribution or as 'chastisement for our own good' is a bully denying free will and as such is coercive and we're back to the God who threatened A&E with death if they dared to disobey him. Christ's teaching on how we should deal with bullies is clear, we should resist being treated as inferiors - turning the other cheek makes it impossible for the one who perceives himself as superior from delivering another disdainful back hand across his perceived inferior's face.

Abraham walked as God's friend, how could one walk with a bully God as friend? Our every misdemeanour judged and punished or chastised with pain to bring us back to him? Who'd want to go back to such a God?

Myrrh

Come on Myrrh, you are making out the character of Jesus to be one dimensional. There are other options in between bully ... and refusing ever to chastise.

For example how does the cleansing of the temple fit in with your schema? According to your definition wasn't Jesus being a 'bully' then?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Come on Myrrh, you are making out the character of Jesus to be one dimensional. There are other options in between bully ... and refusing ever to chastise.

For example how does the cleansing of the temple fit in with your schema? According to your definition wasn't Jesus being a 'bully' then?

There's quite a difference between Christ's teaching of equality in the example of a conquered nation, his 'offer to carry it two' is funnier, and his driving out of the Temple those of his own people who had turned access to God in their Temple a lucrative con - think selling indulgences.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
There's quite a difference between Christ's teaching of equality in the example of a conquered nation, his 'offer to carry it two' is funnier, and his driving out of the Temple those of his own people who had turned access to God in their Temple a lucrative con - think selling indulgences.

Myrrh

[Confused] So you are agreeing with me that the way Jesus reacted depended on the circumstances?

Having disagreed with me on the matter of chastisement you appear now to be agreeing with me - sometimes Jesus did chastise.

I don't understand you point. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:


[Confused] So you are agreeing with me that the way Jesus reacted depended on the circumstances?

Having disagreed with me on the matter of chastisement you appear now to be agreeing with me - sometimes Jesus did chastise.

I don't understand you point. [Ultra confused]

I answered you about Jesus because you brought in the example, but the differences we were discussing was about God; here it is the Son of God reacting and teaching - 'you have made my father's house a den of thieves'.

Back to God: Orthodox teaching is that God is always merciful and forgiving, in principle. God cannot be other than that. When Christ teaches us to be perfect it is to reach that perfection, to love as God loves the good and bad equally, to bless and not curse and so on. Christ teaches that God is good, this is Christian principle. A good God cannot be the author of evil, as Christ teaches, it's a different father.

My point is that these two views of punishment don't relate to the principles of God as ever merciful, forgiving, etc., they can't be attributed to Him.

To do so creates an irrational God and a clear example is in the contiguous events of Exodus -to think the same God gave the commandment not to murder as gave the order to murder all the Canaanites. If the first God is true the other must be false. Either God is logical and reasonable or He's not, and Christ is logos, reason.

When Pelagius heard Augustine's OS doctrine, he told Augustine that he hadn't really given up his previously held Manichean view of God, that Augustine had created was a version of it.

The Manichean view was that the creator of this world, matter, was the evil God, and so matter was evil, while the good God was spirit and only spirit good. Augustine took elements of this to create his OS doctrine - that Adam and Eve "fell" into sinful nature, for example, which is at odds with God's creation of nature as good in Genesis I - and did so by calling good the God who punished them with death for disobedience having previously said they had been given free will by God.

Either they had free will or they didn't, if they did have it then God had no right to punish them for disobedience. Since Augustine believed they did have free will he ended up creating an evil, and irrational, God.

Myrrh



Myrrh

[ 23. September 2007, 05:47: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I answered you about Jesus because you brought in the example, but the differences we were discussing was about God; here it is the Son of God reacting and teaching - 'you have made my father's house a den of thieves'.

[Ultra confused] Doesn't Jesus show what God is like? Is he not God? If Jesus chastised (at the temple) then is it not legitimate to say that such behaviour must be compatible with the character of God? Or was this Jesus sinning?
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:


However, even I can see that getting rescued from a burning building is pretty salvific.

So can I - the question is ... what are we being rescued from?
In my view of atonement, which is not strictly CV, we are being rescued from sin. Not insignificantly, we are being saved from the idea that victory and salvation are acheived by wielding power over other people and enslaving them for our own purposes.
I'm wondering why there is no response to this? Is it incomprehensible? A stupid remark?

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[Ultra confused] Doesn't Jesus show what God is like? Is he not God? If Jesus chastised (at the temple) then is it not legitimate to say that such behaviour must be compatible with the character of God? Or was this Jesus sinning?

Jesus never demonstrated any kind of quality that looked like: 'I will not forgive unless a legal penalty is paid.'

In the final analysis, Jesus was willing to forgive all who repented and even apparently a few who did not repent. Completely contradictory to PSA's claims of God's refusal or inability to forgive without tit-for-tat 'justice'.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I answered you about Jesus because you brought in the example, but the differences we were discussing was about God; here it is the Son of God reacting and teaching - 'you have made my father's house a den of thieves'.

[Ultra confused] Doesn't Jesus show what God is like? Is he not God? If Jesus chastised (at the temple) then is it not legitimate to say that such behaviour must be compatible with the character of God? Or was this Jesus sinning?
My feeble stab at it is that there's some very distinct differences between what Jesus did at the temple and what people argue is the chastising of God. To me, what GrayFace said on the last page on the difference between vengeful and instructive punishment gets at the heart of it.

If we're talking about hell, as we have been a bit, I fail completely to see how hell can be an "instructive" punishment for the person chucked into it, since the fundamental concept of hell is that you don't get out, ever. If the debt isn't paid by Jesus, it's on your head for all eternity. It's vengeance, more or less.

What Jesus did at the temple was instructive punishment, as it were--giving them the chance to repent and move forward. If we are to see the acts of Jesus as the embodied acts of God, I can't find any of them in which the door wasn't left open.

[ 24. September 2007, 00:04: Message edited by: infinite_monkey ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
In my view of atonement, which is not strictly CV, we are being rescued from sin. Not insignificantly, we are being saved from the idea that victory and salvation are acheived by wielding power over other people and enslaving them for our own purposes.

quote:
I'm wondering why there is no response to this? Is it incomprehensible? A stupid remark?
I think no one responded because it doesn't add anything. I'm not sure what difference what it makes to either CV or PSA?


quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Jesus never demonstrated any kind of quality that looked like: 'I will not forgive unless a legal penalty is paid.'

In the final analysis, Jesus was willing to forgive all who repented and even apparently a few who did not repent. Completely contradictory to PSA's claims of God's refusal or inability to forgive without tit-for-tat 'justice'.

This is just a rebuttal of PSA, we were discussing what it means for God to discipline us.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
My feeble stab at it is that there's some very distinct differences between what Jesus did at the temple and what people argue is the chastising of God. To me, what GreyFace said on the last page on the difference between vengeful and instructive punishment gets at the heart of it.

If we're talking about hell, as we have been a bit, I fail completely to see how hell can be an "instructive" punishment for the person chucked into it, since the fundamental concept of hell is that you don't get out, ever. If the debt isn't paid by Jesus, it's on your head for all eternity. It's vengeance, more or less.

What Jesus did at the temple was instructive punishment, as it were--giving them the chance to repent and move forward. If we are to see the acts of Jesus as the embodied acts of God, I can't find any of them in which the door wasn't left open.

Thanks. I do think this strikes to the heart of it.

To put my argument rather crudely, it has been something like this:

- If Hell does exist and is permanent separation from God then it cannot be entirely reformative, it must have a retributive element to it.
- Therefore if Hell does exist then then must be a penal element to the atonement.
- Hence if we believe that Jesus taught that hell exists then there must be some form of PSA (even if nuanced) in our atonement model.


Hence all my comments about universalism. I am increasingly convinced that a belief in hell is inextricably linked with PSA.

Of course universalism is another debate to be had in another thread, but my point is that if you believe in hell (in whatever sense) then I think you cannot let go of PSA.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
However, even I can see that getting rescued from a burning building is pretty salvific.

So can I - the question is ... what are we being rescued from?
In my view of atonement, which is not strictly CV, we are being rescued from sin. Not insignificantly, we are being saved from the idea that victory and salvation are acheived by wielding power over other people and enslaving them for our own purposes.
I'm wondering why there is no response to this? Is it incomprehensible? A stupid remark?
I think because there is no answer. It is right on the mark.

This point of view paints sin as the only thing that causes harm, and makes God purely benificent. This is consistent with Jesus' statement that He does not judge:
quote:
John 8:15 You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one.
And yet He also says that He does judge. He clarifies what He means when He points out that the truth itself judges:
quote:
John 12:47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.
Jesus came purely to save. His words judge in the same sense that any warning of impending consequences judge people. An example would be the warning of scientists that human behavior could lead to disastrous climate changes. They are not calling down any kind of punishment for our behavior, but if they are correct then the truth of what they say will judge us.
quote:
Luke 17:21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”
If heaven is within us then hell must also be there. We are not cast into hell, we create it within ourselves.

So God is completely good and loving, with all His efforts being directed at preventing us from leading ourselves into trouble.

This is what CV is about. PSA, on the other hand, makes God the source of our future trouble if we don't do what He says. This is the way that children understand their parents' behavior towrds them, but it is not a mature perspective.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Of course universalism is another debate to be had in another thread, but my point is that if you believe in hell (in whatever sense) then I think you cannot let go of PSA.

No.

PSA only makes sense if you believe that hell is inflicted on us by God.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Perhaps, I'd have to check with Orthodox sources and re-read Aulen but I think you can very easily come up with a similar formulation that leaves the devil out of it, based on restoration of creation as righteous. Which almost, but not quite ties in with what I said at the end of page 31 about penal substitutionary language that isn't what most people understand PSA to be. I'll have a go at explaining that in more detail if you like.

Sorry for taking so long to get round to this, Johnny. This is the first chance I've had and I wanted to try to do it justice, if you'll excuse the pun...

The idea of the devil acquiring rights over us due to our rebellion against God can be restated in terms of something that's at the heart of all arguments in favour of PSA, namely that God's righteousness demands evil does not win. That is, saying the devil acquires a right to possess the souls of sinners is the same thing as saying sinners lose the right to the eternal life God intended for us. Even if you don't believe in the existence of the devil, it's a straightforward metaphor. By sinning, according to fairness and rightness you put yourself under the command and in the camp of the enemies of God.

Now, this then presents something of a problem. If God lets that stand, it means creation is evil and broken, his creatures in permanent rebellion and unable to reach the eternal life he wants for us. But if he simply pardons us unconditionally - which he has the perfect right to do being God after all - creation remains a story in which evil gets away with it and in that sense is a failure other than as a soul factory. If, however, God becomes human and identifies by union with either all those who follow him / are baptised into his death / everyone (see previous arguments about add-on selection criteria - hereafter known as Christ's people) then creation is restored in his unjust death and resurrection, sin fails to defeat God's purpose. In the one version of the story, the devil forfeits his right to Christ's people by killing Christ and thus overstepping his authority and it becomes good and right that even sinners may receive eternal life through Christ's victory. In the other version creation becomes good because evil has not won, the central story of creation is not that God had to pluck a few chosen rebels out of it or condemn everyone but rather that evil did not win, the justice and ultimate goodness of both creation and the rescue of sinners is affirmed by Christ's victory. But both versions really say the same thing.

Now, is the second version PSA? It's very close to what (with no offence intended to some quarters) the good PSA theologians say rather than the "Christ was punished to save me from Hell" tract version. But note the absence of any notion of retribution. At the heart of this there is unconditional forgiveness and the restoration of the righteousness of creation, not the need to punish sinners.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
No.

PSA only makes sense if you believe that hell is inflicted on us by God.

This is the bit I don't understand. If there is a hell then how it not be, at least in part, inflicted on us by God. I appreciate that those who end up there choose to go there themselves, but it is ultimately down to the world God created that their choices lead them there. I'm not talking about any sense of predestination here, just simple 'God created the world with these consequences built in'.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
In the other version creation becomes good because evil has not won, the central story of creation is not that God had to pluck a few chosen rebels out of it or condemn everyone but rather that evil did not win, the justice and ultimate goodness of both creation and the rescue of sinners is affirmed by Christ's victory.

Thanks Greyface, I like that and have probably used similar ways to explain the gospel before.

So, it's more a case of nuance than either / or. However, I'm convinced this version is fair to the sweep of the 'gospel' that we encounter in the four gospels. For example, in John's gospel Jesus does repeatedly describe God's plan as a rescue mission 'taking his followers out of an evil world'. John is full of darkness/light type of 'them and us' type imagery.

I'm not saying that I like it all, or that it is a case of one version over the other, just that the gospels insist that we include all of these pictures and versions.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This is the bit I don't understand. If there is a hell then how it not be, at least in part, inflicted on us by God. I appreciate that those who end up there choose to go there themselves, but it is ultimately down to the world God created that their choices lead them there.

This isn't a knock-down answer but I don't think it's to do with the way God created the world, but instead the nature of reality given who God is.

If heaven is a place or a state or a metaphor for being in the blissful presence of God, and it's possible to be eternally not in heaven, then that's hell, isn't it? It may not, in fact I believe it is not because scripture as well as reason and tradition and experience tell us that God wants all to be saved, a question of God saying "You, off to hell, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred quid" but rather of someone choosing permanently and irrevocably and eternally that which is not God.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So, it's more a case of nuance than either / or.

Yes, but I think there's a profound and critical difference between the penal substitutionary atonement I've tried to present as compatible with Christus Victor, and the simplified and frankly to my mind heretical form to which it easily collapses when dealt with carelessly - that God is about punishment of sin, we have sinned but luckily God is also merciful so God punished his Son instead of us so he could let us off.

quote:
However, I'm convinced this version is fair to the sweep of the 'gospel' that we encounter in the four gospels. For example, in John's gospel Jesus does repeatedly describe God's plan as a rescue mission 'taking his followers out of an evil world'.
I don't get that from St John, I get God so loved the world etc. The rescue mission is the rescue of creation as much as it is of a few proto- and actual Christians. I've tried to show how I believe Christ's actions bring this about, but the realisation of it in terms of justice at the local and political level are I think what we're called to do in working out our salvation and that's what the us and them is primarily about. It requires the Church to serve God and not the world (in the mammon sense) and in so doing serve the world (in the God's creation sense).

But that's a bit off-topic.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
No.

PSA only makes sense if you believe that hell is inflicted on us by God.

This is the bit I don't understand. If there is a hell then how it not be, at least in part, inflicted on us by God. I appreciate that those who end up there choose to go there themselves, but it is ultimately down to the world God created that their choices lead them there. I'm not talking about any sense of predestination here, just simple 'God created the world with these consequences built in'.
Yes, God created a world in which opposites exist, or "polarities" as A Feminine Force said
here:
quote:
It all makes perfect sense to me when I realize what experience in the material universe requires: polarity. Even the tiniest particles that comprise my corporeal self require polarity in order to be "in order". The positive/negative charge, the yin and yang of everything are utterly essential to my experience of the physical universe.
So if happiness and light are possible, then unhappiness and darkness must also be possible. God created the world this way, and it is a good way for the world to be.

This is not the same thing as saying that God created darkness. Genesis 1 explicitly avoids saying that He created it.

Similarly, God did not create hell. It exists purely as that which is not heaven. It is a place of darkness merely because of the relative absence of light there. It is not a place where God punishes, but rather a place where people shield themselves from the happiness that God would give them. They seek happiness in their own way, but what they find is not happiness but, relatively speaking, torment.

PSA, I think, demands that God do more than create a world that includes "polarities." Doesn't PSA demand that God actually punish?
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think no one responded because it doesn't add anything. I'm not sure what difference what it makes to either CV or PSA?

If your implication was that only PSA saves people 'from something', then it makes a difference. Why ask the question in the first place? And why ask the question and then ignore the answer?

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This is just a rebuttal of PSA, we were discussing what it means for God to discipline us.

I don't see Jesus 'offering anyone discipline'. Where did he say 'If you do X, I will cause Y to happen to you'? He told a few people not to sin any more. He rebuked a few people. He may even have threatened people. I can't think of a place where he disciplined anyone. (I do not believe that threats and rebukes are 'discipline'.)

PSA threatens everyone with damnation. The key to PSA is this threat, as far as I can see. Furthermore, we are threatened with damnation not because of what we do but because of what we are. The way that we avoid damnation is by believing a set of doctrines.

So, PSA does not care what we do, whether our deeds are good or bad. How on earth do you call this discipline?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Thanks Freddy and GreyFace. I'll chew over those depictions of Hell.

I struggle with them because it sounds as if you are making God contingent to our freewill but I'm not sure if you really are.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I don't see Jesus 'offering anyone discipline'. Where did he say 'If you do X, I will cause Y to happen to you'? He told a few people not to sin any more. He rebuked a few people. He may even have threatened people. I can't think of a place where he disciplined anyone. (I do not believe that threats and rebukes are 'discipline'.)


So what was Jesus doing as he cleansed the temple?

Also, how do you interpret language like this from Jesus?

"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgement than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies?
No, you will go down to the depths."

(Luke 10: 13-15)
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I don't see Jesus 'offering anyone discipline'. Where did he say 'If you do X, I will cause Y to happen to you'? He told a few people not to sin any more. He rebuked a few people. He may even have threatened people. I can't think of a place where he disciplined anyone. (I do not believe that threats and rebukes are 'discipline'.)


So what was Jesus doing as he cleansed the temple?

Also, how do you interpret language like this from Jesus?

"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgement than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies?
No, you will go down to the depths."

(Luke 10: 13-15)

So when you say that PSA provides 'discipline', you think that 'Don't do this / don't believe that or you'll go to hell' is discipline? Knocking over a table in an expression of anger is discipline? I don't think either of those things are discipline.

Unlike some of the respondents here, I'm floating the idea that no theory of atonement actually provides divine discipline. I observe that God does not act in time in that way.

Threatening me in this life with hell in the next life is a threat. It's not discipline. It's not oriented toward my reform (and is more likely to result in my non-reform), it may not be proportional to my sin of telling a white lie, and there is no observable consequence for me in this life.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Unlike some of the respondents here, I'm floating the idea that no theory of atonement actually provides divine discipline. I observe that God does not act in time in that way.

... so presumably you think that parents would be more loving (more like God) if they never disciplined their children? (NB the question has nothing to do with punishment.)

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Threatening me in this life with hell in the next life is a threat. It's not discipline. It's not oriented toward my reform (and is more likely to result in my non-reform), it may not be proportional to my sin of telling a white lie, and there is no observable consequence for me in this life.

[Ultra confused] That simply makes me repeat my question - what was Jesus doing in Luke 10 then?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Thanks Freddy and GreyFace. I'll chew over those depictions of Hell.

I struggle with them because it sounds as if you are making God contingent to our freewill but I'm not sure if you really are.

I agree with you that God is not contingent on our free will. I think that it is possible both that we have genuine free will and that His will be done.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So what was Jesus doing as he cleansed the temple?

He was strongly asserting how things should be, and zealously criticizing those who opposed Him. He was driving them out of the temple, not killing, maiming or torturing them.

His warnings about eternal damnation may be compared to the warnings that anyone who understands the consequences of some action gives to those who don't know. This is warning, not the threat of retribution. Warnings to children about the dangers of playing with fire, drugs and alcohol, firearms, playing with knives, and similar things are often delivered in emotional and even frightening language. But these are expressions of love, not threats.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Unlike some of the respondents here, I'm floating the idea that no theory of atonement actually provides divine discipline. I observe that God does not act in time in that way.

... so presumably you think that parents would be more loving (more like God) if they never disciplined their children? (NB the question has nothing to do with punishment.)
Sorry, where did I say that parents would be better parents if they didn't discipline their children? And what's that got to do with what I'm saying?

I'm saying I see sinners getting away with their sins in a lot of instances. Where do you see God clearly disciplining sinners in this life?

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[Ultra confused] That simply makes me repeat my question - what was Jesus doing in Luke 10 then?

Issuing threats. Where is anyone actually disciplined? Serious question. Please answer how they are disciplined rather than threatened? You can continue to refuse to answer my question, but it's not convincing me of your argument.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:

I'm saying I see sinners getting away with their sins in a lot of instances. Where do you see God clearly disciplining sinners in this life?

Er... that was the question I asked a few pages back that started this all off.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Where is anyone actually disciplined? Serious question. Please answer how they are disciplined rather than threatened? You can continue to refuse to answer my question, but it's not convincing me of your argument.

Read back over the past few pages and you'll see that you are just asking my questions. (I put that one specifically to GreyFace.)

That is my point. Jesus is talking about judgment here (Luke 10) ... he is not even threatening it, he is saying that it is going to happen.

Stop arguing with me and take it out with GreyFace and Freddy who think that a threat is a form of discipline (if it prevents bad behaviour).

My point is that (so it seems) we are saying that God neither disciplines (in the present) nor punishes (in the future). I don't think that is loving behaviour when compared to loved modelled in positive parenting.
 
Posted by David Castor (# 11357) on :
 
Hope that this post doesn't hijack the ongoing discussion on this thread (if so, perhaps it be split into a new thread), but last night the Sydney Anglican Synod voted to endorse Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Interestingly enough, the amendment to endorse two books on the subject, "The Cross of Christ" by John Stott and "Pierced For Our Transgressions" by some random theological students was surprisingly defeated.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:


That is my point. Jesus is talking about judgment here (Luke 10) ... he is not even threatening it, he is saying that it is going to happen.

Stop arguing with me and take it out with GreyFace and Freddy who think that a threat is a form of discipline (if it prevents bad behaviour).

My point is that (so it seems) we are saying that God neither disciplines (in the present) nor punishes (in the future). I don't think that is loving behaviour when compared to loved modelled in positive parenting.

There's a difference between punishment and consequences, Christ is talking consequence in Luke 10.

Christ sent out his disciples in PEACE, how can one possibly think it peaceful for God to coerce others to come to him by threatening them with punishment if they don't..

That's back to the irrational God of OS - 'yes, I created you with free will, but if you disobey me I'll kill you'. Consequences. Christ was likening the situation to Sodom and for the same reasons, inhospitality towards the stranger, which in Sodom was exercised to the nth degree, if we're inhospitable to others we put ourselves out of God's hospitality. Christ's teaching is all about our decisions creating circumstances - so we pray that our sins are forgiven as we forgive others (that doesn't automatically exclude being in situations from the actions of others against us and so on, it's what we need to do to play our part in changing circumstances for everyone).

The law in England finally got around to stopping corporal punishment of children at schools if that's what you mean by parental discipline.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

His warnings about eternal damnation may be compared to the warnings that anyone who understands the consequences of some action gives to those who don't know. This is warning, not the threat of retribution. Warnings to children about the dangers of playing with fire, drugs and alcohol, firearms, playing with knives, and similar things are often delivered in emotional and even frightening language. But these are expressions of love, not threats.

I've been thinking about the description that both you and GreyFace gave of hell. You basically use language that I would sometimes use when explaining it to a non-Christian - but
when I do so I always feel rather disingenuos, for the following two reasons:

1. I don't think it is as simple as hell being people choosing to reject God. Paul defines idolatry as wanting to love and worship created things rather than our creator (in Romans 1). If all good things come from God then some will want to carry on enjoying all of God's creation while rejecting God as God.

2. I have a problem with impersonal descriptions of God (e.g. polarities etc.) since it makes God to be impersonal. As CS Lewis once commented on this issue - an impersonal force has no mercy. I thought the whole point of the gospel was that God does not give to us what we deserve - hence he does not allow 'cause and effect' to happen.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by David Castor:
Hope that this post doesn't hijack the ongoing discussion on this thread (if so, perhaps it be split into a new thread), but last night the Sydney Anglican Synod voted to endorse Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Interestingly enough, the amendment to endorse two books on the subject, "The Cross of Christ" by John Stott and "Pierced For Our Transgressions" by some random theological students was surprisingly defeated.

Interesting.

If, as I assume they argue, PSA is what the Protestant church has always believed then why the need to endorse it?

Any indication as to why the book endorsement was defeated?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by David Castor:
Hope that this post doesn't hijack the ongoing discussion on this thread (if so, perhaps it be split into a new thread), but last night the Sydney Anglican Synod voted to endorse Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Interestingly enough, the amendment to endorse two books on the subject, "The Cross of Christ" by John Stott and "Pierced For Our Transgressions" by some random theological students was surprisingly defeated.

Interesting.

If, as I assume they argue, PSA is what the Protestant church has always believed then why the need to endorse it?

Any indication as to why the book endorsement was defeated?

Back from hols [Frown]

That, of course, is a very good question. I think the answer is that the particular strand of "gathered church" theology in the ascendancy in Sydney Diocese tends partly to define itself, in the literal Protestant sense, against other expressions of Christianity that it sees as somehow flawed. Thus, it tends to be reactive. Some guys are questioning what they see as being the biblical interpretation of the Atonement. Then we'd better weigh in on the side of Scriptural Truth ™

The refusal to endorse "The cross of Christ" is possibly understandable in that many of the right consider Stott too nuanced for their tastes, but in that case it's difficult to see what argument thay would have had with PFOT. I can only assume that there are other dynamics at work here, unknown to us Sydney outsiders.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
1. I don't think it is as simple as hell being people choosing to reject God. Paul defines idolatry as wanting to love and worship created things rather than our creator (in Romans 1). If all good things come from God then some will want to carry on enjoying all of God's creation while rejecting God as God.

I don't understand what your problem is there. Can you explain?

quote:
2. I have a problem with impersonal descriptions of God (e.g. polarities etc.) since it makes God to be impersonal.
Who described God that way?

quote:
I thought the whole point of the gospel was that God does not give to us what we deserve - hence he does not allow 'cause and effect' to happen.
Cause and effect isn't anything to do with what we deserve. It's to do with what happens. I don't know where you've got that idea from at all but I could refute it with any number of examples from daily life.

Anyway, God being the cause of the effect we call our salvation sounds like the gospel to me.

[ 25. September 2007, 09:36: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
1. I don't think it is as simple as hell being people choosing to reject God. Paul defines idolatry as wanting to love and worship created things rather than our creator (in Romans 1). If all good things come from God then some will want to carry on enjoying all of God's creation while rejecting God as God.

That's right. Evil is a matter of misplaced priorities. Created things are intended to be good and beneficial. They become problematic when they are desired in favor of God and what God prioritizes, namely justice, mercy and faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
2. I have a problem with impersonal descriptions of God (e.g. polarities etc.) since it makes God to be impersonal. As CS Lewis once commented on this issue - an impersonal force has no mercy. I thought the whole point of the gospel was that God does not give to us what we deserve - hence he does not allow 'cause and effect' to happen.

I agree. God is not polarities, nor is He impersonal. He is a person.

It is true that God does not give us what we deserve. His love shields us from the consequences of what we are and what we desire. He rigorously preserves our freedom so that we can choose what to love and how to be.

This is not the same thing as not allowing cause and effect to happen. He merely modifies it in order to promote our salvation.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I don't understand what your problem is there. Can you explain?

Not only is God great but, as a consequence, his place is out of this world too! (Apologies for the pun.) It may make sense to describe hell as people hating God but not wanting to be near him. However, life on earth demonstrates that many people who don't like God still like his 'stuff'. It is not a case of not wanting to be near the one they hate, more a case of wanting to stay in his place but not wanting to have anything to do with him. What does God do with that? Surely he will, however relunctantly, have to ask them to leave? (And then it is more than cause and effect but an active decision of God.)

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
2. I have a problem with impersonal descriptions of God (e.g. polarities etc.) since it makes God to be impersonal.
Who described God that way?
Freddy did, by quoting AFF.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Cause and effect isn't anything to do with what we deserve. It's to do with what happens. I don't know where you've got that idea from at all but I could refute it with any number of examples from daily life.

Okay, call it what happens then, we still get to the same end point. If you describe death as 'what happens' rather than God's punishment on sin, then the gospel is still God reversing cause and effect so that we don't die but have eternal life.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree. God is not polarities, nor is He impersonal. He is a person.

It is true that God does not give us what we deserve. His love shields us from the consequences of what we are and what we desire. He rigorously preserves our freedom so that we can choose what to love and how to be.

This is not the same thing as not allowing cause and effect to happen. He merely modifies it in order to promote our salvation.

That seems very unfair - why doesn't he 'modify' it for everybody?

With PSA everyone is treated equally - we all deserve punishment but that punishment either falls on us or on Christ. Cause and effect, the same for all.

However, you seem to be saying that cause and effect is modified for some but not for all.

[ 25. September 2007, 15:50: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I have a problem with impersonal descriptions of God (e.g. polarities etc.) since it makes God to be impersonal.
quote:
Who described God that way?
Freddy did, by quoting AFF.
That's not what AFF said. Her quote was:
quote:
It all makes perfect sense to me when I realize what experience in the material universe requires: polarity. Even the tiniest particles that comprise my corporeal self require polarity in order to be "in order". The positive/negative charge, the yin and yang of everything are utterly essential to my experience of the physical universe.
Meaning that polarities, or opposites, are an inherent part of creation, not that God is impersonal.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is true that God does not give us what we deserve. His love shields us from the consequences of what we are and what we desire. He rigorously preserves our freedom so that we can choose what to love and how to be.

This is not the same thing as not allowing cause and effect to happen. He merely modifies it in order to promote our salvation.

That seems very unfair - why doesn't he 'modify' it for everybody?
He does modify it for everyone. Everyone is treated exactly the same. True cause and effect would mean that wicked thoughts and actions would draw evil things to you like a magnet, quickly destroying your world.

This kind of cause and effect are modelled in the immediate punishments and benefits that happened to Old Testament Israel in response to their fidelity or lack thereof.

In real life those consequences are so muted and disguised in the physical world that they are imperceptible. Sin does not make you sick, weak or poor in any demonstrable way except those dictated by physical or civil laws.

But in the long run everyone's well-being is directly and precisely related to the quality of the love and faith that they are willing to receive from God.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
With PSA everyone is treated equally - we all deserve punishment but that punishment either falls on us or on Christ. Cause and effect, the same for all.

That doesn't sound equal to me. Are you saying that two equally loving and moral people might not be treated equally? [Confused]

And you really believe that God punishes? [Confused]

[ 25. September 2007, 16:55: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


And you really believe that God punishes? [Confused]

I find the arguments that you and GreyFace are using philosophically very compelling. My problem is that I can't find these ideas in the teaching of Jesus.

For example I have just come back from a meeting at church where we were discussing Graham Dow's rather silly comments about the recent flooding in Britain.

Part of the discussion focussed on the tower of Siloam in Luke 13. (I also mention that passage since Jeffrey John famously tried to use it at Easter to bash PSA.)

Now, in Luke 13 verses 1-5 I think it is possible to interpret Jesus along your lines of warning about cause and effect. However, it is as if Luke edits his gospel to prevent us from leaving it there. The parable that follows immediately in verses 6-9 wants to take us further. This is not cause and effect, this is the deliberate action of the gardener. There is great patience, but eventually (if the tree bears no fruit) it will be cut down.

I find your arguments compelling, I just can't square them with the teaching of Jesus.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I find your arguments compelling, I just can't square them with the teaching of Jesus.

I understand, Johnny. It is interesting that whereas Jesus never advocates either revenge or punishment, His parables do contain acts of violent retribution.

As you note, the gardener will cut down the unfruitful fig tree. The owner of the vineyard will "destroy" the wicked vinedressers. The master of the feast casts the one not wearing a wedding garment into "outer darkness." The man inviting people to a wedding feast destroys whole cities of people who refuse to come to the feast. In fact, most of Jesus' stories include some kind of violence of this type.

How is this consistent with the Jesus who made the following statements?
quote:
Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,

Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.

Luke 9:53 But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. 54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”
55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.”

There is a clear difference between these statements, where Jesus is advocating literal actions, and the parables. The parables are typically full of hyperbole for the purpose of making their point. In parables people aren't simply rebuffed, they are killed. They do not merely succeed, they become fabulously wealthy.

So the consequences in parables are typically severe and absolute. The consequences also originate in some sort of master, who is clearly meant to represent God.

This does make it easy to believe that God is the source of all consequences, and that they are likely to be severe and absolute.

And this is in the New Testament stories that Jesus tells! The God depicted in these stories is hardly different than the Old Testament God, who both threatens and carries out massive and severe retaliation against those who oppose Him.

The solution to this puzzle seems very clear to me, so I'm wondering why it is not clear to you and others. Is this really a puzzle for you?

Isn't the answer that simplistic minds need simplistic answers? Children believe that punishments originate with whoever is handing them out. It is hard for them to see them as the direct consequences of their own actions. Since all things come from God, it is easiest for a simple person to see all consequences as coming from God as well. To achieve this, God needs to be viewed as capable of anger and violent action.

Jesus' stories, just like the Old Testament histories, run with this premise. They make memorable stories for people of any age, with a clear and useful message. They are explicit warnings.

I believe that the truth that is consistent with Jesus' other sayings, quoted above and in other passages, is that the consequences alluded to as hyperbole in Jesus' parables actually do happen, but that God is not actually their source. Rather, punishment is inherent in evil itself - not because God wills it, but because freedom demands that there be a possible alternative to happiness. So just as God does not angrily slam people to the ground who fall from high places, neither does He punish people who are addicted to drugs, or who are self-centered bastards. The punishment is inherent in the thing itself.

This seems to me to be completely consistent with Jesus' statements. He is about love and mercy. He loves every person. His forgiveness is universal. But people nevertheless face consequences for what they do, and those consequences can be severe. He came into the world to warn people away from them, and to enable people to avert them.

If you cannot square these things with the teachings of Jesus, however, then I would advocate sticking with Jesus' teachings as you understand them. He is the source and the authority. I tend to believe that epistemology is more crucial in the long run than exegesis.

It is also crucial, I believe, to make all biblical statements consistent with each other. If Jesus' statements seem to conflict with each other, then reinterpretation is in order. Do you agree?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Freddy, thanks a lot for taking the time to give such a thought out explanation of your position.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


So the consequences in parables are typically severe and absolute. The consequences also originate in some sort of master, who is clearly meant to represent God.

This does make it easy to believe that God is the source of all consequences, and that they are likely to be severe and absolute.

There is another difference between the statements you compare. The ethical commands to non-retaliation are to his disciples in the present, however the 'punishment' in the parables refers to a future judgment by God.

Therefore we have two alternatives:

1. The parables are ... well, parabolic, and Jesus is just 'exagerating'.

2. Jesus expects his followers to 'turn the other cheek' because they leave ultimate justice up to God (a la Romans 12).

Of course the question is - how can we be sure of option 1 or 2?


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The solution to this puzzle seems very clear to me, so I'm wondering why it is not clear to you and others. Is this really a puzzle for you?

Isn't the answer that simplistic minds need simplistic answers? Children believe that punishments originate with whoever is handing them out. It is hard for them to see them as the direct consequences of their own actions. Since all things come from God, it is easiest for a simple person to see all consequences as coming from God as well. To achieve this, God needs to be viewed as capable of anger and violent action.

Jesus' stories, just like the Old Testament histories, run with this premise. They make memorable stories for people of any age, with a clear and useful message. They are explicit warnings.

I think you are are dangerous ground here, for several reasons but this is the main one:

- If your premise is correct then you seem to have two options open to you:

1. Keep a penal element in your atonement model since Jesus did when he was explaining it to 'all' people. (i.e. keep PSA)

or

2. Claim that actually you are better at communicating the gospel then Jesus was. If this was the way he did it to explain it simply to all people then who are we to change the metaphors entirely? Even if you are right, we have absolutely no evidence that Jesus deviated from this 'childish' explanation so what gives us the right to deviate ourselves?

Remember Jesus was not talking to children then, he was talking mostly to adults. Either you are going to have to be incredibly patronising and claim that they were all uneducated, illiterate peasants then and Jesus had to pat them on the head, or that Jesus would use similar metaphors today.

I can't help feeling that you are saying that you can improve on the gospel Jesus preached. While I concede that Jesus would not communicate to people in the 21st century in the same way he did in the 1st, this is not about communication, this is about changing the message.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


It is also crucial, I believe, to make all biblical statements consistent with each other. If Jesus' statements seem to conflict with each other, then reinterpretation is in order. Do you agree?

I totally agree. That is what I give my whole life to and I respect you in that you are trying to do the same. I find that it is an iterative process and am fully aware that I won't even get close in this life!
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The ethical commands to non-retaliation are to his disciples in the present, however the 'punishment' in the parables refers to a future judgment by God.

Therefore we have two alternatives:

1. The parables are ... well, parabolic, and Jesus is just 'exagerating'.

2. Jesus expects his followers to 'turn the other cheek' because they leave ultimate justice up to God (a la Romans 12).

I don't think that those are the alternatives.

For example, I think that option 1 is mis-stated because Jesus does not exaggerate in the parables. Metaphors work on a different principle. Parables don't literally describe what happens but rather convey symbolically core truths about how things work. The core truth, I believe, in the parables mentioned above is that we reap the consequences of our actions and even of our thoughts and desires. The metaphoric aspect is that the agent of our punishment is not God. The future judgment of God is really just the consequences of our own actions.

Option 2 is a little different. One aspect of turning the other cheek is trusting in God and in some sense trusting the order that God has created to enforce justice. But I don't think that this is what is really going on here. We are told to turn the other cheek because we are to love even our enemies, and desire peace rather than war. There is no implication that this is because God will do the punishing. Exactly the opposite. We are to be this way because this is how God is:
quote:
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.

Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

So God is kind to the evil. Their misery is self-inflicted.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Of course the question is - how can we be sure of option 1 or 2?

Only if this is what we believe the Bible actually says.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't the answer that simplistic minds need simplistic answers?

I think you are are dangerous ground here, for several reasons but this is the main one:

- If your premise is correct then you seem to have two options open to you:

1. Keep a penal element in your atonement model since Jesus did when he was explaining it to 'all' people. (i.e. keep PSA)

Yes, that's right. I do often keep a penal element when explaining things because this is often easier for people to hold in their minds than the complex idea that we are the cause of our own suffering. This is especially true when talking to children. The idea that God punishes the evil is easy for them to grasp.

But this isn't PSA. It's never about people taking punishments for other people.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
or

2. Claim that actually you are better at communicating the gospel then Jesus was. If this was the way he did it to explain it simply to all people then who are we to change the metaphors entirely? Even if you are right, we have absolutely no evidence that Jesus deviated from this 'childish' explanation so what gives us the right to deviate ourselves?

Jesus plainly said that He spoke in parables:
quote:
Matthew 13:34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them,

John 16:25 “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father."

It's not about changing the metaphors, but acknowledging and explaining them.

And there is certainly evidence that Jesus deviated from these childish explanations. That's what the quotes above are about. That's why He can tell a parable about the king destroying whole cities, and then turn around and rebuke the disciples for even thinking about calling down fire from heaven on people.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is also crucial, I believe, to make all biblical statements consistent with each other. If Jesus' statements seem to conflict with each other, then reinterpretation is in order. Do you agree?

I totally agree. That is what I give my whole life to and I respect you in that you are trying to do the same.
I appreciate that you are doing this too. Unfortunately, it is not easy to do. So it's good to have these discussions. [Angel]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Wow, you were up late - or were you up early?

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The idea that God punishes the evil is easy for them to grasp.

But this isn't PSA. It's never about people taking punishments for other people.

So how can you have a penal aspect without PSA? Is God punishing people better than Jesus accepting our punishment for us?


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
And there is certainly evidence that Jesus deviated from these childish explanations. That's what the quotes above are about. That's why He can tell a parable about the king destroying whole cities, and then turn around and rebuke the disciples for even thinking about calling down fire from heaven on people.

Interestingly that is precisely why I referred to Jesus' warning of judgment on Korazin and Bethsaida in Luke 10, a while back. In Luke 9 he rebukes his disciples for wanting to call down fire as an act of 'revenge' on a village and yet in the very next chapter Luke records Jesus (in plain speech, not parable) speaking of a future judgment on these towns. Again, the difference here is not between parable and plain speech but between immediate revenge and delayed judgment.

I take your point about parabolic language but I don't think it holds across Christ's teaching.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Unfortunately, it is not easy to do. So it's good to have these discussions. [Angel]

It sure is hard - it does my melon in!
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
In Luke 9 he rebukes his disciples for wanting to call down fire as an act of 'revenge' on a village and yet in the very next chapter Luke records Jesus (in plain speech, not parable) speaking of a future judgment on these towns. Again, the difference here is not between parable and plain speech but between immediate revenge and delayed judgment.

Johnny, I think what we have here is two (at least) pre-existing conceptions of God being read into Scripture, rather than Scripture being used to form out neutral conceptions of God. Perhaps this is inevitable.

When I read that bit of Luke 9, I don't get Jesus rebuking them on the grounds that it's a bit too early, fire will be sent to destroy the Samaritan villagers later on - that wouldn't be much of a rebuke to me, saying "hang on, you're jumping the gun." Rather I get Jesus telling them they have failed to grasp what God is like. God isn't the kind of God who rains down fire on sinners in vengeful anger. But perhaps that's just me coming from a previous position.

Sometimes certain Orthodox Shipmates say on threads like this that PSA-followers believe in a different God and a different gospel to the rest of Christianity. I'm starting to wonder if they may be right.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Wow, you were up late - or were you up early?

Ah, the miracle of time zones. [Biased]
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The idea that God punishes the evil is easy for them to grasp.

But this isn't PSA. It's never about people taking punishments for other people.

So how can you have a penal aspect without PSA? Is God punishing people better than Jesus accepting our punishment for us?
As far as children are concerned, yes. Children tend to always believe that punishments originate in the one in charge. Adults understand that this is not true. The same should be the case with our understanding of God.

So there is no penal aspect, other than that punishment is inherent in evil itself. There is no PSA.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
And there is certainly evidence that Jesus deviated from these childish explanations. That's what the quotes above are about. That's why He can tell a parable about the king destroying whole cities, and then turn around and rebuke the disciples for even thinking about calling down fire from heaven on people.

Interestingly that is precisely why I referred to Jesus' warning of judgment on Korazin and Bethsaida in Luke 10, a while back. In Luke 9 he rebukes his disciples for wanting to call down fire as an act of 'revenge' on a village and yet in the very next chapter Luke records Jesus (in plain speech, not parable) speaking of a future judgment on these towns. Again, the difference here is not between parable and plain speech but between immediate revenge and delayed judgment.
In agreement with Greyface, there is a difference between a doctor predicting dire consequences if a patient does not lose weight and stop smoking, and a doctor calling down punishments on fat smokers. The first doctor is trying to help, the second doctor is mean.

As a patient, of course, it's hard to tell the difference. [Biased]

It's no wonder that there is similar confusion about God. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As far as children are concerned, yes. Children tend to always believe that punishments originate in the one in charge. Adults understand that this is not true. The same should be the case with our understanding of God.

I thought we had just covered this. Jesus was talking to adults, not children.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
In agreement with Greyface, there is a difference between a doctor predicting dire consequences if a patient does not lose weight and stop smoking, and a doctor calling down punishments on fat smokers. The first doctor is trying to help, the second doctor is mean.

As a patient, of course, it's hard to tell the difference. [Biased]

It's no wonder that there is similar confusion about God. [Roll Eyes]

I understand the difference, but it seems very odd that Jesus, who came to reveal God to us, should add to that confusion rather than clarifying it.

If it is as you say, then it would have been incredibly easy for Jesus to point all this out. It seems very strange that he refused to do so.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As far as children are concerned, yes. Children tend to always believe that punishments originate in the one in charge. Adults understand that this is not true. The same should be the case with our understanding of God.

I thought we had just covered this. Jesus was talking to adults, not children.
I know you don't agree with this, but I think that the same applies to simple adults, and this is who Jesus was addressing. I realize that many people He was addressing were quite well educated, but most of the people, and certainly the disciples, were unsophisticated.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It's no wonder that there is similar confusion about God. [Roll Eyes]

I understand the difference, but it seems very odd that Jesus, who came to reveal God to us, should add to that confusion rather than clarifying it.

If it is as you say, then it would have been incredibly easy for Jesus to point all this out. It seems very strange that he refused to do so.

I think that He did point this out in the quotes that I have listed above, and others. I wonder how it is that this isn't clear to you.

Are you denying that Jesus said that God is good to everyone and that He does not seek retribution? Or are you just confused by the apparent contradictions in Jesus' sayings?
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
In my view of atonement, which is not strictly CV, we are being rescued from sin. Not insignificantly, we are being saved from the idea that victory and salvation are acheived by wielding power over other people and enslaving them for our own purposes.

I'm wondering why there is no response to this? Is it incomprehensible? A stupid remark?
Well, I've been busy. [Biased] I thought it was brilliant. <fluffs pom-poms> Cheers, OliviaG
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I realize that many people He was addressing were quite well educated, but most of the people, and certainly the disciples, were unsophisticated.

Unsophisticated, by what criteria? Because they put a high value on the family and community responsibility? I always get very nervous when liberal westerners turn their noses up at periods of history. Who's to say that they weren't more sophisticated than us?

Your argument seems to rest on the premise that modern liberal values are the objective yard stick by which we measure everything else.

I'm not a huge fan of POMO but I think it has taught us that there is no objective human stand point from which to view history.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Or are you just confused by the apparent contradictions in Jesus' sayings?

Yep, that's me.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Unsophisticated, by what criteria?

For one thing, this is how the gospels portray them.

For example:
quote:
Mark 8:14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, and they did not have more than one loaf with them in the boat. 15 Then He charged them, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”
16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “ It is because we have no bread.”
17 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “Why do you reason because you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive nor understand?"

Jesus is vexed by their ignorance. They should have easily understood that Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees.

They are portrayed as slow to catch on to many things Jesus said:
quote:
Mark 9:31 For He taught His disciples and said to them, “The Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him. And after He is killed, He will rise the third day.” 32 But they did not understand this saying, and were afraid to ask Him.
This is one of numerous incidents where Jesus predicted His death - but they go right over the disciples' heads.
quote:
Mark 9:33 Then He came to Capernaum. And when He was in the house He asked them, “What was it you disputed among yourselves on the road?” 34 But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest.
Here they are arguing about their own greatness like children. And despite Jesus' rebuke, two of them approach Him not long after - clearly having missed His message:
quote:
Mark 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Him, saying, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask.”
36 And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?”
37 They said to Him, “Grant us that we may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on Your left, in Your glory.”
38 But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you ask.

They were too simple to even understand what they were asking.

We have talked about the following already. Is this a sophisticated response to a cold reception?
quote:
Luke 9:54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”
Jesus, of course, rebukes them.

After the crucifixion the disciples showed how badly they misunderstood Jesus' mission when they said:
quote:
Luke 24:21 But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel.
They thought that He would lead them in rebellion against Rome - despite all that He said.

Of course He DID redeem them, but not in the way that they understood the concept.

As for those who were better educated and more sophisticated, Jesus made it clear that they understood even less:
quote:
John 9:39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.”
Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, “Are we blind also?”
Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.

Similarly:
quote:
Matthew 16:3 and in the morning, ‘It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Hypocrites! You know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times.
The Pharisees knew the Law, but they were simple and literal minded when it came to understanding Jesus' message.

It is easy to say that Jesus might have been more clear about His statements. He did often speak enigmatically. But I think that it is evident that He was often addressing His teaching to people who were unsophisticated and even simple-minded. And those who were educated appeared to understand even less.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Your argument seems to rest on the premise that modern liberal values are the objective yard stick by which we measure everything else.

I agree with your feeling here, but I don't think that this is what I am doing. I don't hold with modern liberal values.

The point I am making is that Jesus is addressing His remarks to people who do not understand, who are simple and unsophisticated, and this is why the parables use the imagery that they do.

Children and simple people need images that they can relate to and hang on to, and it is easier for them to grasp a God who is in charge and punishes than one who never punishes and yet is still God. He said as much when He explained the reason for His parables:
quote:
Matthew 13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Of course, He then praises the disciples because of their open understanding. So maybe they weren't so simple after all. [Biased]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is easy to say that Jesus might have been more clear about His statements. He did often speak enigmatically. But I think that it is evident that He was often addressing His teaching to people who were unsophisticated and even simple-minded. And those who were educated appeared to understand even less.

Sorry, I thought you were making a generalisation about people then as opposed to now.

If you mean it in that sense then I would argue that people are (generally) exactly the same now and so surely we should communicate in a similar way to how Jesus did then.

[ 26. September 2007, 21:21: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I guess that many will be relieved that I am going to have to shut up for days on end ...

... I'm moving about a lot over the next couple of months (from next week) and so I'll only be able to check the ship occasionally. [Disappointed]

Eventually we arrive at our new home in December but there is a fair bit of travelling in between.

Anyway, thanks for all your comments everyone. Even if it doesn't always show, I really appreciate listening to your POV. [Overused]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you mean it in that sense then I would argue that people are (generally) exactly the same now and so surely we should communicate in a similar way to how Jesus did then.

Good. So the Bible remains relevant. [Biased]

I agree that people in general aren't that much different. So I think that it is appropriate, generally speaking, to describe God in the anthropomorphic way that the Bible does - that He gets angry, that He punishes and judges. I say these kinds of things in church and in teaching children.

But when it comes to real explanations of what it's all about, this just doesn't add up. So in adult classes and other more academic communications, the more complicated biblical implications win out.

They do, in my opinion, rule out PSA, since PSA only works in a system where God Himself actively punishes. PSA rules out a purely benificent God.

Christus Victor, on the other hand, features a God who is purely interested in saving humanity from its sins. Forgiveness is therefore not the issue. The issue is the repentance that changes the behavior, which in turn removes the consequences of the behavior as a matter of course. If people can be persuaded to sin less, then the consequences of sin will also be reduced. This is what the victory is about.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Eventually we arrive at our new home in December but there is a fair bit of travelling in between.

Enjoy the trip. Leaving Cheltenham? Sounds like you're moving far away. Luckily this is a world-wide Ship! We'll miss you. [Angel]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I know I keep banging on about it but I think it all comes back to universalism. I still haven't had a clear answer as to why CV does not eventually collapse into universalism. (I think that is what happens if you remove PSA from the model.)

It took me a while but, as promised, I asked a friend about Moltmann. She is doing a PhD on him and her comments were very interesting:

quote:

"The key things about Moltmann are that 1) the Father creates by withdrawing into himself and making a space (zimzum), which is essentially 'hell' as it is a place where God is not. 2) Into that space he creates the world. Into that space he sends Christ to be the true man, the exempler of humanity and by his Spirit he will ultimately indwell that space so that all that God has created will be taken up into the very life of God. 3) In a nutshell, it is panentheism, and it is unmistakably universalism as God cannot forsake anything that he has created."

Not only did she confirm my theory about Moltmann ending up in universalist territory but she also put me onto the link with panentheism. This makes sense to me since it also explains the CV connection with Eastern Orthodox thought. (She says that his best work is The Trinity and the Kingdom of God)

Now this thread is about CV and not about universalism, so...

I just think that some want to have their cake and eat it. They want to reject a penal understanding of God but hold onto some sense of divine judgment.

I want to make it clear, again, that this is not out of some sadistic enjoyment of punishment. I long for hell to be empty too.

My logic is as follows:

- Jesus himself describes hell as being populated
- Therefore I can't go for universalism
- Therefore I can't accept any atonement model that collapses into universalism.


... so, if any of you can convince me that CV need not be universalistic then I'd be much obliged. [Smile]

They cant...because it is!
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Jamat, way before the tangent about discipline vs punishment, Greyface wrote:

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
That is one of the fundamental differences between PSA and CV. PSA is a transactional model, and as such there are millions of everyday examples of how transactional models need us to actively (as opposed to passively) use them in order to reap the benefits.

CV, on the other hand, is about victory. If Christ defeats the enemy of sin and death completely then there is nothing in the model to allow for free will or some other such factor.

It's possible I'm misunderstanding you but let me lay out my argument plainly, and see what you make of it.

PSA works something like this:
According to God's justice, the fact that we are all sinners means we should be all condemned to death or annihilation or eternal torment in hell. God however allows Christ to suffer punishment in order that justice is satisfied because he loves us, and is thereby able to forgive us which he then does.

Where is the transaction you say is at the heart of PSA here? Hint: it doesn't exist. It only exists when you start to ask for whom this is effective, but if you do that it's no different to the answer you get for CV. And no offence but please don't start posting your theology graduate friend's opinion of Moltmann. CV didn't originate with him and I won't lose any sleep at night if either of them are wrong about something.

quote:
If Christ has destroyed sin and death then they are defeated, end of story.
If Christ has suffered the punishment we deserve then justice has been satisfied and God's wrath will not fall upon us, end of story.

quote:
Having CV as an umbrella model must lead to universalism.
Having PSA as an umbrella model must lead to universalism.

I'm not doing this to score points. You genuinely haven't shown how selection criteria are built into PSA in a way that's not there for any other atonement model. If you can't do that, then you can't argue against CV on the grounds that it leads to universalism. I can argue quite easily that Christ's victory over sin and death is only effective for those who are in him whether by free will or God's choice before the foundation of the world or both/same thing a la Boethius. You have to do the same to make PSA transactional and not universal.

Just to re-emphasise the point, if you use PSA to argument for non-universalism, you have to augment it with some secondary teaching. Non-universalism is not inherent in PSA as such, any more than universalism is in CV. The Orthodox are, by and large, non-universalist (I think that they would actually say that salvation resides in the mystery of God, or something like that - quite Anglican, really [Big Grin] ), and yet they have always held to CV and (I think) view PSA as a rank heresy, (at least if our Orthodox shipmates are a reliable sample). I therefore conclude that there is no evidence that holding to CV inevitable leads to universalism. The two can walk hand in hand, but it ain't necessarily so.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
They cant...because it is!

I don't suppose you could actually offer an argument to back that up?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
They cant...because it is!

I don't suppose you could actually offer an argument to back that up?
Jamat, I think that both Greyface and JJ have made good arguments about this.

The argument I would make is that Christ set us free do as we choose. This means we are free, it does not imply universalism.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
They cant...because it is!

I don't suppose you could actually offer an argument to back that up?
It has already been done but essentially,
you can't have Christ as a victor and have anything defeated. Consequently he has triumphed over evil ultimately and Judas and the devil are ultimately not lost cos by definition nothing can be.
None of us can be lost either because we can't really have a real choice to reject Christ who has 'reconciled all things to God in himself' without any human agency or choice needed.

I would just add that under such thinking, any concept of individual salvation loses all meaning. It aint scriptural neither!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
They cant...because it is!

I don't suppose you could actually offer an argument to back that up?
It has already been done but essentially,
you can't have Christ as a victor and have anything defeated. Consequently he has triumphed over evil ultimately and Judas and the devil are ultimately not lost cos by definition nothing can be.
None of us can be lost either because we can't really have a real choice to reject Christ who has 'reconciled all things to God in himself' without any human agency or choice needed.

I would just add that under such thinking, any concept of individual salvation loses all meaning. It aint scriptural neither!

Jamat - with respect, that's bollocks mate.

You've fundamentally misunderstood CV. There is an individual element. There is an element of choice. If we refuse to identify with Christ, to let Him be our champion, then His victory over evil for us is ineffective. The locks are open, the chains are unbound, the prison cell door is open, but if we won't walk through it, we're in the cell still. It doesn't make any difference to us that Christ has bound the jailer and is even now leading him away in a victory parade.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
None of us can be lost either because we can't really have a real choice to reject Christ who has 'reconciled all things to God in himself' without any human agency or choice needed.

I've already shown that this is a non-argument. I'm not convinced you're actually reading the posts on the thread, so I'll say it again.

PSA has the same problem and it's solved in the same way. If Christ has been punished in place of sinners so we don't go to hell, none of us go to hell. Therefore if you can't cope with universalism you need an additional doctrine to show why the atonement doesn't effect salvation for everybody. Whether you pick CV or PSA.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
None of us can be lost either because we can't really have a real choice to reject Christ who has 'reconciled all things to God in himself' without any human agency or choice needed.

I've already shown that this is a non-argument. I'm not convinced you're actually reading the posts on the thread, so I'll say it again.

PSA has the same problem and it's solved in the same way. If Christ has been punished in place of sinners so we don't go to hell, none of us go to hell. Therefore if you can't cope with universalism you need an additional doctrine to show why the atonement doesn't effect salvation for everybody. Whether you pick CV or PSA.

PSA as the pattern of salvation implies according to Paul's exposition of it Gal 2;20 AND Ro 5 etc etc, that choice is needed on the part of the sinner to choose Christ. Without this, the model cannot stand. I don't think that CV NECESSARILY implies the same thing.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
None of us can be lost either because we can't really have a real choice to reject Christ who has 'reconciled all things to God in himself' without any human agency or choice needed.

I've already shown that this is a non-argument. I'm not convinced you're actually reading the posts on the thread, so I'll say it again.

PSA has the same problem and it's solved in the same way. If Christ has been punished in place of sinners so we don't go to hell, none of us go to hell. Therefore if you can't cope with universalism you need an additional doctrine to show why the atonement doesn't effect salvation for everybody. Whether you pick CV or PSA.

PSA as the pattern of salvation implies according to Paul's exposition of it Gal 2;20 AND Ro 5 etc etc, that choice is needed on the part of the sinner to choose Christ. Without this, the model cannot stand. I don't think that CV NECESSARILY implies the same thing.
Actually, Jamat, I don't see the language of choice in Gal 2:20, if by that you mean our choice of God. God's choice of us is a different matter.

But ignoring that, if I concede your understanding of Galatians 2:20 (which, largely, I do) why is that understanding only valid for PSA and not for CV. Romans 5 has been discussed at length here, especially v 25. Now I can see that PSA could be read in a PSA-like manner (though I would disagree that this is a correct or obvious reading). However, though you could argue (and have argued) that therefore CV is mistaken, I don't think that you could say that, therefore, CV tends to universalism. I actually think that all the "alls" in Romans 5 are powerful pointers towards ultimate reconciliation, but they stand or fall independantly of the Atonement model which is held.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
None of us can be lost either because we can't really have a real choice to reject Christ who has 'reconciled all things to God in himself' without any human agency or choice needed.

I've already shown that this is a non-argument. I'm not convinced you're actually reading the posts on the thread, so I'll say it again.

PSA has the same problem and it's solved in the same way. If Christ has been punished in place of sinners so we don't go to hell, none of us go to hell. Therefore if you can't cope with universalism you need an additional doctrine to show why the atonement doesn't effect salvation for everybody. Whether you pick CV or PSA.

PSA as the pattern of salvation implies according to Paul's exposition of it Gal 2;20 AND Ro 5 etc etc, that choice is needed on the part of the sinner to choose Christ. Without this, the model cannot stand. I don't think that CV NECESSARILY implies the same thing.
Actually, Jamat, I don't see the language of choice in Gal 2:20, if by that you mean our choice of God. God's choice of us is a different matter.

But ignoring that, if I concede your understanding of Galatians 2:20 (which, largely, I do) why is that understanding only valid for PSA and not for CV. Romans 5 has been discussed at length here, especially v 25. Now I can see that PSA could be read in a PSA-like manner (though I would disagree that this is a correct or obvious reading). However, though you could argue (and have argued) that therefore CV is mistaken, I don't think that you could say that, therefore, CV tends to universalism. I actually think that all the "alls" in Romans 5 are powerful pointers towards ultimate reconciliation, but they stand or fall independantly of the Atonement model which is held.

At the risk of going round the mountain again, I would say that I have no issue with a triumphal view of Christ's achievement. I do have an issue with the view of God as all accepting since this view negates his stand alone 'holiness'. He doesn't like sin, and evil in any form is incompatible with his nature. Consequently, for Christ to be victorious, he has to eliminate same. The PSA model (and scripture) states that he does this by becoming sin for us. "He who was without sin was made sin for our sake", 2Cor 5:21 (paraphrased.

We have to repent, to choose Christ in order to get the benefits of the cross event. In choosing him God accepts Christ as our proxy and therefore we gain the status of 'peace with God' Ro 5 having been 'justified by faith'. Gal 2:20 is consequent to our choice; 'I am crucified with Christ but I live and he in me'. The thing is that I made a 'faith' choice to achieve this result. It is part of the PSA model to make this choice. It is not 'tacking' something else onto it as Greyface says.

Regarding universalism, if CV is not universalist, then what are the limits of Christ's victory? If he fails to save the whole of humanity and the creation then the model seems to be flawed. If as Karl says we have to choose under CV then what are the parameters and consequences of that Chioce? PSA has clear definitions, but what is the difference between a believer and a non believer under CV?

[ 15. October 2007, 20:39: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Jamat, we are, as you say, going around the mountain again.


quote:
Consequently, for Christ to be victorious, he has to eliminate same. The PSA model (and scripture) states that he does this by becoming sin for us. "He who was without sin was made sin for our sake", 2Cor 5:21 (paraphrased.

Agreed. Christ does, indeed defeat and thus (ultimately) eliminate sin on the cross. What CV denies is not this truth, but rather the asserion that God eliminates sin by punishment. The battle for the control of human destiny took place within the body of Christ on the cross, but it has nothing to do with punishment.


quote:
We have to repent, to choose Christ in order to get the benefits of the cross event. In choosing him God accepts Christ as our proxy and therefore we gain the status of 'peace with God' Ro 5 having been 'justified by faith'.
Forgive me for putting words intoyour mouth, but what you seem to be saying here is "It is impossible to reconcile Romans 5 with a non-PSA view, so therefore, everyone who hold to such a view must strike Romans 5 from their bibles, and, therefore, discount the idea of JBGTF". Which is rather like altering reality to fit with the theory. In practice, I do believe that we need to respond to Christ to have the full benefits of the Paschal event in our lives, and yet I reject a PSA-type reading of Romans 5.

quote:
Gal 2:20 is consequent to our choice; 'I am crucified with Christ but I live and he in me'. The thing is that I made a 'faith' choice to achieve this result. It is part of the PSA model to make this choice. It is not 'tacking' something else onto it as Greyface says.
I'm sorry, you have not shown that Gal 2:20 has anything to do with "choice". It just isn't in the text. Nor is there anything in the text or context of the verse that is not at least as applicable to CV as to PSA. You cannot use this text to support either schema. What you can say from it is that our salvation, if you like, is dependant upon the death and resurrection of Jesus, and our participation in the same. It tells us nothing about how that participation is achieved. To understand that, we must look elsewhere.
quote:
Regarding universalism, if CV is not universalist, then what are the limits of Christ's victory? If he fails to save the whole of humanity and the creation then the model seems to be flawed. If as Karl says we have to choose under CV then what are the parameters and consequences of that Chioce? PSA has clear definitions, but what is the difference between a believer and a non believer under CV?

Well, for non-universalists, they are the same limitations that apply under PSA. I presume that you do believe that Jesus' death was fully efficatious for the salvation of the whole of mankind? The argument that you posit is as appropriate to one as to the other. And, I need hardly point out, the most faithful adherents of CV, the Orthodox, are not universalist in their doctrine. Nor, for that matter was that famous Augustinin friar, one Martin Luther, who acheived a certain notoriety as a proponent of JBF, in spite of holding to CV.

In think that CV proponents of the evangelical pesuasion would see the difference between a believer and a non-beliver as being that between a peson who is united to Christ, and therefore the beneficiary of His resurrection life, and those who are not united in such a way.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Hi everyone,

I'm staying in the land of my forefathers until December and so do not have the same access to the internet as before.

Still, I've had time for some reading. [Cool]

I came across an interesting article by Henri Blocher the other day. He argues that CV (in the NT) fits best in an overall penal understanding. Since Satan is the accuser his greatest weapon is the demand of divine law. Hence passages like 1 Cor. 15 v 56 make best sense by putting CV in a penal framework.

Any comments?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I came across an interesting article by Henri Blocher the other day. He argues that CV (in the NT) fits best in an overall penal understanding. Since Satan is the accuser his greatest weapon is the demand of divine law. Hence passages like 1 Cor. 15 v 56 make best sense by putting CV in a penal framework.

Any comments?

Get thee behind me Satan? As this, "Satan is the accuser", shows the penal framework to be the creation of Satan and not the creation of God.

Hence our baptism, and is this in majority of Christian baptisms?, we break our connection with Satan's power to enslave us to his reasoning.

Myrrh
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
An excellent response Myrrh. Satan, in his brokenness and utter bankruptcy cannot even suffer the presence of the Lord, let alone stand in front of Him and demand us men as his own possession. How could the un-loving and un-caring being make demands from Love? Not possible. He cannot even affect people. He only appeals to our passions. It's our response to our passions that enslaves us, not Satan. We break ourselves and we serve ourselves, like Satan did for himself.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
As this, "Satan is the accuser", shows the penal framework to be the creation of Satan and not the creation of God.

I'm not sure you understood the original point. Blocher is claiming that (the NT teaches that...) Satan accuses us using divine law and therefore the penal backdrop is God's and not Satan's.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Satan does not use. He misuses. Everything. The divine law is God's love and mercy, and Satan cannot appeal to the same law he disregards by being un-loving. That argument downgrades the divine law from divine love to strict human legal regulations, and therefore is not of divine but of human or even demonic origin.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
As this, "Satan is the accuser", shows the penal framework to be the creation of Satan and not the creation of God.

I'm not sure you understood the original point. Blocher is claiming that (the NT teaches that...) Satan accuses us using divine law and therefore the penal backdrop is God's and not Satan's.
Luke 12:5 is interesting in this connection.
"Fear the one who after he has killed has authority to cast into Hell; yes I tell you, fear him"

Jesus in this passage seems to me to confirm that Satan has authority to both kill and cast into hell, those who have irrevocably rejected revelation of Christ. The context her is around the teaching on the sin Vs the Holy Spirit ..the unforgiveable one. Put that with "the sting of death is sin" from 1Cor 15:56 and you have a penal view of the consequence of sin I would have thought.

Any comments?

[ 21. October 2007, 21:07: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[


Gal 2:20 tells us nothing about how that participation is achieved. To understand that, we must look elsewhere.

"The life that I now live in the flesh I live by faith." My faith is to some extent a choice. I choose to appropriate Christ's death by faith
quote:
Regarding universalism, if CV is not universalist, then what are the limits of Christ's victory? If he fails to save the whole of humanity and the creation then the model seems to be flawed. If as Karl says we have to choose under CV then what are the parameters and consequences of that Chioce? PSA has clear definitions, but what is the difference between a believer and a non believer under CV?

Well, ..The argument that you posit is as appropriate to one as to the other.

I think that CV proponents of the evangelical pesuasion would see the difference between a believer and a non-beliver as being that between a peson who is united to Christ, and therefore the beneficiary of His resurrection life, and those who are not united in such a way. [/QB][/QUOTE]

So the problem remains for CV about exactly HOW one is unite or 'joined' to Christ. Under PSA he has taken the judgement for our sin upon himself, we ARE new creatures in Christ 2Cor 5:17, by virtue of the cleansing of his blood which gives us right standing before the almighty and which can be achieved in no other way. God looks down and he sees two categories of folk, those covered by Christs sacrifice and those not. he chooses to justify those who receives said covering because of their faith choice. in his mercy and grace he has expunged their sin. Show me how CV achieves this result?

[ 22. October 2007, 00:23: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Luke 12:5 is interesting in this connection.
"Fear the one who after he has killed has authority to cast into Hell; yes I tell you, fear him"

Jesus in this passage seems to me to confirm that Satan has authority to both kill and cast into hell, those who have irrevocably rejected revelation of Christ.

I think that the one here who can cast into hell is God, not Satan. This is certainly indicated by the context, the inserted titles, and the capitalizations in Luke 12 in the NKJV:
quote:
Jesus Teaches the Fear of God
4 “And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!
6 “Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins? And not one of them is forgotten before God. 7 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

Confess Christ Before Men
8 “Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God. 9 But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.
10 “And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.

Aside from the capitalizations and headings, which were added by the editors, the context indicates that Jesus is speaking about God, not the devil. Just as God can cast you into hell in verse 5, he can deny you before the angels of God in verse 9, and not forgive you in verse 10.

The Bible consistently gives these kinds of powers to God. Never to Satan.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
As this, "Satan is the accuser", shows the penal framework to be the creation of Satan and not the creation of God.

I'm not sure you understood the original point. Blocher is claiming that (the NT teaches that...) Satan accuses us using divine law and therefore the penal backdrop is God's and not Satan's.
Yes, that's what I understood was being said, and so my reply, he's fallen into Satan's trap.

God does not have a legalistic relationship with us, He is not a judge who sees sins by his creation as legal infractions of commandments and punishes for them.

So, it is Satan who has created the penal framework concept and he has done this by convincing some that this satanic idea of God is God by a subtle twisting of teaching - simply by claiming that the penal framework is the context for Divine Law - which it obviously can't be if God is truly love, ever merciful, ever forgiving.

In one clever move Satan has confused Blocher into thinking that "the penal background is God's not Satan's" because Satan says so...


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Luke 12:5 is interesting in this connection.
"Fear the one who after he has killed has authority to cast into Hell; yes I tell you, fear him"

Jesus in this passage seems to me to confirm that Satan has authority to both kill and cast into hell, those who have irrevocably rejected revelation of Christ.

I think that the one here who can cast into hell is God, not Satan. This is certainly indicated by the context, the inserted titles, and the capitalizations in Luke 12 in the NKJV:
quote:
Jesus Teaches the Fear of God
4 “And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!
6 “Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins? And not one of them is forgotten before God. 7 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

Confess Christ Before Men
8 “Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God. 9 But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.
10 “And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.

Aside from the capitalizations and headings, which were added by the editors, the context indicates that Jesus is speaking about God, not the devil. Just as God can cast you into hell in verse 5, he can deny you before the angels of God in verse 9, and not forgive you in verse 10.

The Bible consistently gives these kinds of powers to God. Never to Satan.

4 tells us not to fear those who would kill us, human agency, as that's the extent of its power, but 5 to fear the one who after killing can send to hell but 6 immediately reminds that God cares for every sparrow - going on to remind that we are not to fear. So if we are not to fear God why should we associate the murderer in 5 with Him?

Christ's teaching is, consistently, that killing is evil and his arguments with the pharisaic thinking of the day stressed this aspect, that they had substituted the father of lies, the murderer from the beginning, for His Father and by doing so not only denied entry into the kingdom for others, but kept themselves out of it. Seems to me these verses refer back to this teaching.

Verse 8 is an 'also' and refers specifically to Himself as Son and I think should be discussed separately and not packaged either into the preceding verses nor forced into the concept "God sends to hell in penal framework". Similarly 9, which refers specifically to the Holy Ghost and not at all associated with the one in verse 5 - who is contrasted immediately with God who we have no reason to fear.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Luke 12:5 is interesting in this connection.
"Fear the one who after he has killed has authority to cast into Hell; yes I tell you, fear him"

Jesus in this passage seems to me to confirm that Satan has authority to both kill and cast into hell, those who have irrevocably rejected revelation of Christ.

I think that the one here who can cast into hell is God, not Satan. This is certainly indicated by the context, the inserted titles, and the capitalizations in Luke 12 in the NKJV:
quote:
Jesus Teaches the Fear of God
4 “And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!
6 “Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins? And not one of them is forgotten before God. 7 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

Confess Christ Before Men
8 “Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God. 9 But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.
10 “And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.

Aside from the capitalizations and headings, which were added by the editors, the context indicates that Jesus is speaking about God, not the devil. Just as God can cast you into hell in verse 5, he can deny you before the angels of God in verse 9, and not forgive you in verse 10.

The Bible consistently gives these kinds of powers to God. Never to Satan.

Yes I always assumed Jesus was referring to God here too but the injunction to "Fear him" and the surrounding argument that specifically deals with his rejection by that generation seems to me to betoken the consequences of such rejection, an abandonment by God of that generation since they abandoned his messenger. Satan always fills the gap created by God's absence.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Gal 2:20 tells us nothing about how that participation is achieved. To understand that, we must look elsewhere.
"The life that I now live in the flesh I live by faith." My faith is to some extent a choice. I choose to appropriate Christ's death by faith
quote:
Regarding universalism, if CV is not universalist, then what are the limits of Christ's victory? If he fails to save the whole of humanity and the creation then the model seems to be flawed. If as Karl says we have to choose under CV then what are the parameters and consequences of that Chioce? PSA has clear definitions, but what is the difference between a believer and a non believer under CV?

Well, ..The argument that you posit is as appropriate to one as to the other.

I think that CV proponents of the evangelical pesuasion would see the difference between a believer and a non-beliver as being that between a peson who is united to Christ, and therefore the beneficiary of His resurrection life, and those who are not united in such a way.

So the problem remains for CV about exactly HOW one is unite or 'joined' to Christ. Under PSA he has taken the judgement for our sin upon himself, we ARE new creatures in Christ 2Cor 5:17, by virtue of the cleansing of his blood which gives us right standing before the almighty and which can be achieved in no other way. God looks down and he sees two categories of folk, those covered by Christs sacrifice and those not. he chooses to justify those who receives said covering because of their faith choice. in his mercy and grace he has expunged their sin. Show me how CV achieves this result?
Took the liberty of editing your code for readability.

I think that the problem here is a problem for you in a way that it isn't a problem for you because of the backstory, if you see what I mean.

I'll explain.

I don't see the problem vis-a-vis our relationship as fallen humans with a holy God as being a moral one at all. God is not angry with us, and thus turns his back towards us because of our sin at all. The problem is totally on our side, and is not even, prima facie, a moral one. God doesn't have to hide our sins from His face, as it were, because of His wrath towards us. What he does have to overcome is our shame, even our wrath towards Him. The separation (I know this gives Johnny some problems, but I think it is totally scriptural) is between us and God ( Isaiah 59:2 ) rather than God and us ( Psalm 139)

The Atonement, imv, is about the changing of our essential nature, from being enslaved to sin and decay, stuck in time in the light of eternity, and thus, "hell-bound", to being united with Christ in His eternal resurrection life. Now the Atonement makes that possible (from an non-universalist pov) but it can still only be realised if we choose to (if you like) by faith, become united with Christ. It isn't necessarily automatic either under CV or under PSA.

The difference between universalism and non-universalism is not between CV and PSA, but between those who believe in a God who is ultimately totally triumphant, and those who believe that the damage caused by sin is so great, its effects upon our free will so serious, that even the death and resurrection of Jesus is unable totally to erase its effects.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Jesus in this passage seems to me to confirm that Satan has authority to both kill and cast into hell, those who have irrevocably rejected revelation of Christ.

Jesus speaks of God, and not Satan. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of every wisdom. Note the term beginning.

Satan has no power whatsoever. He is just a creature, for pete's shake. He is living hell, he cannot rule in hell. After all, hell was prepared before the ages for him, to suffer there alone, and not to rule over others.

I'm amazed by the extent of authority it's attributed to Satan by some. He is completely powerless. He can only interact with us through our own passions. When we overcome a passion of ours, Satan loses a window to our soul.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Well said, andreas. Satan is powerless. His power is only the power of our worldly passions.

[ 22. October 2007, 11:12: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
(Ask the rabbi - fear of God)

What I get from verses 4-6 is Christ's reassurance that though the "principalities and powers" we do battle with are real we have nothing to fear from them in God's love for each of us, Satan only has as much power as we give him. And the extent we give him the power to turn a God who commands not to murder into a God who commands the genocide of nations is the final victory of Satan - that makes him someone to be feared in my book...

To believe God's relationship with us is in this penal framework is a denial of everything that God is as surely as believing He commands genocide. In the Greek Satan is known the Adversary - the tempter of Christ, the father of lies of the pharisees, (who would break the commandments, the Covenant, by putting their own laws above it - killing those who broke God's law is breaking God's law [neither do I condemn you], allowing their parents to starve rather than feed them shew bread forbidden them is breaking the commandment to honour one's father and mother, and so on). This is the great power of Satan to send to hell, it can never be the way to the kingdom of heaven as Christ teaches because it traps us in the cycle of evil of justifying evil acts by calling them "good, just" and replaces Christ's God with the counterfeit creation of the Adversary.


Christ's teaching is to love as perfectly as God loves, the love which in the final judgement is perfect and drives away all fear.

Myrrh
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Wow, I agree with Myrrh on this one, escept for his stereotyping of pharisees.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Er, I was referring to Christ's description of them and their practices at the time.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

In one clever move Satan has confused Blocher into thinking that "the penal background is God's not Satan's" because Satan says so...


Myrrh

Perhaps the fact that I don't have much internet access caused me to take a few short cuts earlier. Did you read 1 Cor. 15: 56?

Blocher applies the logic here to the CV model with reference to Satan. However, this verse doesn't actually mention Satan - apparently Paul has been as confused as Blocher [Biased] . The victory surely implies a legal framework here?

As far as 'fearing' Satan goes I think JJ has got it right and it is a bit of a tangent.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
I think I'd require a Kerygmania discussion to deconstruct this, but I recall somewhere Paul saying that without the law there was no sin and the law wasn't given before Moses, and he goes on to say that this is the law that is written in our hearts as part and parcel of God's creation of us and even those not given the law had their own conscience to convict them, this is certainly how he is read by the 'fathers' who didn't see the rest of humanity (neither non-Jews pre Christ, nor non-Christians post Christ) as separated from God by sin which only adherance to the 'law' or 'belief in Christ' could ameliorate. This is completely different from seeing God as a creator of man subject to Divine Law as a legal contruct, it's about our natural being created in image and likeness which Paul describes as 'energising' the change in our being to become fully that (others more knowlegeable re the Greek and Paul here).

Jeremiah said that God didn't give the Jews 'the law and sacrifices' other than what was given on Mt Sinai - this creation of God as judge, jury and executioner is a man made construct at odds with the very being of God - certainly as I've said before that for those who believe such a thing then Christ is the answer, as God provided, but in the freedom from that enslavement is the opportunity to give up the concept itself as Christ's teaching is of a different God altogether.

Myrrh
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
It's interesting that Johny S refered to 1 Cor 15. Because in this chapter, Paul makes a mistake, thinking that he will be alive when the End comes. Just like he does in his epistle to Thessalonikeans, where he assures us by the Lord that he would be among those that will be alive when the End takes place. (1 Cor. 15.52 and 1 Thes. 4.15)

I liked the rabbi's response about the "trembling awareness that life has meaning".

Good to see that Myrrh referred to those Saints that lived before the Law was given.

One more thing: I disagree with the view that God ordering the killings of those people is not part of the divinely inspired Scriptures. I believe it is divinely inspired, but of course, what we make of this is up to us. In my view those verses are beneficial, because they show God to be the ruler of history, the godless to perish because of their own godlessness, something that can happen for us all, and the ordinary life-death cycle being part of God's plan. God might not be a murderer, and His love stands in the ages, but this does not mean that we are going to remain on this planet forever. We will remain until we repent. If we are not going to repent, there is little sense in us demanding that we live forever.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
One more thing: I disagree with the view that God ordering the killings of those people is not part of the divinely inspired Scriptures. I believe it is divinely inspired, but of course, what we make of this is up to us. In my view those verses are beneficial, because they show God to be the ruler of history, the godless to perish because of their own godlessness, something that can happen for us all, and the ordinary life-death cycle being part of God's plan. God might not be a murderer, and His love stands in the ages, but this does not mean that we are going to remain on this planet forever. We will remain until we repent. If we are not going to repent, there is little sense in us demanding that we live forever.

Well, I see it as creating an irrational God to believe God ordered mass murder after giving the Covenant on Mt Sinai which included to not murder.

How can one tell the difference between good and evil if one believes in such an irrational God?

What is rational to me, as Christ is logos and taught against those who claimed their doctrines of men superseded the Covenant Law, that this is man's all to often used excuse for doing evil, 'God commanded it'... I don't believe it and see it as an example of Christ's warning of 'the one to fear' - plunging us into confusion without moral compass is the Adversary's success story...

Myrrh
Myrrh
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Well, our Universe is violent. From the way a star explodes and dies, to the way volcanoes erupt, violence is part of creation. Death is also part of that picture. Had dinosaurs not get extinct, history would be different. God sets limits, and our lifetime is such a limit. We don't get to say God is a murderer for taking the lives of all the people that die. Nothing takes place aside from His most wise and loving will, and our death is no exception.

So, when the bible says God's will was that those peoples die, I think there is a point there, a point we should ponder about and accept. After all, while wars are part of life, and while it would be wrong for the Saints to kill others in war, wars do happen and our church does not condemn them. There are wars where people get to fight for their families and homes and customs and religion, and these wars are not to be condemned because of the killings involved. While the killings prevent man from approaching God in boldness, they can be integrated in God's economy.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Er, I was referring to Christ's description of them and their practices at the time.

Myrrh

Source critics have demonstrated that Christ did not so describe them but that criticism of them was put into his mouth by the evangelists a lot later - but this is a tangent.

My substantive point is that I agree with you about seeing God's love in the contyet of penal substitution is basically wrong - and I am pleasantly surprised to agree with you as I usually disagree with everything you write!

I am really pleased that the Ship is blowing away many of my prejudices.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Source critics have demonstrated that Christ did not so describe them but that criticism of them was put into his mouth by the evangelists a lot later

[Mad]

You can't demonstrate that. One can say all kinds of things about the verses one doesn't like or the verses that don't "feel" right, but that's not objective scholarship. Jesus didn't say that, Jesus didn't say this. Grrrr. Yes, Jesus was a put-your-favorite-branch-of-"scholarship"-here.

Why on earth do you take such liberal takes on the Scriptures? And I mean you leo, personally. I have been puzzled about this trend in your posts throughout the threads. Why?

[ 22. October 2007, 19:12: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
One can demonstrate by comparing the synoptic gospels and noticing trends e.g later gospels are more negative than others so that relatively cool comments in Mark are hyped up by John.

My views are in line with the Vatican's documents concerning the portray of the Jews (I can provide a link if wanted).

Source criticism has been around for over a century so I wouldn't call it liberal and I certainly do not accept the term when used of myself - radical orthodox, yes, liberal no.

[ 22. October 2007, 19:43: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I understand the rationale, I don't understand why a Christian buys that stuff. The greatness of John's gospel, for example, has to do with the sublime way he puts the Light into words, for this is what he is doing. The trends do not demonstrate something. They might be indicative, but they are not objective truth. What I am saying is that "scholars" say all sort of things, and we end up with what Heraclitus said more than two and a half thousand years ago. Every word fights with another word. John, and the others, break from that human limit. They give us the transcendent Truth, they embody Her, they make it available to us.

Scholars can't give us life. The New Testament writers can.

It's not that I fear textual criticism. But I think it's pretty "of this world" and I wouldn't like my brothers (and you are a pretty bright one) to be lost in words fighting with other words.

That's all.

Thanks for the insightful reply.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Well, our Universe is violent. From the way a star explodes and dies, to the way volcanoes erupt, violence is part of creation. Death is also part of that picture. Had dinosaurs not get extinct, history would be different. God sets limits, and our lifetime is such a limit. We don't get to say God is a murderer for taking the lives of all the people that die. Nothing takes place aside from His most wise and loving will, and our death is no exception.

That's not what I'm saying here. Sure we die, we're part of nature which is born, eats and grows, reproduces and then dies and sometimes extremely "red in tooth and claw" in the process and in the sense that this all comes from God there's no better description of it then Arjuna's vision of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita, but, we were created to straddle both worlds, of the created and the Creator, and it's in our capacity as creators that we're given guidance to know which God it is we're to recognise and emulate as the true nature of the Creator.

Christ's teaching about this is consistent and always refers back to the Law, the Covenant, as given on Mt Sinai and his arguments with those who think their man-made doctrines of what God is or requires shows a clear split between what Christ says God requires of us to know Him and such teachings. God does not command us to murder. To think this is to 'not know which spirit we are of'. If we believe Christ that killing is evil and saving lives is good then we have to see the claim that God ordered genocides as evil.

Our consistent Orthodox teaching is that God is good, the One who commands not to murder, so to attribute this command to murder to our God is to be trapped in a delusion of believing in an irrational God who commands both. It is hardly possible to believe in such a God and be rational if by rational we mean knowing the difference between good and evil, and from this irrational prototype come all the other justifications for doing evil claiming it is God's will while claiming that such a god is good, (that it is good to use force to bring someone back to the Church, the just war theory, and so on), and all the descriptions of an evil god with the demands that we believe in such (that God requires blood sacrifice to appease his anger against us and so on).

For some reason it is appears easier to see this is not the God Christ taught in some primitive belief systems such as the Aztecs, whose god required the still beating hearts of sacrificial victims to keep the sun rising, than it is to see there is the same idea throughout the history of the Jews in the OT, perhaps it's harder to see because God's real teaching is also there. If we believe Christ, that the father as murderer is not our father because not his, then we have to reject the idea that God commanded genocide - as we reject that God commands we stone adulterers.

quote:
So, when the bible says God's will was that those peoples die, I think there is a point there, a point we should ponder about and accept. After all, while wars are part of life, and while it would be wrong for the Saints to kill others in war, wars do happen and our church does not condemn them. There are wars where people get to fight for their families and homes and customs and religion, and these wars are not to be condemned because of the killings involved. While the killings prevent man from approaching God in boldness, they can be integrated in God's economy.
Wars show our failure to act according to God's commands, we don't have a just war theory and it is always missing the mark even at those times when not to act in defence could be seen as evil. We lose this principle when we confuse the two.

Myrrh


(Peace and War in the Orthodox Church, pt 1

(Peace and War in the Orthodox Church, pt 2
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Well, our Universe is violent. From the way a star explodes and dies, to the way volcanoes erupt, violence is part of creation. Death is also part of that picture. Had dinosaurs not get extinct, history would be different. God sets limits, and our lifetime is such a limit. We don't get to say God is a murderer for taking the lives of all the people that die. Nothing takes place aside from His most wise and loving will, and our death is no exception.

I totally agree. This, at least in part, is preciely what I mean as a Calvinist when I refer to the sovereignty of God.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I can think of some deaths which most certainly do not fit in with any "wise and loving will", but do fit in perfectly well with "Shit happens". I can think of one death which destroyed one other life - and faith - and blighted four others. Nothing "wise" or "loving" about that.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Not all things are direct and affirmative expressions of God's wise and loving will. However, everything that comes to pass, even perhaps by means of contrast and disparity, can proclaim the goodness and holiness of God. In this sense, even the evil that God permits to happen in the earth, can be redeemed by him in the sense that it can point to him as other than what it is.

[ 23. October 2007, 09:14: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Not all things are a direct and affirmative expressions of God's wise and loving will. However, everything that comes to pass, even perhaps by means of contrast and disparity, can proclaim the goodness and holiness of God. In this sense, even the evil that God permits to happen in the earth, can be redeemed by him in the sense that it can point to him as 'other'.

Trust me, Numps, it did not have that effect. It pointed to Him as an uncaring bastard who ignores prayers, in the life of at least one in the direct fallout.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Not all things are a direct and affirmative expressions of God's wise and loving will. However, everything that comes to pass, even perhaps by means of contrast and disparity, can proclaim the goodness and holiness of God. In this sense, even the evil that God permits to happen in the earth, can be redeemed by him in the sense that it can point to him as 'other'.

Trust me, Numps, it did not have that effect. It pointed to Him as an uncaring bastard who ignores prayers, in the life of at least one in the direct fallout.
I won't presume to impose my view on what was clearly a very painful episode in the lives of your friends. I don't have the right to do that. However, I would tentatively suggest that our outrage at God's apparent lack of care and ignorance of prayer can actually be rooted in, and emerge from, a deeply rooted belief that God shouldn't (and in fact isn't) actually like that at all. I think this is what many of the Psalms articulate very well.

[ 23. October 2007, 12:11: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
You're quite correct, Numpty. Which is why I get so angry when people point to the genocidal God of some parts of the OT and insist I have to accept He's really like that. I have a deeply rooted, as you put it, belief that He is not, and cannot be. It's what I understand "wrestling with God" to mean - a refusal to just submit to what some Bible passage or theologian insists God is.

But it does mean that what to me are trite explanations of why Shit Happens, which try to avoid the conclusion that, simply, Shit Happens, get on my tits as well. Because my wrestling with God has got to be worth something better than a smug and trite answer, which is how I'd categorise "God lets things happen in His love and wisdom", or, even worse, "You just have to trust God that He knows better than you."

It's cost me too much already to settle for spiritual bromide like that.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I totally agree. This, at least in part, is preciely what I mean as a Calvinist when I refer to the sovereignty of God.

You go further, saying that God punishes. The God of the Christian faith does not punish. This is where we differ.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I understand the rationale, I don't understand why a Christian buys that stuff. The greatness of John's gospel, for example, has to do with the sublime way he puts the Light into words, for this is what he is doing. The trends do not demonstrate something. They might be indicative, but they are not objective truth. What I am saying is that "scholars" say all sort of things, and we end up with what Heraclitus said more than two and a half thousand years ago. Every word fights with another word. John, and the others, break from that human limit. They give us the transcendent Truth, they embody Her, they make it available to us.

Scholars can't give us life. The New Testament writers can.

It's not that I fear textual criticism. But I think it's pretty "of this world" and I wouldn't like my brothers (and you are a pretty bright one) to be lost in words fighting with other words.

That's all.

Thanks for the insightful reply.

Thanks for your thanks!

I agree that the text comes first and I certainly put aside scholarship when i am doing an ignatian meditation on a passage, which is my preferred way of praying. However scholars can save people from being oppressed by scripture, e.g. from loopy beliefs based around the book of Revelation.

On anti-Judaism, reading some of the writings of Martin luther, who thought he was being biblical and seeing Hitler quote him and carry out most of his suggestions shows how dangerous the bible can be in some people's hands.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Apologies for dipping in and out - limited internet access [Disappointed]

Miroslav Volf makes interesting reading in the light of recent comments... especially those about the continual and on going struggle with suffering.

He advocates a radical ethic of forgiveness and love but one that does not let go of God's judgment and wrath. He makes the point that the Anabaptists have the strongest tradition of pacificism in the Christian church while still speaking about wrath and judgement. Indeed, having visited ETS in Oisjek myself, I do not take it lightly for what it means for a Croat to take so seriously loving and forgiving his Serbian brothers and sisters.

His radical 'turn the other cheek' ethic stems from a theological framework that includes judgement and wrath. I think he should be taken seriously.

Myrhh may well not see it quite like that though. [Biased]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Apologies for dipping in and out - limited internet access [Disappointed]

Miroslav Volf makes interesting reading in the light of recent comments... especially those about the continual and on going struggle with suffering.

He advocates a radical ethic of forgiveness and love but one that does not let go of God's judgment and wrath. He makes the point that the Anabaptists have the strongest tradition of pacificism in the Christian church while still speaking about wrath and judgement. Indeed, having visited ETS in Oisjek myself, I do not take it lightly for what it means for a Croat to take so seriously loving and forgiving his Serbian brothers and sisters.

His radical 'turn the other cheek' ethic stems from a theological framework that includes judgement and wrath. I think he should be taken seriously.

Myrhh may well not see it quite like that though. [Biased]

? The Croats are taking seriously loving and forgiving their Serbian brothers and sisters for what? Being their victims? Is this a joke..?

("Genocide in Satellite Croatia 1941- 1945" by Professor Edmond Paris)

(NATO Stages a War Provocation in the Balkans, The Emperor’s New Clothes/Jared Israeli
October 12, 2007 |by Jared Israel.
Research by Jared Israel and Samantha Criscione
)


The Orthodox view of salvation is not legalistic, wrath and judgement are Western Christian views of God's feelings towards man - following mainly the Augustinian view that God has already damned everyone to hell and estrangement. The Orthodox do not see mankind as born damned or estranged from His grace - God's salvation is freely offered everyone and is either accepted or rejected by each by the ways in which Christ taught, by loving God, by forgiving others and so on - Orthodox salvation is about healing oneself by approaching this God in the practice of being as perfect..


Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The Croats are taking seriously loving and forgiving their Serbian brothers and sisters for what? Being their victims? Is this a joke..?

("Genocide in Satellite Croatia 1941- 1945" by Professor Edmond Paris)

(NATO Stages a War Provocation in the Balkans, The Emperor’s New Clothes/Jared Israeli
October 12, 2007 |by Jared Israel.
Research by Jared Israel and Samantha Criscione
)


The Orthodox view of salvation is not legalistic, wrath and judgement are Western Christian views of God's feelings towards man - following mainly the Augustinian view that God has already damned everyone to hell and estrangement. The Orthodox do not see mankind as born damned or estranged from His grace - God's salvation is freely offered everyone and is either accepted or rejected by each by the ways in which Christ taught, by loving God, by forgiving others and so on - Orthodox salvation is about healing oneself by approaching this God in the practice of being as perfect..


Myrrh

[Confused]

1. Please interact with the point about Anabaptists.

2. Your point seems to be 'two wrongs make a right' ... is this typical of an Orthdox position?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[
1. Please interact with the point about Anabaptists.

I did. Pacifist or no, to refrain from killing out of fear of God's wrath and judgement is co-ercion - this is not the God who loves unconditionally as Christ showed "neither do I condemn you", the parable of the Prodigal Son and so on.

quote:
2. Your point seems to be 'two wrongs make a right' ... is this typical of an Orthdox position?
Not at all my point. My point is the different views of God. In the Orthodox God can never be estranged from humanity, God is in all things. It is our response to this that condemns or frees us.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Pacifist or no, to refrain from killing out of fear of God's wrath and judgement is co-ercion - this is not the God who loves unconditionally as Christ showed "neither do I condemn you", the parable of the Prodigal Son and so on.

One of the issues that has arisen on this thread is that (allegedly) CV produces the ethic you mention above whereas PSA doesn't.

Volf states that anabaptist history proves the opposite. I am aware of the doctrinal position of the Orthdox on this matter, my question was this - where is the evidence that the belief produces the behaviour we are all advocating?

"The Anabaptist tradition, consistently the most pacifist tradition in the history of the Christian church, has traditionally had no hesitation about speaking of God’s wrath and judgment." (Miroslav Volf, 'Exclusion and Embrace')
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Johnny S, I read Myrrh to mean that it doesn't matter that the "end behavior" is that. The whole way that leads there is equally important. It is different to treat others with respect and love because you know they are like you, your brothers, and God's sons, and because love leads to Love and comes out of Love, and quite another to treat others with respect our of fear or guilt.

It's not about the "ethic". It's never about the ethic in Orthodoxy. It's about your personal state, your own existence and your relationship with God.

[ 29. October 2007, 18:57: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Yes, thanks Andreas, much better put.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Johnny S, I read Myrrh to mean that it doesn't matter that the "end behavior" is that. The whole way that leads there is equally important. It is different to treat others with respect and love because you know they are like you, your brothers, and God's sons, and because love leads to Love and comes out of Love, and quite another to treat others with respect our of fear or guilt.

It's not about the "ethic". It's never about the ethic in Orthodoxy. It's about your personal state, your own existence and your relationship with God.

I wasn't trying to 'justify the means by the end'. Nor was it a case of treating others well out of fear or guilt - we are all claiming love to be THE motivation.

Nevertheless, the question must always be asked of any theology is, how does it work out in practice?

I don't understand your differentiation between ethic and 'personal state' or 'relationship with God' ... how can your relationship with God not affect how you behave?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Paul says something relevant. Even if you give everything you have to the poor, but you don't have love, you are nothing.

Yes, your relationship with God affects your behavior. But you can behave "morally", "with ethics", and even "with courtesy" without having a high-quality relationship with God.

God does not demand that you do anything. This is the danger many religious people fall into. They think that since they believe in God, and since they do some charity and go to church and don't sleep around, don't swear, don't steal, don't don't don't, they are accepted by God and they will even get to Heaven! How far from the truth they are! Instead of realizing the bankruptcy of their hearts, instead of crying without stop over their sin, they think they are proper Christians!

Moreover, God is a Wind and He blows wherever He wants. This means that a man driven by God might drive nuts all those who have strong views on the "rules" and "ethics".

God is free, and He likes His people to be free as well. And freedom is frowned upon in many religious environments. Don't do this, don't do that... This attitude towards life is not healthy, those people do not attract God in their lives because they approach life like that.

Authentic people, such like God wants them to be, are living scandals to those around them that have invested so much in "ethics"...
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

God does not demand that you do anything. This is the danger many religious people fall into. They think that since they believe in God, and since they do some charity and go to church and don't sleep around, don't swear, don't steal, don't don't don't, they are accepted by God and they will even get to Heaven! How far from the truth they are! Instead of realizing the bankruptcy of their hearts, instead of crying without stop over their sin, they think they are proper Christians!

How the wheel turns. [Biased]

One of the major criticisms of PSA originally was that PSA says precisely what you did above... too much emphasis on what God has done for us and 'receiving righteousness by faith' and not enough on our on going sanctification.

So you've finally come round to my way of thinking then? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
For instance, do we believe that God's implacable wrath is directed towards His fallen creatures, wrath that can only be satisfied by the willing sacrifice of His Son? For me, PSA is like a lie told against God. Not that I'm accusing anyone who holds that view of lying against God, in a way which, far from being scriptural, is the antithesis of Jesus' teaching.

But the question is certainly one which requires an answer. [/QB]

The issue here is what scripure actually teaches and further which is the theology that actually works.


For me there is no doubt, absolutely none at all that one cannot be a biblical believer unless you have some sort of epiphany about the true state of your own heart.

Until that happens, you will be continually standing back to judge the ideas signalled in scripture rather than simply accepting that God has stated who he is, what he has done, who we are and what is our problem.

The essential problem we have is our pride. We cannot believe in a God who ordered the genocide of the Chaldeans, or who let Jepthah sacrifice his daughter, or who directed David to deliver Sauls offspring to the Gibeonites. DESPITE the clear scriptural evidence for these things.

Similarly, we can't believe in a God who is punitive, despite the Flood, despite Sodom and Gomorrah, despite the Captivity and despite the cross.

The clear scriptural evidence aligns with the experience of millions of sincere and simple believers. Jesus died for their sin. He needed to cos their sin was otherwise going to damn them to a lost eternity. The reason he needed to die is precisely because God is obliged to punish sin; he punished our sin in Christ.

This is what scripture clearly teaches; it is what Paul believed and most impotantly it is what, if adopted and lived by, will result in true regeneration of our nature from the disease of sin.

If it offends a few modern sensibilities...do you really think God gives a toss? Is he going to alter his eternal word to make it a bit more palatable to our unreformed and proud minds?
 
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
quote:
The essential problem we have is our pride. We cannot believe in a God who ordered the genocide of the Chaldeans, or who let Jepthah sacrifice his daughter, or who directed David to deliver Sauls offspring to the Gibeonites. DESPITE the clear scriptural evidence for these things.

Similarly, we can't believe in a God who is punitive, despite the Flood, despite Sodom and Gomorrah, despite the Captivity and despite the cross.

The clear scriptural evidence aligns with the experience of millions of sincere and simple believers. Jesus died for their sin. He needed to cos their sin was otherwise going to damn them to a lost eternity. The reason he needed to die is precisely because God is obliged to punish sin; he punished our sin in Christ.

See, I'm not convinced that it is "clear scriptural evidence". The scriptures are not inalienable documents scribed by a divine finger upon the wall. They were the product of communities of people. And the particular mode of deity understood by the Jews captive in Babylon (which is where most of the OT as we have it was polished up and put together) was entirely of their time and place.

There is also the issue of human beings projecting motives onto God. King X of Y kingdom wants to solidify his victory and justify his actions, and so God must have ordered the slaughter of the enemy, because the enemy is evil.

There are viable alternatives in hermeneutics for understanding who God is and how God has related to humankind. To this end, to declare that there is only one possible reading - that the "evidence is clear" - is naive.

As for God punishing sin... Well. If you want to believe in a god who sits up on his cloud waiting to hurl thunderbolts at his only son, that's your affair.

I prefer to believe in a God so unbelievably burning with the fire of love that God decides to become a human being, to endure the utmost of what human life is about (including suffering) yet without sin, and then still further in death to descend to the depths of (non)existence in order that all that God created may be drawn up into the life of the Holy and Undivided Trinity. Christ is Victorious, overcoming, washing away any possible barrier (sin, death, the devil, etc) to the overflowing firey river of God's impassioned love. Christ became human in order that we may share in his divinity. If there is any experience of "wrath" or "punishment" then this is not because God is angry. It is the Fire of Love purifying the beloved, and it is not punitive.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
quote:
The essential problem we have is our pride. We cannot believe in a God who ordered the genocide of the Chaldeans, or who let Jepthah sacrifice his daughter, or who directed David to deliver Sauls offspring to the Gibeonites. DESPITE the clear scriptural evidence for these things.

Similarly, we can't believe in a God who is punitive, despite the Flood, despite Sodom and Gomorrah, despite the Captivity and despite the cross.

The clear scriptural evidence aligns with the experience of millions of sincere and simple believers. Jesus died for their sin. He needed to cos their sin was otherwise going to damn them to a lost eternity. The reason he needed to die is precisely because God is obliged to punish sin; he punished our sin in Christ.

See, I'm not convinced that it is "clear scriptural evidence". The scriptures are not inalienable documents scribed by a divine finger upon the wall. They were the product of communities of people. And the particular mode of deity understood by the Jews captive in Babylon (which is where most of the OT as we have it was polished up and put together) was entirely of their time and place.

There is also the issue of human beings projecting motives onto God. King X of Y kingdom wants to solidify his victory and justify his actions, and so God must have ordered the slaughter of the enemy, because the enemy is evil.

There are viable alternatives in hermeneutics for understanding who God is and how God has related to humankind. To this end, to declare that there is only one possible reading - that the "evidence is clear" - is naive.

As for God punishing sin... Well. If you want to believe in a god who sits up on his cloud waiting to hurl thunderbolts at his only son, that's your affair.

I prefer to believe in a God so unbelievably burning with the fire of love that God decides to become a human being, to endure the utmost of what human life is about (including suffering) yet without sin, and then still further in death to descend to the depths of (non)existence in order that all that God created may be drawn up into the life of the Holy and Undivided Trinity. Christ is Victorious, overcoming, washing away any possible barrier (sin, death, the devil, etc) to the overflowing firey river of God's impassioned love. Christ became human in order that we may share in his divinity. If there is any experience of "wrath" or "punishment" then this is not because God is angry. It is the Fire of Love purifying the beloved, and it is not punitive.

See, the operative words here are,"the God I PREFER to believe in" The problem is the 'I', the 'us'. If you let the scriptures speak rather than force them to a preconceived and already defined notion of what doesn't offend our sensibilities...

What is actually at issue isn't hermeneutics, or cultural bias in the writers of scripture. What is at issue is wheteher we are spiritually really alive of just under some illusion that a belief system makes a practical difference....Whether we are connected to the infinite and ineffable God or whether we are deluding ourselves.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Jamat:

quote:
The essential problem we have is our pride. We cannot believe in a God who ordered the genocide of the Chaldeans, or who let Jepthah sacrifice his daughter, or who directed David to deliver Sauls offspring to the Gibeonites. DESPITE the clear scriptural evidence for these things.
That's not pride. That's having a sense of morality, and being able to call a morally repugnant act of evil when we see it. Which is what genocide is. We've been there before - how the hell can killing babes in arms be punitive? What sins can babies commit that deserve death at swordpoint? I love the way you characterise that moral outrage as "our sensibilities", as if it were just a stupid scruple of mine which is offended by genocide!

quote:
Similarly, we can't believe in a God who is punitive, despite the Flood, despite Sodom and Gomorrah, despite the Captivity and despite the cross.
Oh, we can. We just can't quite see how God punishing an innocent party lets us off the hook.

[ 14. November 2007, 09:08: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
See, the operative words here are,"the God I PREFER to believe in" The problem is the 'I', the 'us'. If you let the scriptures speak rather than force them to a preconceived and already defined notion of what doesn't offend our sensibilities...

What is actually at issue isn't hermeneutics, or cultural bias in the writers of scripture. What is at issue is wheteher we are spiritually really alive of just under some illusion that a belief system makes a practical difference....Whether we are connected to the infinite and ineffable God or whether we are deluding ourselves.

Oh Jamat, Jamat, Jamat [brick wall] [brick wall]

Of course, at one level, it's about hermaneutics. If you take issue with Nunc about here use of the word "prefer" then I would, on the same grounds, take issue with your interpretation as well. Is it true for yourself that you "let the scriptures speak rather than force them to a preconceived and already defined notion of what doesn't offend our sensibilities..."
Isn't your belief itself really down to your "preference" for a specific understanding of certain scriptures. That is a hermaneutical problem. I have a different understanding to you. That does not, inherently, mean that such an understanding is wrong. Nor does it mean, as you seem to imply, that my faith is in some measure defective (no doubt it is, in many ways, defective; who amongst us can claim to have a faith that is not? But it is not inherently so for that specific reason.)

I really do think that you ought to face up to the possibility that all those who disagree with you probably share, with you, a lively and vibrant faith, but that, in all conscience, they just cannot see in the scriptures that which you see. In their (OK, my) opinion it just isn't there.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Similarly, we can't believe in a God who is punitive ... despite the cross.

Actually it's because of the cross that I believe in a God who is not punitive. A punitive deity would have obliterated the Jewish hierarchy, stomped the Roman Empire into the dust in three seconds flat and sent legions of Angels to execute the entire human race for our part in trying to do that to the Son of God. He did not. He took responsibility for our sin and dealt with it in a non-punitive way.

quote:
The clear scriptural evidence aligns with the experience of millions of sincere and simple believers.
Your clear scriptural evidence of PSA is denied by the vast majority of Christians now and in the past, of course.

quote:
Jesus died for their sin.
Yes, we all agree about that and most of us would be happier if you'd said our sin.

quote:
The reason he needed to die is precisely because God is obliged to punish sin;
Bollocks. Obliged to whom? What higher power compels God?

quote:
This is what scripture clearly teaches;
If it teaches it so clearly, how come most Christians disagree with you?

quote:
it is what Paul believed
according to you and against most Christians.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
1 Peter 2:21 "and he himself bore our sins in his body on the tree.."


1 Pet 3:18 "Christ also died for sins once for all..in order that he might bring us to God."

Rom 3;25 "Christ..whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in his blood..this was to demonstrate his righteousness."

Rom 5:10.."while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his son..."

Ro 5,17, 18 "by the transgression of the one death reigned..so ....through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life.."


Ro 6:6 "our old self was crucified with him that our body of sin might be done away with.."..therefore we are to consider ourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ."

1Cor 15 "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures..as in Adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive.."

2Cor 5:21 : He made him who knew no sin to BE sin on our behalf."


Gal 3:13 :Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law having become a curse for us."


1 Jn 2:2 "And he is the propitiation for our sins.."

Heb 9:15 :..since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions committed under the first covenant.."

Heb 9:11.."He entered..through his own blood.."(into the heavenly tabernacle).

Is 53:5 He was pierced through for our transgressions..he was crushed for our iniquities.." v10 "The Lord was pleased to crush him puttng him to grief if he would render himself a guilt offering.."

Luke 1:21 "it is he who will save his people from their sins.."

Col 1:20"..having made peace through the blood of his cross

Col 2:13,14 "And when you were dead in your tansgressions..he made you alive with him having forgiven us all our transgressions having cancelled out the the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and he has taken it out of the way having nailed it to his cross."

To me it simply beggars belief that one could look at all these texts together and, on balance, deny that scripture teaches that Christ was the sinbearer and that his death was needed to cancel our guilt in God's sight.

Greyface snidely suggests my view is opposed by most Christians. Well I'd suggest that the writers of scripture are not numbered among them.

I would reiterate that in the end this is not an intellectual exercise. The issues of life are the prize at stake. If one cannot apprehend what has happened at the cross then true appreciation of the work of regeneration escapes one.. You can, in other words blithely think you are a Christian and not be. The so called intelligensia of the church if they cannot humble their minds under the scripture will in the end be just as lost as any unbeliever.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To me it simply beggars belief that one could look at all these texts together and, on balance...

...disagree with you. Yes, I'm coming to understand that you can't grasp anyone else's point of view.

quote:
Greyface snidely suggests my view is opposed by most Christians. Well I'd suggest that the writers of scripture are not numbered among them.
Which means you think you're cleverer than most Christians, your interpretation is better than the majority of other people to have studied Scripture. That may well be the case but if so it should come through in the strength of your argument. To me, it's not.

And I'm getting a little tired of you consistently attributing bad motives to those who disagree with you.

quote:
I would reiterate that in the end this is not an intellectual exercise. The issues of life are the prize at stake.
Quite. I sincerely hope that you will one day gain the insight that has been granted to many Christians - that God is love and not the celestial punisher of crimes who luckily for us has a soft spot for humans.

quote:
You can, in other words blithely think you are a Christian and not be.
Riiiight. So if we don't believe in PSA we're not Christians. I think I'm about finished arguing with you.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I knew that shit would be at the bottom of it.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Jamat, what you have done here is to list a series of texts, out of context, and suppose that this constitutes an argument (in the sense of a reasoned, coherent position). I have to tell you, this is not the case. It may be coherent in your mind, but anyone can proof-text to acheive any desired result, given time, effort, and sufficient knowledge of the bible. What you have failed to show is that the biblical authours had anything even remotely like PSA in mind when they wrote those verses. In other words, you can eisegise PSA into Scripture, but you have yet to show that you can exegise PSA out of scripture.

Just to reiterate. No-one here is denying the salvific effect of the Paschal event. No-one here is denying that we are all sinners. No-one here is denying that Christ died to save us from our sins, or that He rose again that we might be united with Him in new life. No-one here is denying that, in our natural state, we are unable to relate to God in the way in which He wants us to relate to Him. No-one! It's a straw man! It's not what we believe, any more than it's what you believe.

Where we do disagree with you is that we don't believe that God's attitude to us is one of wrath that needs appeasing by the vicarious death of Christ. We don't believe that God is compelled to do anything. We don't believe that you can draw a distinction between divine justice and divine love. To believe those things is not the Gospel, rather it is one interpretation of the Gospel, one that has been held by only a minority of Christians (and, just so there is no confusion, I mean those people who have been born again by water and the Spirit, those who have been raised to new life with Christ, those, even, if you care to put it so, who have had their names written in the Lamb's book of life) over the 2000 years of the Church. It's not snide for Greyface to point that out, it's a statement of truth.

So what, then, are we to make of your last paragraph. Are you really asserting that we are saved by believing a particular doctrine, because if that's so, why are the scriptures so insistant that salvation rests with the man, Christ Jesus? Why doesn't it tell us that, no, it rests in our works, specifically in our assent to the doctine of an 11th century monk or a 16th century lawyer?
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Funny how that works out isn't it, Karl?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
The so called intelligensia of the church if they cannot humble their minds under the scripture will in the end be just as lost as any unbeliever.

Who the hell are the "so called intelligentsia of the church"? So called by whom? I think there has been very little in the way of quoting from theologians here - most of the debate has centred round the Bible, and the meanings of specific texts therin. Maybe Girard had a mention or two, and some of the early church fathers, but, really, the debate has been largely about scripture.

And, whilst we are speaking of humility, is it not a good idea to humble ourselves before our brothers and sisters, by actually listening to what they are saying, rather than putting into their mouths ideas that they have repeatedly denied holding.

[ 15. November 2007, 09:25: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To me it simply beggars belief that one could look at all these texts together and, on balance, deny that scripture teaches that Christ was the sinbearer and that his death was needed to cancel our guilt in God's sight.

Jamat, my response is really the same as Greyface's and JJ's. I do believe the Scriptures. I just think that you profoundly misunderstand them.

There are two fundamental problems with your interpretation.

One, which we have talked quite a bit about here, is that it makes God an angry, vengeful, monster.

The other, less stressed on this thread, is that PSA cancels out the huge number of passages that declare that salvation comes by obedience to God. For example:
quote:
John 15:14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.

John 14:15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments.

John 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me.

John 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

1 John 2:3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.

1 John 3:22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.

1 John 3:24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.

2 John 1:6 This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it.

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

Matthew 7:26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:

Matthew 12:50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

Matthew 21.28 “But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go, work today in my vineyard.’ 29 He answered and said, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he regretted it and went. 30 Then he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, ‘I go, sir,’ but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?”

Matthew 25:45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.

Luke 6:46 “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say?

Luke 17:10 So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.’”

Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”

1 Thessalonians 4:1 Finally then, brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God; 2 for you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus.
3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified. 7 For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness.

2 Thessalonians 3:14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.

Romans 6:16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

Hebrews 5:9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

1 Peter 2:15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men—

1 John 2:17 And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.

James 4:17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

Romans 13:8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Jamat, your interpretation ignores these passages.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The so called intelligensia of the church if they cannot humble their minds under the scripture will in the end be just as lost as any unbeliever.

I think that it is believers in PSA who cannot humble their minds to Scripture. Jesus clearly teaches the opposite.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
I'm sorry Freddy, but I must be another who 'profoundly misunderstands' the Scriptures because the vast majority of the texts you quote seem to describe loving obedience as the fruit of saving faith, not obedience as a means of salvation.

[ 15. November 2007, 12:10: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm sorry Freddy, but I must be another who 'profoundly misunderstands' the Scriptures because the vast majority of the texts you quote seem to describe loving obedience as the fruit of saving faith, not obedience as a means of salvation.

Yes, many of the quotes can be read that way. Many of them, however, cannot be read that way. I think that it is fair to interpret the former by the latter.

The alternative, it seems to me, is Jamat's assertion that it is only Christ's sacrifice that satisfies the Father's demand for justice, without which His wrath must necessarily destroy us.

My point, though, is that Jamat's interpretation of the Scriptures he quotes cannot be reconciled with all of the Scriptures I quoted above.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Why is there any contradiction between the texts you quote Freddy, which are all injunctions to Godly conduct AFTER the fact of salvation based on the atonement, and PSA?

My point is, and has been that, this discussion is far from academic..just witness the reactions above when the sacred cow of toleration is touched.

The issue here is what actually determines how a man can be justified before a holy God. What, in other words is the means to keep us from hell. I think that it is easy to rationalise and self-justify for our own comfort. In the end none of that will save us, transform us or regenerate us. I believe totally that such regeneration is possible. As Paul says, the gospel is the POWER of God for salvation to all that believe. My question is how can one benefit from it if one denies the mechanism by which it is possible.

I also understand completely how harsh, and foolish practices of fundamentalist groups have caused deep hurts. What doesn't change is the scriptural bottom line. In the end, Karl and Greyface , believe what you want. It is not for us to judge each other. I have no wish to provoke you. It is just that for me, this deals with the core of my faith which I have personally tested through many years.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm sorry Freddy, but I must be another who 'profoundly misunderstands' the Scriptures because the vast majority of the texts you quote seem to describe loving obedience as the fruit of saving faith, not obedience as a means of salvation.

Yes, many of the quotes can be read that way. Many of them, however, cannot be read that way. I think that it is fair to interpret the former by the latter.

The alternative, it seems to me, is Jamat's assertion that it is only Christ's sacrifice that satisfies the Father's demand for justice, without which His wrath must necessarily destroy us.

My point, though, is that Jamat's interpretation of the Scriptures he quotes cannot be reconciled with all of the Scriptures I quoted above.

They most certainly can! You just need to understand that saving faith is by nature obedient faith as James quite correctly asserts. Saving faith is the root, obedience is the fruit. Faith is not saving faith if is not fruitful faith. Faith is not fruitful faith if it is not saving faith. One can only obey God by grace through faith. Morality - even virtue - is not spiritual if it is not inspired by saving faith.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
You just need to understand that saving faith is by nature obedient faith as James quite correctly asserts.

I agree that James correctly asserts this, but the mechanism of salvation, as put forth by PSA, separates this obedience from salvation. Instead, PSA asserts that a person is saved while still a sinner - whereas Jesus says that a person needs to repent from sin in order to be saved.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Why is there any contradiction between the texts you quote Freddy, which are all injunctions to Godly conduct AFTER the fact of salvation based on the atonement, and PSA?

I missed the part where Jesus pointed out that He was describing Godly conduct AFTER the fact of salvation. Is there anything that Jesus says that gives that impression?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My point is, and has been that, this discussion is far from academic..

Yes. What should be closer to people's heart than their eternal fate?
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
You just need to understand that saving faith is by nature obedient faith as James quite correctly asserts.

I agree that James correctly asserts this, but the mechanism of salvation, as put forth by PSA, separates this obedience from salvation. Instead, PSA asserts that a person is saved while still a sinner - whereas Jesus says that a person needs to repent from sin in order to be saved.
You have to be a sinner to repent but only a regenerate person can repent. So, yes it is perfectly acceptable to suggest that Christ justifies the ungodly. It's just that the first fruit of saving faith is reception of the charism of repentance. It is impossible to repent unless one is regenerate; likewise it is impossible to be regenerate and not to have repented. A regenerate person is a repentant person; but repentance is not the means of regeneration, the Holy Spirit is the agent of regeneration

[ 15. November 2007, 23:39: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freddy:
I missed the part where Jesus pointed out that He was describing Godly conduct AFTER the fact of salvation. Is there anything that Jesus says that gives that impression?

Come on Freddy,
In most of the texts you quote he is addressing the disciples. Can we not safely assume that they have embraced the salvation he offers, or will offer, retrospectively, through the cross?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

[QUOTE][QB] Jamat, what you have done here is to list a series of texts, out of context, and suppose that this constitutes an argument (in the sense of a reasoned, coherent position). I have to tell you, this is not the case. It may be coherent in your mind, but anyone can proof-text to acheive any desired result, given time, effort, and sufficient knowledge of the bible. What you have failed to show is that the biblical authours had anything even remotely like PSA in mind when they wrote those verses. In other words, you can eisegise PSA into Scripture, but you have yet to show that you can exegise PSA out of scripture.

My purpose in quoting scripture here is to show that on balance, there are many texts that clearly suggest that Christ was crucified with God's full knowledge and approval,BECAUSE this was the only way sin could be expunged. What is telling in my mind is that the NT writers, Peter, Paul and the Hebrews writer, all linked Christ to the OT system of sacrifice. They all see what he did as an extension and completion of Mosaic ritual and as in fact a focus which brought that to a climactic conclusion. Each of these statements about Christ is comprehensible apart from its context and has been quoted just to suggest the weight of scriptural authority. Regarding whether they had PSA in mind, maybe not as a theoretical construct, but they sure had the clear view of how sin was dealt with by the cross since it is what they plainly state.

quote:
Just to reiterate. No-one here is denying the salvific effect of the Paschal event. No-one here is denying that we are all sinners. No-one here is denying that Christ died to save us from our sins, or that He rose again that we might be united with Him in new life. No-one here is denying that, in our natural state, we are unable to relate to God in the way in which He wants us to relate to Him. No-one! It's a straw man! It's not what we believe, any more than it's what you believe.
What you all do do share however, is a denial of aspects of the scriptural God that you cannot abide. It seems to me that you deny the one thing in scripture that allows you to actually deal with that 'natural state ' of sinfulness. That one thing is the acknowledgement that Christ was punished for your sin that you might not be.
quote:
Where we do disagree with you is that we don't believe that God's attitude to us is one of wrath that needs appeasing by the vicarious death of Christ. We don't believe that God is compelled to do anything. We don't believe that you can draw a distinction between divine justice and divine love. To believe those things is not the Gospel, rather it is one interpretation of the Gospel, one that has been held by only a minority of Christians (and, just so there is no confusion, I mean those people who have been born again by water and the Spirit, those who have been raised to new life with Christ, those, even, if you care to put it so, who have had their names written in the Lamb's book of life) over the 2000 years of the Church. It's not snide for Greyface to point that out, it's a statement of truth.
Now if we want to talk about strawmen there are a few in here. I have consistently promoted the idea that it is God's love not his wrath that is the operative motive behind the cross. I take it you are familiar with John 3:16.

Then there is the continued unproven assertion that only a minority of Christians have seen Christ as the sinbearer throughout history . This is is untestable and unproveable. When you tried to attribute such a view to Luther, Johnny S made short work of the argument by actually quoting Luther.

Divine justice and divine love are not in opposition and I have never asserted that they are. They are very neatly held in balance by the view I espouse which is that both meet in the cross. Christ came as God's loving gift to humanity and simultaneously as the sin offering for a lost humanity. We were lost and deserving of condemnation but God in his mercy found a way to justify us!

Regarding God being compelled to do anything... Well then can God lie? cheat ? steal ? in other words sin? The point here is that he is compelled by his own nature to be true to that nature. To me this means that he cannot approve of evil or forgive sin UNLESS that sin has been justly deal with and it is as Paul says in Romans "AS in Christ all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive.."

Finally, if all are sinners it seems to me that there is nothing in the CV model that allows a genuine apprehension of how that sin is expunged. The 'Christ as sinbearer' model which you might call PSA has this as part of its very fabric.

quote:
So what, then, are we to make of your last paragraph. Are you really asserting that we are saved by believing a particular doctrine, because if that's so, why are the scriptures so insistant that salvation rests with the man, Christ Jesus? Why doesn't it tell us that, no, it rests in our works, specifically in our assent to the doctine of an 11th century monk or a 16th century lawyer?
I am asserting that to me scripture states sin is an impassable barrier between ourselves and God bridged only by Christ as sinbearer. OK, so it is a doctrine but it is to me the absolute bottom line that defines the Gospel. Now I do not say that you have to intellectually apprehend it to experience its benefits. I remember simply knowing 'something' had happened. One of the great things about our faith is that it is shared by many who have very little intelligence. No, to me the experience is all but in my view the base of that experience is PSA.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GreyFace:
[ If, however, God becomes human and identifies by union with either all those who follow him / are baptised into his death / everyone (see previous arguments about add-on selection criteria - hereafter known as Christ's people) then creation is restored in his unjust death and resurrection, sin fails to defeat God's purpose. In the one version of the story, the devil forfeits his right to Christ's people by killing Christ and thus overstepping his authority and it becomes good and right that even sinners may receive eternal life through Christ's victory. In the other version creation becomes good because evil has not won, the central story of creation is not that God had to pluck a few chosen rebels out of it or condemn everyone but rather that evil did not win, the justice and ultimate goodness of both creation and the rescue of sinners is affirmed by Christ's victory. But both versions really say the same thing.

Now, is the second version PSA? It's very close to what (with no offence intended to some quarters) the good PSA theologians say rather than the "Christ was punished to save me from Hell" tract version. But note the absence of any notion of retribution. At the heart of this there is unconditional forgiveness and the restoration of the righteousness of creation, not the need to punish sinners.

Greyface, I am unsure of whether this does your view justice but a close reading of this snip indicates that one who believes this thinks that being a Christian comes down to:

A choice to identify with Christ by baptism.
A belief that Christ's death restores creation and defeats evil.
Eternal life is secured for believers through Christ's victory.

IF you believe these things, can you elaborate on the actual nitty gritty of the process.
At what point, for instance can one be sure one has identified with Christ and is saved?
Where are the actual mechanics of forgiveness in this? On what basis can one be assured one's sins are in fact forgiven?
In what terms can one apprehend the victory over evil and experience it? Is it on a personal or a more cosmic level? Can one find any sytematic theology consistent with scripture to back this view?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freddy:
I missed the part where Jesus pointed out that He was describing Godly conduct AFTER the fact of salvation. Is there anything that Jesus says that gives that impression?

Come on Freddy,
In most of the texts you quote he is addressing the disciples. Can we not safely assume that they have embraced the salvation he offers, or will offer, retrospectively, through the cross?

So Christ only preached to the saved? Or He only preached repentance to the saved? I thought that His main message to the world was "Repent and believe in the Gospel."
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
You have to be a sinner to repent but only a regenerate person can repent. So, yes it is perfectly acceptable to suggest that Christ justifies the ungodly.

I don't disagree with your basic idea, here, Numpty. Certainly wickedness does not wish to repent, only goodness does. And since the sinner is full of wickedness it would seem as if there is no way out apart from what you suggest.

But does this really mean that Christ justifies the ungodly? Wouldn't it be simpler to say that God's presence with every person enables them to repent - and that no one is so wicked that God can't be present with them?
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
A regenerate person is a repentant person; but repentance is not the means of regeneration, the Holy Spirit is the agent of regeneration

No question that the Holy Spirit is the agent of repentance. It enables a person to repent. But repentance is the means of regeneration. Jesus said:
quote:
Luke 13:3 Unless you repent you will all likewise perish.
God is present with every person, repentant or unrepentant. His presence enables everyone to choose to repent.

The PSA solution doesn't really make the quandary any easier. The same reasoning that prevents a sinner from repenting also prevents the sinner from accepting Jesus. How can the evil choose the good? They can't.

So if the Holy Spirit operates in a person to enable them to accept Jesus, it can also enable repentance.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
My purpose in quoting scripture here is to show that on balance, there are many texts that clearly suggest that Christ was crucified with God's full knowledge and approval,
Agreed..
quote:
BECAUSE this was the only way sin could be expunged.
Depends what you mean by this. If you were to write, "because this was the only way that the effects of sin could be undone" then I would agree with you. From your other writings though, I would guess that such a statement would not find favour with you.
quote:
What is telling in my mind is that the NT writers, Peter, Paul and the Hebrews writer, all linked Christ to the OT system of sacrifice. They all see what he did as an extension and completion of Mosaic ritual and as in fact a focus which brought that to a climactic conclusion.
Agreed... noone has disputed this, certainly not me.
quote:
Each of these statements about Christ is comprehensible apart from its context and has been quoted just to suggest the weight of scriptural authority. Regarding whether they had PSA in mind, maybe not as a theoretical construct, but they sure had the clear view of how sin was dealt with by the cross since it is what they plainly state.

I agree that each of those statements/texts stands on its own. I disagree that they are supportive of your position wrt the precise method by which the cross deals with the self-destructive consequences of sin. I do not believe, in effect, that any person looking at the texts that you quote could deduce PSA from them unles they are already committed to PSA.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
What you all do do share however, is a denial of aspects of the scriptural God that you cannot abide. It seems to me that you deny the one thing in scripture that allows you to actually deal with that 'natural state ' of sinfulness. That one thing is the acknowledgement that Christ was punished for your sin that you might not be.
I'm sorry, but the concept of "Christ (being) punished for (my) sins that (I) might not be" is just not there in scripture. There is only one way authorised by Jesus for dealing with sin, and that way is unconditional, unlimited forgiveness.
quote:

quote:

Where we do disagree with you is that we don't believe that God's attitude to us is one of wrath that needs appeasing by the vicarious death of Christ. We don't believe that God is compelled to do anything. We don't believe that you can draw a distinction between divine justice and divine love. To believe those things is not the Gospel, rather it is one interpretation of the Gospel, one that has been held by only a minority of Christians (and, just so there is no confusion, I mean those people who have been born again by water and the Spirit, those who have been raised to new life with Christ, those, even, if you care to put it so, who have had their names written in the Lamb's book of life) over the 2000 years of the Church. It's not snide for Greyface to point that out, it's a statement of truth.

Now if we want to talk about strawmen there are a few in here. I have consistently promoted the idea that it is God's love not his wrath that is the operative motive behind the cross. I take it you are familiar with John 3:16.

I'm not sure what your complaint is here, Jamat. Have I traduced your position by saying that you believe that God's disposition towards us apart from Christ is one of wrath, and that wrath is dealt with by its transference to Jesus on the cross. If that isn't a fair summary of your beliefs, then I'm delighted to hear it, and offer my sincerest apology for misrepresenting you. But if it is a true summary of your position, how have I built a strawman. And, of course, I do believe that you hold love to be the motivation behind the cross. I just think that there is a deep contradiction here.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Then there is the continued unproven assertion that only a minority of Christians have seen Christ as the sinbearer throughout history . This is is untestable and unproveable. When you tried to attribute such a view to Luther, Johnny S made short work of the argument by actually quoting Luther.
Oh, more than that, surely, Jamat. For a start, there are have probably been more Christians alive in the last century than in all previous centuries combined. Of those Christians, the biggest majority are Catholics, who do not espouse PSA. The next biggest group are Protestant, but only some of those hold to PSA. And the Orthodox church, of course, has always held to CV and considers PSA to be a western heresy. So, testable, maybe not, but you and I both know that it is true.
quote:

Divine justice and divine love are not in opposition and I have never asserted that they are. They are very neatly held in balance by the view I espouse which is that both meet in the cross. Christ came as God's loving gift to humanity and simultaneously as the sin offering for a lost humanity. We were lost and deserving of condemnation but God in his mercy found a way to justify us!

Can I humbly suggest that you are indeed putting love and justice in opposition here. That we are lost and deserving of condemnation is undisputed. That God, in His mercy, acted to save us is obvious to both of us. But you have a dilemma at the heart of God's actions which I do not see. This is the necessity which you see constraining God to deal with sin by punishment, which you call "justice". I see in the scriptures a concept of justice which is not about punishment but about restoration. Because we deserve to be punished does not mean that we should be punished, still less that we must be punished. Punishment does not bring justice, it multiplies injustice, because it panders to our lowest instincts, prevents us from inheriting the benefits of sharing in the forgiving nature of God by offering forgiveness, and militates against repentance of the perpetrator.
quote:

Regarding God being compelled to do anything... Well then can God lie? cheat ? steal ? in other words sin? The point here is that he is compelled by his own nature to be true to that nature. To me this means that he cannot approve of evil or forgive sin UNLESS that sin has been justly deal with and it is as Paul says in Romans "AS in Christ all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive.."

Sorry, this just doesn't make sense. God is certainly not compelled by His own nature not to do those things. That is to stand the argument on its head. Rather, because God's nature is as it is, those things (ie not lying, not cheating) are manifestations of His nature. We recognise good because that is what comes from God, and we have enough of His image in us to recognise those things. And one of those "good" manifestations of God is the refusal to punish, to take vengeance, to repay cursing with anything less than blessing. You see, you can't justly deal with sin by punishment. It just doesn't work. You can only truely justly deal with sin by "unmaking" it.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Finally, if all are sinners it seems to me that there is nothing in the CV model that allows a genuine apprehension of how that sin is expunged. The 'Christ as sinbearer' model which you might call PSA has this as part of its very fabric.
Sin is dealt with by forgiveness. The destructive effects of sin on our lives (and on the cosmos) are dealt with by the atonement

quote:
quote:
So what, then, are we to make of your last paragraph. Are you really asserting that we are saved by believing a particular doctrine, because if that's so, why are the scriptures so insistant that salvation rests with the man, Christ Jesus? Why doesn't it tell us that, no, it rests in our works, specifically in our assent to the doctine of an 11th century monk or a 16th century lawyer?

I am asserting that to me scripture states sin is an impassable barrier between ourselves and God bridged only by Christ as sinbearer. OK, so it is a doctrine but it is to me the absolute bottom line that defines the Gospel. Now I do not say that you have to intellectually apprehend it to experience its benefits. I remember simply knowing 'something' had happened. One of the great things about our faith is that it is shared by many who have very little intelligence. No, to me the experience is all but in my view the base of that experience is PSA.

The absolute bottom line for me is that God loves me, and has acted in history to bring me into relationship with Him through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, and to give me eternal life with Him. But all that has nothing whatsover to do with PSA.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Finally, if all are sinners it seems to me that there is nothing in the CV model that allows a genuine apprehension of how that sin is expunged. The 'Christ as sinbearer' model which you might call PSA has this as part of its very fabric.
Sin is dealt with by forgiveness. The destructive effects of sin on our lives (and on the cosmos) are dealt with by the atonement
I would say that the central phenomenon is that sinful desires, thoughts and behavior are changed by a process of education and repentance.

Once the sin goes away, so do its effects.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
[QUOTE] the concept of "Christ (being) punished for (my) sins that (I) might not be" is just not there in scripture. QUOTE]

How intellectually honest is it to say this?

2Cor 5:21. Christ became sin for us.

Now he would only need to become sin for us if he had to offer himself in our place. Why is this necessary? surely because our sin was a barrier between us and God which only he, the sinless one could bridge?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
2Cor 5:21. Christ became sin for us.

Now he would only need to become sin for us if he had to offer himself in our place. Why is this necessary? surely because our sin was a barrier between us and God which only he, the sinless one could bridge?

Christ became sin in the same sense that the prophets acted out the sins of Israel - as when Isaiah went naked and barefoot, or Ezekiel besieged a model of Jerusalem. The prophets took on themselves the sins of the people.

The purpose of these depictions was to point out sin, so that people would repent. The same is true of Jesus. They treated Him as they would treat a sinner, but the effect was to point out their own sins.

So Jesus did not offer Himself in our place to appease God's anger. Rather He allowed Himself to be treated as a sinner. He took on our sins, and overcame them by casting a light on their true nature.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[quote] the concept of "Christ (being) punished for (my) sins that (I) might not be" is just not there in scripture. [\quote]

How intellectually honest is it to say this?

2Cor 5:21. Christ became sin for us.

Now he would only need to become sin for us if he had to offer himself in our place. Why is this necessary? surely because our sin was a barrier between us and God which only he, the sinless one could bridge?

Christ becoming sin for us does not mean Christ is punished for our sin. There is no immutable law of the universe that says sin must be dealt with by punishment. So the answer to your question is "there is no intellectual dishonesty here".

[ 17. November 2007, 21:46: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
2Cor 5:21. Christ became sin for us.

Now he would only need to become sin for us if he had to offer himself in our place. Why is this necessary? surely because our sin was a barrier between us and God which only he, the sinless one could bridge?

Christ became sin in the same sense that the prophets acted out the sins of Israel - as when Isaiah went naked and barefoot, or Ezekiel besieged a model of Jerusalem. The prophets took on themselves the sins of the people.

The purpose of these depictions was to point out sin, so that people would repent. The same is true of Jesus. They treated Him as they would treat a sinner, but the effect was to point out their own sins.

So Jesus did not offer Himself in our place to appease God's anger. Rather He allowed Himself to be treated as a sinner. He took on our sins, and overcame them by casting a light on their true nature.

Well in that case JJ you are simply asserting that the whole cross experience is JUST a metaphor to help us understand God forgives us. To me scripture teaches that our sin is a prison from which we cannot opt out. The internal revolution one experiences as one comes to face is based on something real and literal. Jesus as role model just doesn't cut it!

Your assertion here has no more validity than any other opinion. Paul lived a literal faith. So do I.

If I thought your view actually was what scripture teaches I wouldn't be looking for answers there. The whole of the Christian construct would be a chimera, as vacuous as a puff of smoke!

The close examination of your view reveals that there is nothing substantial for one to base one's faith on. One might as well be Buddist, Hindu or Muslim. maybe even a Gort or a Rook? (meaning no disrespect to those learned gents whose posts I enjoy very much.)

Incidentally have you considered Heb 9:28? So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of meany..shall appear the second time for salvation without reference to sin.." Interesting to read in conjunction with is 53: and 1 Pet 2:24.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
I think that reply was intended for Freddy?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Yes, JJ. Jamat means me.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well in that case JJ you are simply asserting that the whole cross experience is JUST a metaphor to help us understand God forgives us. To me scripture teaches that our sin is a prison from which we cannot opt out. The internal revolution one experiences as one comes to face is based on something real and literal. Jesus as role model just doesn't cut it!

Jamat, sorry if I haven't made myself clear. The whole cross experience is by no means just a metaphor. It is real and literal. Jesus is not just a role model.

Christus victor, as I understand it, means that Christ literally overcame the hosts of hell, confronting and defeating them. The experience of the cross was the final battle and final victory.

The way that Jesus overcame sin was to meet the suggestion of evil with the truth of the Word. This confrontation is depicted repeatedly in the gospels - from the temptations in the wilderness, to debates with the religious leaders, to His suffering on the cross. He never backed down, He never gave in, He maintained the truth even to His unjust death.

The result of these confrontations and victories was that the powers of hell were met and defeated one by one. At His crucifixion their hold over humanity was broken. This literally happened. Since that time people are free to choose good or evil, they are not ruled by hell. This was a freedom that had been in danger of being lost, had the Lord Himself not come into the world.

Since Jesus was the Word itself He was able to cast light on a dark world, and completely change human history. This light brings with it the mechanism that frees humanity, and any individual, from the prison of sin - a prison from which we cannot opt out from our own strength. This is why Jesus says:
quote:
John 8:31 “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
Obedience to the Word is the mechanism that sets us free. By means of it we are made into completely new people.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The close examination of your view reveals that there is nothing substantial for one to base one's faith on. One might as well be Buddist, Hindu or Muslim.

Not so. This is what Christ teaches. Or how do you understand that abiding in His Word is what sets us free?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally have you considered Heb 9:28? So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of meany..shall appear the second time for salvation without reference to sin.." Interesting to read in conjunction with is 53: and 1 Pet 2:24.

Yes, Hebrews 9:28 is interesting, and in harmony with everything said elsewhere about the Second Coming. There is never any sacrifical language associated with the Second Coming. Instead, it is to complete the work of the First Coming, establishing His kingdom on the earth.

It doesn't mean that it is not about overcoming sin - the imagery of Matthew 24, Revelation, and elsewhere is all about His triumph. But His suffering is past.
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
Please excuse me for nudging in on a lively discussion so late in the piece, but I have only just boarded the ship and this is a truly fascinating discussion. It may have already been covered by someone, but could those who argue for the Anselmian PSA view comment on Jesus repeated assertion to the Pharisees: "Mercy I desire, not sacrifice" (Mt 9:13 and 12:7) (quoting, of course, from Hosea 6:6) in connection with this discussion. Doesn't it make more sense to argue (in terms of the classical view of the atonement maintained for over 1,000 years) that it was the Devil, Satan the Accuser, holding us to ransom and demading that due sacrifice be made rather than God [Confused]

Cheers
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[quote] the concept of "Christ (being) punished for (my) sins that (I) might not be" is just not there in scripture. [\quote]

How intellectually honest is it to say this?

2Cor 5:21. Christ became sin for us.

Now he would only need to become sin for us if he had to offer himself in our place. Why is this necessary? surely because our sin was a barrier between us and God which only he, the sinless one could bridge?

Christ becoming sin for us does not mean Christ is punished for our sin. There is no immutable law of the universe that says sin must be dealt with by punishment. So the answer to your question is "there is no intellectual dishonesty here".
So you assert. The basis of your assertion? You have this theoretical objection to the element of punishment as part of the nature of God so you have to find a way round it. This despite concepts of judgement and punishment virtually everywhere you care to look in the scriptures.

Investigators of a crime create a scenario to fit the evidence do they not? To me your scenario fails to account for the list of scriptures I quoted above. It also ignores the evidence of Christ's passion as well as lackng a clear mechanism by which forgiveness can be seen to be efficacious. And what about the holiness factor the essential nature of God that separates him from us? It is this that makes me think the CV view lacks an understanding of the seriousness of sin..but we've been there.

By becoming sin for us Christ absorbed the weight of human evil. He allowed the connection with the Father to be broken, the Holy Spirit to withdraw from him.

This was the source of his agony in Gethsemane, The reason for the drops of blood and the prayer for the cup to pass. Christ could have stumbled at the point where the father looked away. I actually think that it was here that he truly discerned the evil in mens' hearts and understood the need for the radical solution he was being asked to undergo.

It is also the explanation for that final cry from the cross. The cry of Ps 22, 'Why have you forsaken me' is explicable perfectly in the view of Christ as the ultimate sin offering. It creates a beautifully symetrical and scriptural theology. Christ bore my sin because I was unable to be justified if he hadn't. Deny that and what is there of substance to create hope for us? Embrace it and a genuine exchange of life forces can occur. One can put off the old literally and put on the new because there is genuine power to do so. The cross event becomes the dynamo of literal and positive change.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Please excuse me for nudging in on a lively discussion so late in the piece, but I have only just boarded the ship and this is a truly fascinating discussion. It may have already been covered by someone, but could those who argue for the Anselmian PSA view comment on Jesus repeated assertion to the Pharisees: "Mercy I desire, not sacrifice" (Mt 9:13 and 12:7) (quoting, of course, from Hosea 6:6) in connection with this discussion. Doesn't it make more sense to argue (in terms of the classical view of the atonement maintained for over 1,000 years) that it was the Devil, Satan the Accuser, holding us to ransom and demading that due sacrifice be made rather than God [Confused]

Cheers

Welcome Piers. Don't know much about Anselm I'm afraid. Jesus' comments to the Pharisees seem to me to be directed at their judgemental and hypocritical application and interpretation of the Mosaic law would you agree? He showed God's mercy in his own person but that generation rejected his claim of Messiahship and consequently he withdrew from them. I see the cross as a demonstration of mercy triumphing over judgement in that Christ opened a way forward for us through it. However, judgement is not thereby abrogated, Christ was judged for sin in our place.The two neatly combine it seems to me. However, this has been hotly debated on this thread.
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
Jamat, thankyou for your thoughtful response.

Anselm of Canterbury (c1033-1109) is absolutely crucial to debates about the Atonement. His "Cur Deus Homo" (Why God Became Man) effectively set the tone for all subsequent discussions about the subject until Gustav Aulen's "Christus Victor" appeared in 1931, giving us a glimpse of a long neglected view that was prevalent amongst Christians in the First Millennium. Anselm's great innovation was to remove Satan completely from the central Christian narrative of salvation - something that should always arouse suspicion. He went on to render God as a kind of outraged feudal magnate justly demanding satisfaction for offences caused by human sin.
It seems there is more to me in Jesus' quoting Hosea than what you suggest. If God really does not require sacrifice, a fundamental plank in the penal substitutionary theory has effectively been removed. Don't you think?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Anselm's great innovation was to remove Satan completely from the central Christian narrative of salvation - something that should always arouse suspicion. He went on to render God as a kind of outraged feudal magnate justly demanding satisfaction for offences caused by human sin.

Welcome to this discussion piers. Thank you for bringing in Anselm - who I'm sure has been mentioned above somewhere...

I agree about Anselm's rendering of God. I think that this view of God is central to PSA.
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
It seems there is more to me in Jesus' quoting Hosea than what you suggest. If God really does not require sacrifice, a fundamental plank in the penal substitutionary theory has effectively been removed. Don't you think?

I agree. Without the demand for sacrifice, or retribution, the whole point of the penal substitution goes out the window.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
So you assert. The basis of your assertion? You have this theoretical objection to the element of punishment as part of the nature of God so you have to find a way round it. This despite concepts of judgement and punishment virtually everywhere you care to look in the scriptures.

You've missed the point of my comment. The specific point I was rebutting was that there is some overarching need for sin to be dealt with by punishment, to which even God is subject. So I would say that the onus is upon you to justify that assertion.

However, I will answer your point about my, as you put it, theoretical objection to a punitive side of God's nature, and I will answer it by way of a question. If I did not get these concepts of the ultimate non-punitive nature of God from the scriptures, and, specifically, from the life and teaching of Jesus, then where, in fact, did I get them from. I mean, it's not as if the world is hot on forgivenss, is it? Far from it, love your enemies is hardly a popular slogan. In fact, one could go as far as to say that it's deeply countercultural. And, once again, we come to that key verse, Romans 3:25-26. Jesus demonstrates how God deals with sin, not by punishment, but by unmaking it in a process of restoration, which is divine justice. Judgement (or rather condemnation) is not God's will, but is rather what happens when God's will is ignored and people go their own way. God doesn't visit it on us, we visit it on ourselves. Instead he rescues us from it, struggling in all our lives, but ultimately, decisively on the cross, to put things back together again.

quote:
Investigators of a crime create a scenario to fit the evidence do they not? To me your scenario fails to account for the list of scriptures I quoted above. It also ignores the evidence of Christ's passion as well as lackng a clear mechanism by which forgiveness can be seen to be efficacious. And what about the holiness factor the essential nature of God that separates him from us? It is this that makes me think the CV view lacks an understanding of the seriousness of sin..but we've been there.
The question, surely, is not the list of evidences, but the interpretation of that evidence. It is, to pursue your analogy, quite possible for detectives to examine the evidence andf come up with a conclusion which is truely based on that evidence, but is nevertheless flawed. I think Jesus's prophecies of the end times are pictures of what would be if God had not intervened in history, or if that intervention is rejected, and that they are made particularly sharp in the light of the events of AD 70, when the city of Jerusalem was, if you like, judged because it ignored Jesus warnings not to look for earthly liberation by force of arms. But the destruction wasn't the judgement; rather it was the predictable and inevitable result of going out to war without reckoning whether you have the resources to pursue it effectively. No, the judgement was the demonstration, the manifestation, if you like, of the bankrupcy and self-defeating nature of violence - those who live by the sword, die by the sword.


With regard to the alleged lack of a mechanism by which forgiveness can be efficacious. I confess I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I would have thought it was common ground between us that, in some way or other (we might disagree about in which way) we become united with Christ, and His Holy Spirit regenerates us and empowers us to, however imperfectly, become imitators of Christ. I'm not sure what concrete shape forgiveness could take if it doesn't manifest itself in repentance/metanoia. Or do you mean being released from guilt, etc. If that is so, I would have thought that God speaking the words of forgiveness to us ought to quiet the tenderest of consciences. But, as I say, I might not have grasped that at which you are driving.

WRT God being separated from us by sin and the nature of His holiness, this is old ground. Suffice it to say that I reject that notion, and don't find it at all supported by Scripture, though, of course, I do believe we are separated from Him. But the separation is of our "creation", not God's. Just because we are blind, it doesn't mean He can't see us!

quote:
By becoming sin for us Christ absorbed the weight of human evil. He allowed the connection with the Father to be broken, the Holy Spirit to withdraw from him.

It is possible to hold to the truth of the first sentence, whilst rejecting the second. God didn't withdraw from Jesus. He is always present, everywhere, throughout His creation. "Even in sheol", as Psalm 139 puts it so graphically. But Jesus, because he bore the sin that was common to us, also bore the alienation which that sin caused.

quote:
This was the source of his agony in Gethsemane, The reason for the drops of blood and the prayer for the cup to pass. Christ could have stumbled at the point where the father looked away. I actually think that it was here that he truly discerned the evil in mens' hearts and understood the need for the radical solution he was being asked to undergo.

You write this as if there was a dispute about the reality of Jesus' suffering. There is no such dispute. The events of Good Friday were, literally, excruciating mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually. I don't think the Father looked away - I don't think He allowed Himself that mercy, but if he did, antropomorphically, find Himself unable to look upon the Son, it was not because he was incapable of looking at the evil of creation squarely in the face.

quote:
It is also the explanation for that final cry from the cross. The cry of Ps 22, 'Why have you forsaken me' is explicable perfectly in the view of Christ as the ultimate sin offering. It creates a beautifully symetrical and scriptural theology. Christ bore my sin because I was unable to be justified if he hadn't. Deny that and what is there of substance to create hope for us? Embrace it and a genuine exchange of life forces can occur. One can put off the old literally and put on the new because there is genuine power to do so. The cross event becomes the dynamo of literal and positive change.

Well, as I've said, I don't think the cry of deriliction has inherent in it an actual drawing back of the presence of God, rather it is the humanity of Jesus sharing the alienation of all humankind, experiencing the woundedness of all of us when we have to encounter evil.

But I've still no idea why you feel that only a punitive understanding of the cross can make it efficacious. We would both agree that the "exchange of life forces" as you put it, is an objective reality. CV and PSA both share that understanding. In fact, the liberation of Divine regenerative power is an understanding that is present in CV in spades, but much less so in PSA.
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
If I might nudge in again on this tight little discussion: am I alone in having grown sick and tired of the current Christian obsession with the notion of 'sin'? From the tone and content of perhaps the bulk of contemporary Christian preaching you could easily get the impression that sin is a huge and crucial part of the Gospel - as most of those in the Anselmian tradition in fact maintain. It comes as an enormous relief to many of us, therefore, when it dawns on us how little the word is found on Jesus' lips in the Greek text of the Gospels. It is only a handful of times, and usually in such reassuring connections as to announce forgiveness (most often to those who have neither repented nor asked for it) or to reinforce his proudly-chosen status as the 'Friend' of sinners - both of which annoyed his sacrifice and punishment obsessed opponents no end. Our execrable modern committee translations (chief among them the NIV) try to insert the word as often as possible, however, under the powerful influence of a tendentious theology which allows little room for diversity or creativity.

If sin was by no means either primary or central in the preaching of Jesus, (unlike eg. our responsibility to keep on forgiving others as God does or to face down religious arrogance, bigotry and judgementalism as he tirelessly did) why is it obviously so important to many of the contributors to this thread? Or is the way Jesus himself proclaimed the Gospel not to be counted as the most significant factor in the way we frame and construct the central Christian narrative in our time and places?

Talk to me, please.
 
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Jamat, thankyou for your thoughtful response.

Anselm of Canterbury (c1033-1109) is absolutely crucial to debates about the Atonement. His "Cur Deus Homo" (Why God Became Man) effectively set the tone for all subsequent discussions about the subject until Gustav Aulen's "Christus Victor" appeared in 1931, giving us a glimpse of a long neglected view that was prevalent amongst Christians in the First Millennium. Anselm's great innovation was to remove Satan completely from the central Christian narrative of salvation - something that should always arouse suspicion. He went on to render God as a kind of outraged feudal magnate justly demanding satisfaction for offences caused by human sin.
It seems there is more to me in Jesus' quoting Hosea than what you suggest. If God really does not require sacrifice, a fundamental plank in the penal substitutionary theory has effectively been removed. Don't you think?

Thanks for bringing in the Anselmian perspective, piers pl.

I think it's important though, to understand that Anselm promoted subsitutionary atonement. It wasn't, in his reading, primarily penal, although penal ideas are incipient in his thought. Penal subsitutionary atonement was mostly the invention of the reformers, as a logical extension of Anselm's position.

It's also important to note that Anselm's formulation of subsitutionary atonement was a bi-product of his overall aim: which was to demonstrate WHY the incarnation. And you're quite right to point out the feudal system on which Anselm's theory of atonement is based. The redressing of wronged honour was not necessarily emotionally loaded (wrath, anger, demanding punishment, being offended). It was a transaction to be balanced. Humanity could not pay the debt owed to God's honour caused by sin, only God could, yet humanity should pay the debt. Therefore only a God-Man, one who was both human and God could. And Jesus does this as our substitute, in our place (in Anselm's schema). This is more about the restoration of a debt owed rather than divine punishment. [The chief arguments against Anselm centre around the problem of agency - if a substitute pays, then what of my responsibility? - and the problem that his model of atonement is very dated by the social construct on which it is built. We don't operate so much on an honour/shame system in modern western capitalist society, so how relevant is Anselm's model?]

Penal substitutionary atonement takes this further, suggesting that God needs to punish sin, and that Jesus bears that punishment and wrath in the place of humanity. Rather than punish guilty humans, God provides the Son. Which means God as Father punishes the innocent Son. [I side with the feminists who critique this doctrine as condoning child abuse and victimisation of the vulnerable - but that's another discussion. Another thing I never understood in my Calvinist childhood, was how God could be simultaneously impassible, transcendent, without passions or parts, and yet also furiously wrathful, burning with anger and hatred towards sin(ners) (love and the less violent emotions were always bifurcated into the transcendent, platonic realm, and were never "felt" by God in the way wrath etc was).]

The other chief problem with PSA is that it shifts the significance of redemption and weights it entirely on the death of Christ, to the extent that Jesus' life, and the very Incarnation itself, are sublimated into the one purpose: death. Almost as though it wouldn't have mattered had Jesus been locked in a small room for most of his life, as long as he was brutally murdered as an innocent sacrifice. (Jesus the Lamb bred for slaughter, anyone?)

Any account of the atonement, in my view, really needs to take into serious consideration the whole of the Christ event - the incarnation of the Logos/Sophia, his birth, his life, his ministry, teaching, actions, healings, community interaction, the trajectory of his conflict with the authorities, his death, resurrection and ascension. Jesus, in the wholeness of his person and actions, saves us from sin, death, hell, lostness, division from God. In short, it's time the age-old distinction between soteriology and christology was dissolved.
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
Thankyou, Nunc Dimittis, for your considered and insightful remarks re Anselm.
I agree with your reading of him on the whole. The only thing I would take direct issue with is your reference to 'the Reformers' as the founders of a full-blown PSA; they were a diverse bunch and many of them, including (most probably) Luther weren't sipping from that poisoned scholastic chalice. Indeed, the further you go into the more radical side of Reformation thought and away from the Magisterial, the more likely you are to encounter really marked divergences from the Anselmian perspective and its sixteenth-century extensions.

My real interests in Anselm, however, lie a move or two beyond the controversy about moral agency and cosmic child abuse (which I certainly agree with you about. I am specifically interested in:
1. The disappearance of the Devil from the central Christian soteriological narrative as the accuser who demands retribution, punishment for sin and settlement of the demands of justice. This disappearance created, I suggest, a blank space in which he was gradually to be reconstructed over the next few centuries as the chief character of the demonologies which underlay elitel egitimation for persecutions of heretics, Jews, witches and anyone else Church hierarchs didn't like; and
2. The resurgence of Anselmian patterns of thought in the Twentieth century in the massively influential work of Karl Barth and in Evangelical thought generally. Many thousands were taught penal substituionary theories at seminaries and theological colleges and sent out to sell it as THE Gospel to millions of hearers who, not surprisingly, simply didn't buy it.
If I am at all right about either or both of thses things, the Anselmian Medieval morass has led us into a huge amount of diabolical mischief and the sooner we leave it behind as an unfortunate historical curiosity and get down to form of presentation of a rich, superb Gospel that come across as complex insults to both God and humanity (which they are) the better off we shall all be.

Any comments?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by piers ploughman:
[QB] If I might nudge in again on this tight little discussion: am I alone in having grown sick and tired of the current Christian obsession with the notion of 'sin'? From the tone and content of perhaps the bulk of contemporary Christian preaching you could easily get the impression that sin is a huge and crucial part of the Gospel - as most of those in the Anselmian tradition in fact maintain.

OK I'll talk to you.
The notion of sin? The fall did a couple of significant things would you agree?
It allowed for the corruption of man's nature we describe as sinfulness. It made us into sinners. It darkened the spiritual awareness we had as a species by turning the love in our nature inward. It made us selfish. Now the issue becomes,'How bad is the problem?' How serious?

Now the answer to this seems to be the determiner of one's view of atonement.

If one takes the view that sin left unchecked would ultimately fill the universe with darkness and evil. If one sees that it alienates the creation of which we are a part, from fellowship with the creator, then you have to ask what exactly is this disease, and what does scripture suggest about its nature?

Romans 1 suggests that there is a hopelessness about our state. Jesus himself states that rebirth is the only solution in Jn 3 and That the way to rebirth is repentance, "Unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish."

Now having said that, one has to recognise that since the problem is so radical and fundamental, that we, mankind, were helpless before it. We literally, could not reform, (as demonstrated by the failure of the Hebrew nation, despite the incredibly miraculous history of their Genesis and preservation.)

If you say Jesus minimized it, to me that is serious misinformation.

That he came as a reconciler, a forgiver, a model of the way we could and should be toward God and others, who could disagree. But he could only do this work by first dealing with the fundamental problem which is why he came to die. That problem was the alteration and reversal of the effects of the fall.

Consequently, Sin was primary in the ministry of Jesus. He never tolerated it. the woman caught in adultery was told to 'sin no more.'and it was central in that he put himself into its power in order to defeat it. The fact that his message was one of hope in no way minimises the problem of sin. The resurrection is primarily significant as a triumph over sin.

Now we come to the real issue which is how the cross functions. Let me reiterate at once that the motivation of God is love not wrath, but the radical nature of the problem demanded sin be removed. In the incarnate Christ was founded a perfect hatred of sin. In the heart of the Father, a perfect love for sinners. In the heart of the Godhead, a perfect plan of salvation.

Sin's removal demanded its judgement, Its judgement demanded its negation. Its negation cost a perfect life given the scripture tells us as 'a ransom for many'. That life could only be provided by the incarnate God-man since only he was untainted by the fall and lived according to the Mosaic revelation, a perfect life.

Now the issue of whether God in fact judged the innocent Christ on the cross has been the subject of much discussion. Why I believe this is so is because of the cosmic and humungous nature of the problem. I interpret the scriptures the way I do because the alternative is that I and the rest of my ilk stand condemned and without hope unless God acted the way he did.

This is not the act of a cruel, malicious omnipotent being. It is the act of a father who moves to rescue a loved one at immense cost to himself.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Piers, I would pretty much agree with most of your points. I'm a bit nervous about reinstating the whole "classic" view of the role of Satan, not because I don't believe in a personal (better non-personal) Satan, but because it gives him (it?) an overly-important position in the Divine economy of salvation. However, the role conventionally enacted by Satan as the one who binds us to the transactional/contractual nature of a fallen creation (the law of sin and death, as Paul calls it) is certainly a role that is confronted and defeated by Jesus on the cross. I'm really quite attracted to Girard's notion that we are the accusers, both of ourselves and our fellow creatures. I don't think this can be demonstrated from scripture, but if we take a wider understanding of the nature of evil, then it is certainly consonant with scripture.

With regard to sin, I guess I see personal, moral failure as only tangential to the atonement process. It is the effect of that sin, the destructive principle to which it opens the door, that is dealt with on the cross. Jesus makes so little (to modern evo ears) of sin because it was a done deal. The (jewish) people of Jesus' time fully understood how God deals with sin, by forgiveness and subsequent repenatnce. Their quarrel with Jesus was concerned not with the fact that forgiveness was available (undeservedly - after all, what else was the sacrificial system but a calling to mind of a covenant which defined relationship with God as being by the undeserved choice of God) but rather that Jesus thought it appropriate to proclaim that forgiveness with authority, which was the prerogative of God (or at certain defined times the role of the High Priest, acting on God's behalf).
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
Jamat,

Thankyou for your lengthy response.

Of course I hear and understand what you say very clearly and have heard it very many times before. It is a version of the fall/redemption motif that has been incredibly influential in various guises in elite Christian thought through tne centuries. As such it is part of the ABC of historical theology. What I am trying to do is to invite shipmates along some other and more fruitful paths.

Your remarks are also a perfect illustration of what I said about this obsession with sin that Jesus DIDN'T display in his own life and teaching. I hope you would agree with me when I suggest that if we want to know what the Gospel is there is no better way of finding out than by looking at the Gospels themselves and taking what they say with the utmost seriousness. It seems to me that one of the many fundamental problems with fall/redemption models is that they impose on the Gospels themselves a way of reading that dictates from the outset what we see there. It is like a pair of highly distorting spectacles constructed by mere human beings in different times and places. When you read without them, one of the many things that stands out is that Jesus had far less concern with sin than it seemed when they were on your nose. In other words, Jesus hardly ever mentions sin, and when he does it is in very different ways to those we are led to expect by the atonement theorists.

Take Matthew's Gospel. The word sin (hamartia) occurs a mere 7 times (many fewer times in the whole Gospel than in your last posting). These are in 1:21, 3:6, 9:2, 9:5, 9:6, 12:31 and 26:28. Only 5 of these are on Jesus' own lips and never to accuse 'normal' people of guilt. By contrast, the words forgive and forgiveness (aphiemi)occur 47 times in the same gospel, mostly uttered by Jesus. Now if sin is the kind of problem you suggest it is, why doesn't Jesus make much more of it than he does? Why doesn't he make the Fall/redemption schema obvious so that no one could possibly miss the point? And who is really likely to be guilty of 'serious misinformation' in proclaiming the Gospel: someone who mentions sin sparingly like Jesus himself and who is careful not to trade in guilt, shame and accusation or someone who mentions sin frequently and (eg.) forgiveness hardly at all?

You mention Romans 1. I note that Paul doesn't mention sin in that passage. What he does do is to proclaim the revelation of the wrath of God against a very particular and familiar class of people: those who know very well what God is really like and yet 'clutch on' to that knowledge in injustice and thereby sink into foul apostacy. Such conspicuously religious people have always been inclined to lord it over others and seek to hold the world in bondage to guilt, shame and the fear of punishment. Those whom Jesus encountered he readily described as children of their father the Devil - which brings us back into the realm of CV notions of what Jesus was about. The people of God have always been tormented by them in various ways, but we have the deep consolation of the knowledge that Jesus destroyed them in his life and death so thaqt we might live abundantly now and in the world to come.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Well I wouldn't see a softened view of sin as being a more fruitful path.

The issue is about the hopelessness of our lostness. Unless one finds the path out of that lostness one can't find peace.

Of couse if one denies the 'lostness' then either ther is no problrm or one is blinded to it. Is their a third alternative?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well I wouldn't see a softened view of sin as being a more fruitful path.

The issue is about the hopelessness of our lostness. Unless one finds the path out of that lostness one can't find peace.

Of couse if one denies the 'lostness' then either ther is no problrm or one is blinded to it. Is their a third alternative?

Not so much softened, as more biblically balanced.

No-one is denying the lostness, merely that the said lostness is not as a result of judicial condemnation by God, but rather the destructive effects of sin upon our ontology. Hence the remedy is re-creation by the new birth, rather than juridical aquittal. We are not lost because we are guilty before God. Sin is that which can be forgiven. Our plight is much more serious than juridical guilt - it is the bondage to decay and death that sin brings with it. We can be fully forgiven and still be bound to decay which prevents us from enjoying eternal life. It is much more significant, from God's point of view, that we are freed from that bondage than that we are forgiven, since the incarnation would not have been necessary if our only need was for forgiveness.
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
Tell us, Jamat,

What is it you find least fruitful - or most frightening - about the proposition that we strive to be exactly as hard or soft on 'sin' as was Jesus himself??
 
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
piers ploughman said:
quote:
My real interests in Anselm, however, lie a move or two beyond the controversy about moral agency and cosmic child abuse (which I certainly agree with you about. I am specifically interested in:
1. The disappearance of the Devil from the central Christian soteriological narrative as the accuser who demands retribution, punishment for sin and settlement of the demands of justice. This disappearance created, I suggest, a blank space in which he was gradually to be reconstructed over the next few centuries as the chief character of the demonologies which underlay elitel egitimation for persecutions of heretics, Jews, witches and anyone else Church hierarchs didn't like; and
2. The resurgence of Anselmian patterns of thought in the Twentieth century in the massively influential work of Karl Barth and in Evangelical thought generally. Many thousands were taught penal substituionary theories at seminaries and theological colleges and sent out to sell it as THE Gospel to millions of hearers who, not surprisingly, simply didn't buy it.
If I am at all right about either or both of thses things, the Anselmian Medieval morass has led us into a huge amount of diabolical mischief and the sooner we leave it behind as an unfortunate historical curiosity and get down to form of presentation of a rich, superb Gospel that come across as complex insults to both God and humanity (which they are) the better off we shall all be.

With the same caveats that Jolly Jape articulates, I agree with you (particularly on your last point about the effects of Anselmian thought on the 20th C and ff).

Like JJ, I think rather than being accused by an outside entity (whether God or the Devil) we judge ourselves. Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ, although we do a damned good job of it at times by turning to other things (or ourselves).

Albeit that a friend of mine who's in first year formation recently spent a week at Wontulp Bibiya College (an Aboriginal seminary). She said that while the Devil makes no sense in our culture, in theirs the Devil, as the personification of the temptation to drug and alcohol addiction and the cycle of abuse, made perfect sense.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Tell us, Jamat,

What is it you find least fruitful - or most frightening - about the proposition that we strive to be exactly as hard or soft on 'sin' as was Jesus himself??

It is the appreciation of the nature of the problem. I suspect that a view of sin that deemphasises its seriousness is ostrich country. Wishful thinkng. Jesus spoke powerfully of judgement. Have you done the maths on that? The reason for judgement is obviously sin isn't it? Both in our nature and committed by us.

Basically, though, I wouldn't look at the number of times this or that is mentioned in the Gospels as an indicator of its relative importance in doctrine formation. What is important is the incarnation, its nature, function and consequence.

[ 22. November 2007, 00:22: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:

Like JJ, I think rather than being accused by an outside entity (whether God or the Devil) we judge ourselves. Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ, although we do a damned good job of it at times by turning to other things (or ourselves).

Albeit that a friend of mine who's in first year formation recently spent a week at Wontulp Bibiya College (an Aboriginal seminary). She said that while the Devil makes no sense in our culture, in theirs the Devil, as the personification of the temptation to drug and alcohol addiction and the cycle of abuse, made perfect sense. [/QB]

I admit that it is a strange thing to come (back) to a belief in the existence and the effects of a personal Devil in mid and later life. Perhaps it is some kind of cerebral softening already - although I seriously doubt it. What intrigues me is that it not only puts in in company with the vast majority of indigenous peoples and their intuitions (cp. your example)but with increasing numbers in this Post-modern era for whom evil is a palpable reality they have to deal with, both intellectually and emotionally.

I hear what you are saying about judging ourselves rather than doing so under the influence of an outside entity, but my mind has been too moulded by sociological perspectives to accept that as a primary or even a major cause. Guilt and shame are profoundly sociological matters, which is why there is so much variation between cultures. Blame, shame, accusation, denigration, scandal, the imputation of inferiority or inadequacy are directed to us by both individuals and institutions. It is possible to account for these social processes without recourse to diabolical explanations (as Walter Wink does in his famous "Powers" trilogy, for instance), but I can't help but be increasingly fascinated by the ways in which Jesus keeps on ascribing the activities of his enemies who constantly traded in blame, shame, judgement and moral superiority to the influence of their Father the Devil. It is possible that modern Europeans did really have a more enlightened worldview than Jesus, but I seriously doubt it - don't you?

Thanks for talking to me, BTW.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
I can't help but be increasingly fascinated by the ways in which Jesus keeps on ascribing the activities of his enemies who constantly traded in blame, shame, judgement and moral superiority to the influence of their Father the Devil. It is possible that modern Europeans did really have a more enlightened worldview than Jesus, but I seriously doubt it - don't you?

Yes, I doubt it too. Jesus too consistently ascribed evil to malevolent spiritual forces for us to deny that this was His view.

The modern western perspective tends to deny the reality of spiritual beings who interact with us without our conscious awareness.

But this is the biblical view, and it was these malevolent forces that Jesus overcame. Or so He says:
quote:
John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
The idea that Christ died to satisfy the Father's justice, instead of to cast out the "ruler of this world", contradicts many New Testament passages and much of Messianic prophecy. The consistent message of those prophecies is exemplified in the very first one:
quote:
Genesis 3:14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:...
15 I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”

The serpent is Satan, or hell itself, and the woman's Seed is Jesus, who would suffer (His heel) but overcome (bruising the serpent's head).

The whole idea of the Advent prophecies is that God would come to save His people, to restore justice to the world, and to cast out evil. He would suffer in bringing this about, but He would not fail.

[ 22. November 2007, 01:21: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
I do like the way your mind works, Freddy.
Keep talking!! [Smile]
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[:

It is the appreciation of the nature of the problem. I suspect that a view of sin that deemphasises its seriousness is ostrich country. Wishful thinkng. Jesus spoke powerfully of judgement. Have you done the maths on that? The reason for judgement is obviously sin isn't it? Both in our nature and committed by us.

Basically, though, I wouldn't look at the number of times this or that is mentioned in the Gospels as an indicator of its relative importance in doctrine formation. What is important is the incarnation, its nature, function and consequence. [/QB]

Of course, it's not a question of Maths, but when you want to understand someone, especially someone who chooese their words as carefully as Jesus does, it is a good idea to pay careful attention to the words they actually use and how frequently. It gives us a pretty good indication of what was on their mind. I'm merely suggesting that, that being so, sin was on Jesus' mind a lot less than it seems to be on those of many contemporary Christians (to judge by their utterances) and that is one of the reasons why I find it so much more refreshing to listen to him than to them!

No ostrich here, though, Jamat; I'm deeply aware of what a desperate mess the world is in and millions of those in it. Otherwise there would, as you suggest, be no need for Incarnation, for God's becoming human. We're under a most unkind and tyrannical usurper here, and God has not forgotten us. He has raised up for us a horn of salvation.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
I hear what you are saying about judging ourselves rather than doing so under the influence of an outside entity, but my mind has been too moulded by sociological perspectives to accept that as a primary or even a major cause. Guilt and shame are profoundly sociological matters, which is why there is so much variation between cultures. Blame, shame, accusation, denigration, scandal, the imputation of inferiority or inadequacy are directed to us by both individuals and institutions. It is possible to account for these social processes without recourse to diabolical explanations (as Walter Wink does in his famous "Powers" trilogy, for instance), but I can't help but be increasingly fascinated by the ways in which Jesus keeps on ascribing the activities of his enemies who constantly traded in blame, shame, judgement and moral superiority to the influence of their Father the Devil. It is possible that modern Europeans did really have a more enlightened worldview than Jesus, but I seriously doubt it - don't you?

I don't necessarily disagree with you, Piers, and I do believe in the objective existance of wicked spiritual powers, though whether or not they are fallen angels is something about which the Bible is not clear and I am agnostic. But they certainly, IMHO, exist.

The point that I was trying to make was that to put these, undoubtedly "real" forces at the very centre of the atonement, as Classic theory does, seems to me to invest them with a power that they do not have. Or rather, that they would not have if we didn't "feed" them. There seems to me to be, within Classic theory, a danger of making Satan almost the equal of God, and that makes me uncomfortable.

I think that a Classic view would be that Satan enslave us directly, whereas CV would see rather that Satan is an opportunist who makes use of the fact that we already are enslaved to our fallen nature in order to control us.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think that a Classic view would be that Satan enslave us directly, whereas CV would see rather that Satan is an opportunist who makes use of the fact that we already are enslaved to our fallen nature in order to control us.

Is there a difference between being enslaved by our fallen nature, being enslaved by sin, and being enslaved by the devil or hell?

I think they are all different ways of saying the same thing. The whole point of fallen-ness is to do what the serpent suggests rather than what God wills.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
We're under a most unkind and tyrannical usurper here, and God has not forgotten us. He has raised up for us a horn of salvation.

I agree with you here. I think that there is a far greater influence in our lives of negative sppiritual forces than we realise. Really it is a separate topic though.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think that there is a far greater influence in our lives of negative sppiritual forces than we realise. Really it is a separate topic though.

It's not a separate topic. This is what Christus Victor is about. What does Jesus triumph over if not negative spiritual forces?
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

The point that I was trying to make was that to put these, undoubtedly "real" forces at the very centre of the atonement, as Classic theory does, seems to me to invest them with a power that they do not have. Or rather, that they would not have if we didn't "feed" them. There seems to me to be, within Classic theory, a danger of making Satan almost the equal of God, and that makes me uncomfortable. [/QB]

It is arguable that the centre of our attention to the work of Christ is the best and safest place to put such a malevolent and deceptive force. It is there that, rather than being fed, his weakness and defeatedness become most apparent and he can't quietly sneak off and re-emerge to cause havoc somewhere outside of our normal focus of attention, somewhere we are more vulnerable than we realise.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
There seems to me to be, within Classic theory, a danger of making Satan almost the equal of God, and that makes me uncomfortable.

I agree about that. Satan is nothing compared to God. The only place he has any power at all is in the ability to deceive humanity. So the contest is only a contest in the context of human weakness and stupidity.
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree about that. Satan is nothing compared to God. The only place he has any power at all is in the ability to deceive humanity. So the contest is only a contest in the context of human weakness and stupidity. [/QB]

You put me in mind of the inimitable William Blake:

Truly, My Satan, thou art but a Dunce,
And dost not know the Garment from the Man.
Every Harlot was a virgin once,
Nor can'st thou ever change Kate into Nan.

Tho' thou art Worship'd by the Names Divine
Of Jesus & Jehovah, thou art still
The Son of Morn in weary Night's decline,
The lost Traveller's Dream under the Hill.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think that a Classic view would be that Satan enslave us directly, whereas CV would see rather that Satan is an opportunist who makes use of the fact that we already are enslaved to our fallen nature in order to control us.

Is there a difference between being enslaved by our fallen nature, being enslaved by sin, and being enslaved by the devil or hell?

I think they are all different ways of saying the same thing. The whole point of fallen-ness is to do what the serpent suggests rather than what God wills.

Well, I see your point, Freddy, but I think that I would, nevertheless, see a distinction, though I'm having difficulty finding an analogy to adequately define that distinction. If we use my beloved medical thinking, Classic theory has Satan as the "disease" that controls us, whereas, under CV, he is more like the snake-oil salesman who feeds us poisonous medicine in order to make us dependant on him. Our disease, our enslavement to decay, would be there whether Satan is "real" or not. He just uses it to serve his own purposes. If Satan is a roaring lion, searching for those he would devour, he is able to do so because we are already easy pickings. Does that make any sense?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

The point that I was trying to make was that to put these, undoubtedly "real" forces at the very centre of the atonement, as Classic theory does, seems to me to invest them with a power that they do not have. Or rather, that they would not have if we didn't "feed" them. There seems to me to be, within Classic theory, a danger of making Satan almost the equal of God, and that makes me uncomfortable.

It is arguable that the centre of our attention to the work of Christ is the best and safest place to put such a malevolent and deceptive force. It is there that, rather than being fed, his weakness and defeatedness become most apparent and he can't quietly sneak off and re-emerge to cause havoc somewhere outside of our normal focus of attention, somewhere we are more vulnerable than we realise. [/QB]
Hmmn, I see what you mean, and I certainly think that this is an argument for the desirability of belief existance of an objective Satan. However, to give him such centrality in the redemption story has its own dangers. IMHO Satan is parasitic on our fallen nature, rather than the source of it, and we lay ourselves open to deception of the "the devil made me do it" type if we forget this. As the blessed St Clive said, Satan hails the materialist and the magician with equal glee.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Our disease, our enslavement to decay, would be there whether Satan is "real" or not. He just uses it to serve his own purposes. If Satan is a roaring lion, searching for those he would devour, he is able to do so because we are already easy pickings. Does that make any sense?

Yes, that makes sense, JJ. I am not meaning to confound Satan and our own nature.

My real view is that there is no particular personal satan. Terms such as "satan",
"the devil", "the ruler of this world", "the serpent" all refer, in my understanding, to evil itself or hell itself personified as if it were a single individual.

The inhabitants of hell, in my opinion, are not fallen angels, but simply people who love themselves and the world rather than God and the neighbor. When they pass on into the next life they bring the misery that is inherent in that orientation on themselves, and this is what hell is.

People in the next life are inextricably connected with people in this world, so that they continue to exercise an influence on people in this world to love what they love. This is what is called the work of satan or the devil. It is not that they consciously influence anyone to anything, or even that they are in any way aware of the connection or their influence. It is simply that we are all bound together, and what one person thinks, desires, and does, affects what others think, desire and do. The added feature that there is no space and time in the spiritual realm means that people in hell become closely present with people on earth who are involved in hellish thoughts, actions and desires. This is also, happily, true of the presence of heaven with people who think, love and do the opposite.

The real issue is that if more people in the earth's population choose to love themselves and the world than choose to love God and the neighbor, then more people begin to enter hell than heaven. Over long periods of time this trend has a self-reinforcing effect. As hell grows larger and stronger its influence on humanity becomes greater. The balance between heaven and hell then begins to tip and be lost, and humanity becomes gradually enslaved by its own desires, goaded on by the close presence of hell with them.

This was the situation that necessitated the Incarnation. This is why the prophetic language speaks of darkness covering the earth and wicked nations overtaking Israel. Christ had to come to dispel the darkness, overcome the nations, and re-establish Israel (the kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of God).

So Christ's mission was to overcome the forces of darkness by providing the light, and this involved fighting intense spiritual battles and enduring immense suffering. The reason for the suffering is that the loves of self and the world are powerful loves, they are backed up by tortuous and persuasive reasoning, and they do not release their hold on a person easily. Fundamentally, to overcome them a person needs to value God more than they value their own life - and this drama was played out literally and painfully in Jesus.

The result was that the balance between heaven and hell was restored and the influence of hell on us was reduced. The central mechanism used was the light, or the truth, which dispels the darkness that encourages or allows people to act from worldly and self-centered desires. These desires ruin life and destroy happiness if unchecked, but if they are brought into the light and subordinated to heavenly desires they are part of a happy and orderly world.

So, yes, the influence of satan is not the same thing as the influence of our own fallen nature. The distinction, though, is just between the influence of self and the influence of others. Our fallen nature makes us easy pickings. Luckily, the power of Christ protects us and gives us the power to choose to resist that influence.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Freddy, The problem with your scenario is that one can't tell where metaphor ends and the concrete truth begins. Also, surely one of the greatest deceptions by the great deceiver is that he doesn't really exist..he is just a projection of our minds.

I think the Bible teaches a lierally real devil. It is obvious Jesus did too when he said to the Pharisees. 'You are of your father the devil.'Jn 8:44

[ 23. November 2007, 23:45: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Freddy, The problem with your scenario is that one can't tell where metaphor ends and the concrete truth begins.

Isn't this the problem with almost any scenario? You have made it clear that you don't take it all literally. Jesus Himself emphasized that He was using figurative language:
quote:
John 16:25 “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father."

Matthew 13:34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, 35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “ I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”

It may not be easy to discern which is figurative and which is concrete truth, but it is hard to argue that metaphors are not in play here.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Also, surely one of the greatest deceptions by the great deceiver is that he doesn't really exist..he is just a projection of our minds.

I'm not saying the devil doesn't exist. He is literally real. It's just that he is numerous. Every devil claims to be him. But as the demon said to Jesus:
quote:
Mark 5:9 “My name is Legion; for we are many.”
I don't think that this was true only of that particular devil.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think the Bible teaches a lierally real devil. It is obvious Jesus did too when he said to the Pharisees. 'You are of your father the devil.'Jn 8:44

Yes, the Bible consistently describes a single devil who is apparently in charge of hell, and who is called "the devil", "satan", "the serpent", "the dragon", the "ruler of this world" and other names as well. But I don't believe that he is really a dragon, a serpent, actually "the ruler of this world", or actually in charge of hell.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

I think the Bible teaches a lierally real devil. It is obvious Jesus did too when he said to the Pharisees. 'You are of your father the devil.'Jn 8:44

Surely that's no more "literal", though, than when Jesus refers to James and John as Sons of Thunder. In my mind, both verses make a point about how something can be so deeply entrenched in someone's character that it does, in a sense, parent them. Figuratively speaking.

[ 24. November 2007, 04:51: Message edited by: infinite_monkey ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think the Bible teaches a lierally real devil. It is obvious Jesus did too when he said to the Pharisees. 'You are of your father the devil.'Jn 8:44

...In my mind, both verses make a point about how something can be so deeply entrenched in someone's character that it does, in a sense, parent them. Figuratively speaking.
Especially since the alternative is that Jesus really thought that their mothers had sexual intercourse with satan. Which I doubt.

But, Jamat, I am a little confused as to why, if you believe in a literal satan, Jesus' primary mission would not be to defeat him? Don't you agree that this is what the prophecies predicted and what Jesus Himself spoke about?

Is it just that, despite Jesus' statements, you don't understand how the contest took place and what the victory looked like? Or is it that the cross seems more like a defeat than a victory? [Confused]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
the Bible consistently describes a single devil who is apparently in charge of hell, and who is called "the devil", "satan", "the serpent", "the dragon", the "ruler of this world" and other names as well. But I don't believe that he is really a dragon, a serpent, actually "the ruler of this world", or actually in charge of hell.

Freddy ,

To answer an earlier question, I have no issue with Christ as victor. I don't agree that the 'Christus Victor' model does justice to scripture or to the experience of conversion and regeneration.

Regarding the devil, I take your point above but surely we need to distinguish between a real being described in metaphorical terms and seeing that being as just an effect, as a means to describe evil. There is a distinction. You could describe someone as a man-mountain . It doesn't mean he is either a mountain or not real.

The devil is seen in metaphor as a dragon and a serpent. He is not thereby not an objectively real being. Would yopu agree?
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To answer an earlier question, I have no issue with Christ as victor. I don't agree that the 'Christus Victor' model does justice to scripture or to the experience of conversion and regeneration.

Whether or not the CV model does justice to Scripture is surely a moot point - otherwise it wouldn't be making the slightest bit of sense to be having this dicussion. My own exerience is that it makes sense of much that happens after conversion and regeneration, especially the tests and trials that are unaviodable, and then it also begins to make more sense of what happened to us in the unsophisticated innocence of the begiining of our conscious Christian experience.

quote:
Regarding the devil, I take your point above but surely we need to distinguish between a real being described in metaphorical terms and seeing that being as just an effect, as a means to describe evil. There is a distinction. You could describe someone as a man-mountain . It doesn't mean he is either a mountain or not real.

The devil is seen in metaphor as a dragon and a serpent. He is not thereby not an objectively real being. Would yopu agree? [/QB]

I suspect that one of the worst aspects of having minds soaked in modern thought and imagination is that it almost completely mucks up our ability to think in metaphor and images the way our ancestors evidently could, as well as our sense of the true relation between image and reality.

[ 25. November 2007, 06:34: Message edited by: piers ploughman ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To answer an earlier question, I have no issue with Christ as victor. I don't agree that the 'Christus Victor' model does justice to scripture or to the experience of conversion and regeneration.

Whether or not the CV model does justice to Scripture is surely a moot point - otherwise it wouldn't be making the slightest bit of sense to be having this dicussion. My own exerience is that it makes sense of much that happens after conversion and regeneration, especially the tests and trials that are unaviodable, and then it also begins to make more sense of what happened to us in the unsophisticated innocence of the begiining of our conscious Christian experience.

quote:
Regarding the devil, I take your point above but surely we need to distinguish between a real being described in metaphorical terms and seeing that being as just an effect, as a means to describe evil. There is a distinction. You could describe someone as a man-mountain . It doesn't mean he is either a mountain or not real.

The devil is seen in metaphor as a dragon and a serpent. He is not thereby not an objectively real being. Would yopu agree?

I suspect that one of the worst aspects of having minds soaked in modern thought and imagination is that it almost completely mucks up our ability to think in metaphor and images the way our ancestors evidently could, as well as our sense of the true relation between image and reality. [/QB]
I guess our 'modern mental baggage' is considerable. This is one of the reasons I value scripture. It cuts across our sensibilities and preconceptions and forces us to confront them.

We certainly tend to tend exist in metaphor. I think we always have. My point though is that there is not an easy either/or contrast between metaphor and objective reality
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Jamat,

Thankyou for your lengthy response.

Of course I hear and understand what you say very clearly and have heard it very many times before. It is a version of the fall/redemption motif that has been incredibly influential in various guises in elite Christian thought through tne centuries. As such it is part of the ABC of historical theology. What I am trying to do is to invite shipmates along some other and more fruitful paths.

And reference back to Jamat's original post.

As influential as it has been it's only been so in the West, we (Orthodox) don't have the Original Sin teaching, so no 'fall from a perfection into a sinful state'.

Myrrh
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Jamat,

Thankyou for your lengthy response.

Of course I hear and understand what you say very clearly and have heard it very many times before. It is a version of the fall/redemption motif that has been incredibly influential in various guises in elite Christian thought through tne centuries. As such it is part of the ABC of historical theology. What I am trying to do is to invite shipmates along some other and more fruitful paths.

And reference back to Jamat's original post.

As influential as it has been it's only been so in the West, we (Orthodox) don't have the Original Sin teaching, so no 'fall from a perfection into a sinful state'.

Myrrh

Must be bliss without it. Any comments on the status of the CV model in the east??
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Jamat,

Thankyou for your lengthy response.

Of course I hear and understand what you say very clearly and have heard it very many times before. It is a version of the fall/redemption motif that has been incredibly influential in various guises in elite Christian thought through tne centuries. As such it is part of the ABC of historical theology. What I am trying to do is to invite shipmates along some other and more fruitful paths.

And reference back to Jamat's original post.

As influential as it has been it's only been so in the West, we (Orthodox) don't have the Original Sin teaching, so no 'fall from a perfection into a sinful state'.

Myrrh

Must be bliss without it. Any comments on the status of the CV model in the east??
I didn't realise just how blissful it was until I learned about Augustine's Original Sin... Orthodox teaching is that children are born innocent (become as little children hardly makes sense otherwise) and don't sin until the age of reason, whatever that is for them.

Most Orthodox don't know Augustine's OS doctrines having lost real contact around that time mainly from language differences and fall of the Roman Empire. With the Jews who don't have OS either, we see Adam and Eve as ancestors of the human race who ended up sinning because of the fruit they ate, which was both good and evil, and we say from the evil came death.

I think the 'fathers' generally explain their 'disobedience' as making the decision to acquire knowledge too early, still in a childlike state, not that knowledge of good and evil was barred to them. In other words that they would have come to that knowledge in God's time. I don't agree with that reading either in all its detail, but that's another argument...

Orthodox begin with seeing Gen II as Adam and Eve in neither mortal nor immortal state, from this we get the CV of Christ conquering death by death and so taking us to the immortality which Adam & Eve missed out on and we with it as sin spread death. At the same time we very much see all of humanity as in Genesis I, which God saw as good, and never losing free will in the relationship with Him which remains synergistic, and so on. We really don't have this huge emphasis on Gen II which is prevalent in the West.

I'm pushed for time now as I'm in the last few days of preparing to leave for several months, but anyway am not up to the task of discussing it in the depth you're probably hoping for - Andreas, don't know where he is he doesn't seem to be posting at the moment, is much more learned in the 'fathers' and 'Orthodox' explanations.

I don't think the CV in orthodoxy can be appreciated without the base that we have a completely different relationship with God than that set out in the OS doctrines from which comes the juridical view of God morphing into the crucifixion as a sacrifice God required for 'satisfaction', 'appeasing wrath', 'blood necessary', and so on as we've seen in the discussion here - with Christ and the prophets, God doesn't require sacrifice. Orthodox teaching generally is that God would have incarnated anyway, 'OS' or not, 'fall' or not.


Myrrh

p.s. If I can't get back to this before I leave I'll find an internet cafe at the weekend or thereabouts.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Jamat,

Thankyou for your lengthy response.

Of course I hear and understand what you say very clearly and have heard it very many times before. It is a version of the fall/redemption motif that has been incredibly influential in various guises in elite Christian thought through tne centuries. As such it is part of the ABC of historical theology.

Maybe, that's because it is true? Could be couldn't it?

By the way Myrrh, If the Orthodox don't believe in the fall, where does their notion of sin come from?
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Jamat,

Thankyou for your lengthy response.

Of course I hear and understand what you say very clearly and have heard it very many times before. It is a version of the fall/redemption motif that has been incredibly influential in various guises in elite Christian thought through tne centuries. As such it is part of the ABC of historical theology.

Maybe, that's because it is true? Could be couldn't it?

By the way Myrrh, If the Orthodox don't believe in the fall, where does their notion of sin come from?

Hearing something many times doesn't mean it's true, of course - although human beings are sadly prone to that illusion.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
...If the Orthodox don't believe in the fall, where does their notion of sin come from?

Not wishing to speak for Myrhh, but my understanding, which may be flawed since I'm not Orthodox, is that they don't believe in original sin. That is a position quite different from that of not believing in the fall.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
...If the Orthodox don't believe in the fall, where does their notion of sin come from?

Not wishing to speak for Myrhh, but my understanding, which may be flawed since I'm not Orthodox, is that they don't believe in original sin. That is a position quite different from that of not believing in the fall.
I don't completely understand this, having read several explanations from Orthodox shipmates. I understand the antipathy to Augustine and the idea of original sin, but not how we get away, or not, from some concept of a fall.

My own belief is that the fall was a gradual spiritual decline from an actual "golden age" that is described in Scripture by the story of Eden. Rather than being a single fruit-eating event, the decline came as humanity became more interested in, and confident of, the information of their senses than the interior wisdom that they received from God and heaven.

I agree with the Orthodox denial of original sin. It seems like an inherently unfair concept - to blame descendants for the actions of their ancestors. It also sets up the scenario that Jamat believes in - some kind of age-old debt that must be paid to God.

In its place I accept the idea that tendencies towards self-centered and worldly motivations are passed on from parents to children, just as all character traits are. These traits change over generations in ways that can be good or bad. So different populations behave differently from each other, and populations can improve or decline.

Instead of orginal sin I accept the idea of inherited tendencies to sin. These tendencies no more condemn us to hell than our physical slowness and weakness condemn us to starve. Nevertheless, they are impediments than need to be overcome if we are to live in peace and find happiness in heaven. Christ came to help us overcome them - indeed, to overcome them for us.

I'm curious, therefore, as to how the Orthodox see our sinful nature and how Christ redeemed us.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Freddy, I recently made yet another effort to contribute to clearing up all this confusion about the "Orthodox understanding of original sin" and now, I can't find the thread! It was one of those "Immaculate Conception" threads....

In essence, my point was that whether or not the "tendency" to do our own will rather than God's will is "inherited" or not, it's a human tendency we all have, and in our baptism--even in our desire for baptism should baptism not be possible for some reason--there is power that comes to us from God to fight against and to conquer this tendency to succumb to the various temptations we all go through as human beings.

We have the tendency, but we are forgiven because we repent and are washed clean of our sins in baptism. What we ought not to do, it seems to me, is to keep tracing our continual tendency to sin to Adam and "heredity". We're each responsible for our own sins, whether they're sins of omission or actual sins committed knowingly or unknowingly. Does that help at all? I am unwilling to claim to speak for all the Orthodox Christians here, so I'm sure this idea of mine will meet with lengthy responses where there are other contrary opinions.

It's one of those "burning questions", isn't it, and I guess one that will meet with varying answers. I do have firm faith that whatever we believe or don't believe, God will answer for us individually, in His own good time.

Best wishes,

Mary
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Leetle Masha, thanks! That sounds just like what I believe.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Well, Freddy, just so you and others on all the topics of this board make sure you understand that I'm not the head Orthodox on here! [Biased]

Best wishes, Mary
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
...If the Orthodox don't believe in the fall, where does their notion of sin come from?

Not wishing to speak for Myrhh, but my understanding, which may be flawed since I'm not Orthodox, is that they don't believe in original sin. That is a position quite different from that of not believing in the fall.
'T aint d'point. D'point is lots of wonderful Christians have based their whole foundation on't. 'T works!

Think of Aladdin. Would you swap a new lamp for an old if it's the old that has the genie?

I still don't see how you can believe in sin without a fall..may need words of one syllable..sorry may be the Irish or some't.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well I wouldn't see a softened view of sin as being a more fruitful path.

The issue is about the hopelessness of our lostness. Unless one finds the path out of that lostness one can't find peace.

Of couse if one denies the 'lostness' then either ther is no problrm or one is blinded to it. Is their a third alternative?

Not so much softened, as more biblically balanced.

No-one is denying the lostness, merely that the said lostness is not as a result of judicial condemnation by God, but rather the destructive effects of sin upon our ontology. Hence the remedy is re-creation by the new birth, rather than juridical aquittal. We are not lost because we are guilty before God. Sin is that which can be forgiven. Our plight is much more serious than juridical guilt - it is the bondage to decay and death that sin brings with it. We can be fully forgiven and still be bound to decay which prevents us from enjoying eternal life. It is much more significant, from God's point of view, that we are freed from that bondage than that we are forgiven, since the incarnation would not have been necessary if our only need was for forgiveness.

You are 'not far from the kingdom' here. How close to a version of the 'Christ is sinbearer model' is this? The only comment I'd suggest is that the 'born again ' component is possible only BECAUSE of 'acquittal' (which of course you deny) and the aquittal is allowable since Christ paid the penalty, and this enabled forgiveness, and this made possible the regeneration, as we , by faith 'subsume' ourselves into Christ.

Please excuse my arrogance..Call it conviction!
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
...If the Orthodox don't believe in the fall, where does their notion of sin come from?

Not wishing to speak for Myrhh, but my understanding, which may be flawed since I'm not Orthodox, is that they don't believe in original sin. That is a position quite different from that of not believing in the fall.
'T aint d'point. D'point is lots of wonderful Christians have based their whole foundation on't. 'T works!

Think of Aladdin. Would you swap a new lamp for an old if it's the old that has the genie?

I still don't see how you can believe in sin without a fall..may need words of one syllable..sorry may be the Irish or some't.

OK, firstly, to deal with the observayion that many fine christians have based their faith on this understanding. Well, of course, the obvious rejoinder is that many (more?) fine Christians have rejected, (or at least, not accepted) this as the basis of their faith. This kind of suggests that this particular understanding is less central than you seem to think it.

But of course, none of us, not even you, Jamat, in fact base our faith on this particular doctrine. We base our faith in the person and saving power of Jesus. Now the way we express our faith is certainly coloured by our image of God, but, ultimately, our salvation, istm, depends on Him, and, depending on how monergist we are, our response to Him. How God works to acheive our salvation may be important for our grasp of the faith, but it's very much second-order.

With regard to the fall, an acceptance of the fact of human sinfulness (let's call it "the fall") is not the same as an acceptance of original sin. One can hold to the first whilst rejecting the second. There is a difference between inherited judicial guilt (OS) and a (maybe) inherited bondage to sin and death. Of course, if we continue in our bondage, the end result may well be the same (ie we do not enjoy eternal life) but the reasons for this are quite different depending on which schema we believe. Under PSA it is because we are under the wrath of God, whilst under CV, it is because our ontology is such that it is impossible for us to live eternally, since we are dying a bit more every day, and the way out is not concerned withn forgiveness (since the problem is not one of juridical guilt) but with regeneration into an ontology like that of Christ, or, as Paul would put it, becoming a new creation.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well I wouldn't see a softened view of sin as being a more fruitful path.

The issue is about the hopelessness of our lostness. Unless one finds the path out of that lostness one can't find peace.

Of couse if one denies the 'lostness' then either ther is no problrm or one is blinded to it. Is their a third alternative?

Not so much softened, as more biblically balanced.

No-one is denying the lostness, merely that the said lostness is not as a result of judicial condemnation by God, but rather the destructive effects of sin upon our ontology. Hence the remedy is re-creation by the new birth, rather than juridical aquittal. We are not lost because we are guilty before God. Sin is that which can be forgiven. Our plight is much more serious than juridical guilt - it is the bondage to decay and death that sin brings with it. We can be fully forgiven and still be bound to decay which prevents us from enjoying eternal life. It is much more significant, from God's point of view, that we are freed from that bondage than that we are forgiven, since the incarnation would not have been necessary if our only need was for forgiveness.

You are 'not far from the kingdom' here. How close to a version of the 'Christ is sinbearer model' is this? The only comment I'd suggest is that the 'born again ' component is possible only BECAUSE of 'acquittal' (which of course you deny) and the aquittal is allowable since Christ paid the penalty, and this enabled forgiveness, and this made possible the regeneration, as we , by faith 'subsume' ourselves into Christ.

Please excuse my arrogance..Call it conviction!

Well, I'm not at all opposed to Christ being the "sinbearer". I just don't understand the term to mean what you understand it to mean. I agree that Christ bears our sins, but not that our sins were punished by God in His (Christ's) person (indeed that God deals with sin by punishment at all). His body was certainly the locus of the battle between sin and righteouseness, the place where the ultimate power of good/love/forgiveness was vindicated over the power of evil/self/retribution. But that has nothing to do with being rejected by God or being the vessel of God's wrath towards sinful mankind. I reject wholly the notion that there is any precondition for forgiveness. It is toatally without warrant from the teaching of Jesus. Rather, the whole emphasis of His teaching on forgiveness is that it is unconditional, unearned, free and without limits. If the cross were about forgiveness, we would be left forgiven but still bound to time and decay, and thus unable to share eternity with God.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
If the cross were about forgiveness, we would be left forgiven but still bound to time and decay, and thus unable to share eternity with God.

Sorry, the last sentence didn't quite read as intended. The point I was trying to make was that, wheter or not you consider the cross to be about forgiveness (I would say it demonstrates, but does not initiate, forgiveness) it must be about far more than forgiveness if it is to bring us the opportunity of eternal life.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But that has nothing to do with being rejected by God or being the vessel of God's wrath towards sinful mankind.

Yes. The reference to this in Isaiah 53 is that "we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted" (v. 4), not that God esteemed Him that way. His feelings of being abandoned on the cross by the Father were feelings associated with the pain of His condition, not the reality.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I reject wholly the notion that there is any precondition for forgiveness. It is totally without warrant from the teaching of Jesus.

Yes, God's forgiveness is unconditional. It is always there. As He says:
quote:
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. 36 Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.

Matthew 5:44 Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

This says to me that God loves the evil and the good, and that His forgiveness is therefore always available to everyone.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Rather, the whole emphasis of His teaching on forgiveness is that it is unconditional, unearned, free and without limits.

At the same time, there are statements that do place conditions on His forgiveness.

For example, we need to forgive others:
quote:
Matthew 6:12 "And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors. For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

Matthew 12:32 "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

Mark 11:25 “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.”

Luke 6:37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

Other statements demand repentance as a precondition:
quote:
Luke 3:3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,

Luke 13:5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.

Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.

Luke 24:47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,

Acts 8:22 Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you.

Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.

Revelation 2:16 Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.

Revelation 2:22 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.

Despite these statements, I think it is still fair to say that God's love and forgiveness are unconditional. He says:
quote:
Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.
His love and forgiveness are unconditional. It's just that we need to repent in order to come into a state of being able to appreciate His unconditional love.

Regardless, the idea that God's wrath needs to be satisfied by a worthy sacrifice, especially the death of His Son, is completely incompatible with these teachings. At least that's how I read it.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
His love and forgiveness are unconditional. It's just that we need to repent in order to come into a state of being able to appreciate His unconditional love.

I think this is spot-on Freddy. It does seem as if there are confusing messages in the Gospels wrt forgiveness. I think it is possible to reconcile the teaching that you quote, Freddy, with the concept of unconditional forgiveness, by thinking about wheter the person is the forgiver or the recipient of forgiveness. For the forgiver, forgiveness must always be unconditional. It's what God expects of us, and what he models in Jesus. But for the recipient to receive the benefits of forgiveness in his or her life, it is necessary to realise (ie make real) that grace in their life. The fact of their forgiveness is not in doubt, but unless they respond to that foprgiveness, it will not have an influence on their life. That is how I see it, anyway, and I do think that such a view is consonant with scripture, even if it could hardly be described as a plain teaching.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But for the recipient to receive the benefits of forgiveness in his or her life, it is necessary to realise (ie make real) that grace in their life. The fact of their forgiveness is not in doubt, but unless they respond to that foprgiveness, it will not have an influence on their life.

That is precisely the way that I see it.

I would extend this reasoning even into hell. God loves every individual there, desiring nothing but their eternal happiness. This love and happiness is always available to them, but unless they respond it will not have an influence on them.

This is far from the idea that God prescribes eternal punishments for the wicked in hell. Still, from our point of view, it is nevertheless true that trusting and obeying Christ is the way to find eternal happiness.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Jolly Jape said:
I'm not at all opposed to Christ being the "sinbearer". I just don't understand the term to mean what you understand it to mean. I agree that Christ bears our sins, but not that our sins were punished by God in His (Christ's) person (indeed that God deals with sin by punishment at all). His body was certainly the locus of the battle between sin and righteouseness, the place where the ultimate power of good/love/forgiveness was vindicated over the power of evil/self/retribution. But that has nothing to do with being rejected by God or being the vessel of God's wrath towards sinful mankind. I reject wholly the notion that there is any precondition for forgiveness. It is toatally without warrant from the teaching of Jesus.

Good on you JJ. I have been pretty acerbic and defensive at times and you have always bitten your tongue and attempted reasoned argument. I acknowledge you as someone who has integrity and toleration. Like Jesus said,'You will know them by their fruits.' A few pages back I got close to stating that I doubted that anyone who disagreed with me could be a real Christian. Please accept my apology for that and I'd like to acknowledge Karl and Greyface as well here. I am in a church environment where very little of the quality of thinking, knowledge and discussion available here on the ship is open to me. I'd like you to know that your view of CV and that of many others has been really informative and challenging as well as interesting and stimulating. While it is you I have primarily engaged with, there are so many other 'sharp pencils' on the ship who have posted on this thread from lots of different viewpoints. I love you all (is this heaven?) even if I'm still pretty definite in my NSH opinions.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Thanks for that, Jamat. I have always felt that our debates have been carried out with passion, but in good spirit. We are engaging in ideas, but behind those ideas are people, and if I have occasionally forgotten that, I ask your forgiveness. Pax.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Thanks Jamat, I appreciate that.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Me too.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Me too. While I find this topic itself to be endlessly entertaining, it helps a lot to be discussing it with people who are not only smart but also gracious. [Overused]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Me too. While I find this topic itself to be endlessly entertaining, it helps a lot to be discussing it with people who are not only smart but also gracious. [Overused]

As you also always are Freddy! [Angel]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Definition of punishment: AKA 1930's lecture series on the atonement by Leonard Hodgson DD Oxford Professor who says: (my paraphrase)

Punishment is NOT an issue between individuals such as is revenge. It is between an individual and his commnity. It is necessary in order to allow the community to divorce itself from the behaviour of a recalcitrant. Without it, the community would be accepting of evil and consequently compromising its own existence.

How relevant?

Well, he says that God must analogously punish the evil in man. Punishment has the value of divorcing God from evil which has entered he creation through sin. The gospel, though, allows for Christ, the God-man to subsume the punishment due to us into himself and consequently demonstrate his love and willingness to forgive.

The point he makes is that punishment is a necessity in its own right, apart from any reformation or deterrent or other positive spin-off since it is necessary for the moral integrity of the system involved.

Comments?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The point he makes is that punishment is a necessity in its own right, apart from any reformation or deterrent or other positive spin-off since it is necessary for the moral integrity of the system involved.

Comments?

This is certainly true in the sense that consequences are a necessity for any action. The integrity of any system demands this.

A community must necessarily respond to destructive crimes or it will not thrive. But the point isn't that punishments, as one form of response, magically restore the moral balance. The point is simply to try to stop the crime.

This in no way transfers to PSA, unless you think that punishments stop crime because they are pleasing to God, who then takes the crime away.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Definition of punishment: AKA 1930's lecture series on the atonement by Leonard Hodgson DD Oxford Professor who says: (my paraphrase)

Punishment is NOT an issue between individuals such as is revenge. It is between an individual and his commnity. It is necessary in order to allow the community to divorce itself from the behaviour of a recalcitrant. Without it, the community would be accepting of evil and consequently compromising its own existence.

How relevant?

Well, he says that God must analogously punish the evil in man. Punishment has the value of divorcing God from evil which has entered he creation through sin. The gospel, though, allows for Christ, the God-man to subsume the punishment due to us into himself and consequently demonstrate his love and willingness to forgive.

The point he makes is that punishment is a necessity in its own right, apart from any reformation or deterrent or other positive spin-off since it is necessary for the moral integrity of the system involved.

Comments?

Well I take the point about vengeance not being a wholly appropriate term, but nevertheless, I couldn't disagree with the good Doctor more, really. Seems to me like a post hoc justification of the moral basis for PSA. And it isn't a developed argument either (though I accept that it is a very distilled version of his thought). It is merely assertion. He gives no reason why punishment should be necessary for the assertion of a society's moral (as opposed to structural) integrity. There are myriad other ways of distancing society from the actions of evildoers within society without invoking punishment. I suspect that it is not so much moral distance which concerns him, but rather self-preservation. Whether, of course, punishment is an appropriate route to self preservation, even in a fallen society, is a debateable point. Girard would say not. But it is also an essentially uitilitatian point, and I don't think it is admissible, from a Christian POV, to conflate a utilitarian approach with moral worth.

But, in any case, the counter cultural nature of the Gospel should make us very wary of reading back societal norms into the economy of the Kingdom.

Oh, and what Freddy said!

[ 19. December 2007, 08:48: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The point he makes is that punishment is a necessity in its own right, apart from any reformation or deterrent or other positive spin-off since it is necessary for the moral integrity of the system involved.

Comments?

Only two things:

God is not subject to necessity.

God is not moral.
Humans are. And our ways are not His ways. God loves us so much, that he blesses, in an active way, both the righteous and the lawless.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Wow, still going. [Big Grin]

Although the thread wasn't quite so lovey-dovey when I left... I think Jamat has gone soft. [Waterworks]

Well, after all our travelling, (as a family) we've finally arrived at our destination - where the dark side of the force holds sway. So I'm now a half South African Pom living in Australia. Let's talk rugby. [Killing me]

More seriously, I'd like to carry on JJ's and Freddy's discussion of scriptural preconditions for forgiveness - I think Freddy was pretty fair in his texts, but I'm still not sure how you both reconcile them?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
More seriously, I'd like to carry on JJ's and Freddy's discussion of scriptural preconditions for forgiveness - I think Freddy was pretty fair in his texts, but I'm still not sure how you both reconcile them?

Glad you are at home down under, Johnny. How do they celebrate Christmas without the deep snow that we here in the North so associate with the holiday?

As for reconciling the texts, I think that it requires a very different understanding of how God works with human sins than the one that people commonly have.

People, I think, commonly think of God being upset by our sins in the same way that a teacher might be irritated by a misbehaving pupil. He then punishes in response, either in this life or after death. This is the way that it is depicted in the Bible, and it is a model that is easy to understand both for children and adults.

I have a hard time understanding, however, how anyone can be so stupid as to think that this is actually how it works. The problems with it are so glaring and irreconcilable that they should be obvious to everyone - in my opinion. I won't even list them.

The alternative to this view, in my opinion, is a system in which God "punishes" evil in the same way that life "punishes" irresponsible living, disease "punishes" unhealthy lifestyles, or gravity "punishes" poor balance. There is no intention by God in these things to punish. The "punishment" is simply the consequence that is inherent in the disorder itself. The whole idea of "punishment" is a human construct to describe these inherent consequences and compare them to the intentional corrections that people use to socialize children and members of communities.

While no one is so simple as to think that God punishes people for the sin of standing in the middle of freeways by having cars run over them, people do think that God punishes people who commit adultery by sending them to hell after death. They don't realize that the misery of hell is inherent in adultery in the same way that getting run over is inherent in standing in freeways.

If sin is seen in this way - as the spiritual equivalent of every other kind of harmful thing in this world - it is very easy to reconcile the texts. Just as a purely loving God can allow gravity to operate, even if it means that things might fall and break, He can also allow people's moral behaviors to expose them to harm. God does not wish the harm in either case - He is unconditionally loving and forgiving.

But if people aren't careful they will fall, or crash, or get sick. The exact same thing is true of spiritual ills and their consequences. The consequences are not willed or caused by God, they are inherent in the system.

Forgiveness is just a way of understanding that just as things can fall and break, they can also be fixed. If the conditions for healing are satisfied the healing will take place. It's all part of an orderly, universal process and system.

This understanding perfectly reconciles these teachings. It makes spiritual life perfectly analagous to the way almost all things work in this world.

The religious language of sin and forgiveness is adapted to the way that socialization works in human experience, but everyone should intuitively see that this is not how God really works.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

The alternative to this view, in my opinion, is a system in which God "punishes" evil in the same way that life "punishes" irresponsible living, disease "punishes" unhealthy lifestyles, or gravity "punishes" poor balance. There is no intention by God in these things to punish. The "punishment" is simply the consequence that is inherent in the disorder itself.

G'day Freddy, (you see I'm learning a new language already [Big Grin] )

I think I see your train of thought but don't you just create an even bigger problem? Namely the repeated NT assertion that (in Christ) God does not give us what we deserve. Sin is like gravity and if we fall off a cliff we should (by the 'laws' of physics) get squished. The great news of the gospel is that God 'lets us off' the consequences.

If you are right then where is the justice? How can God let some of us off and not others? (e.g. some drunk drivers get home safely, some do not.)

Hope you have some snow this Christmas!

John.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think I see your train of thought but don't you just create an even bigger problem? Namely the repeated NT assertion that (in Christ) God does not give us what we deserve.

Why is this a problem? It is perfectly analogous, I think, to the way that all things work.

If we are so foolish as to be bitten by a snake then we "deserve" to die. But the invention of anti-venom rescues us from that fate. Jesus explicitly makes this comparison when He says:
quote:
John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
The people bitten by the snake deserved to die. But the brass serpent that Moses made rescued them from what they deserved. Anti-venom, or any cure, works the same way. The concept is that people are victims of evil just as they are victims of snake-bites. They need to learn how to avoid snakes, and to develop medecines to cure them if they are bitten. This is precisely what Jesus does.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Sin is like gravity and if we fall off a cliff we should (by the 'laws' of physics) get squished. The great news of the gospel is that God 'lets us off' the consequences.

Yes, He lets us off the consequences in the same way that someone who falls off a cliff can be let off if they have a parachute or some amazing luck.

People fall from all kinds of things in all kinds of situations, and sometimes they hurt themselves and sometimes not. The physical laws governing whether or not you get hurt are perfectly uniform and universal, and almost perfectly predictable. We know that bones exposed to X-amount of force will break or shatter, or not, depending on their strength, flexibility and density. But the factors governing any particular fall are so complex that a minor stumble can result great damage, while a significant fall can miraculously leave a person almost unharmed.

Yet the "justice" is perfect and unquestionable. No one thinks that gravity is capricious.

The great news of the gospel is not that we have been "let off" but that we have been given a cure. The cure works within and according to God's universal laws in the same way that all human cures do.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you are right then where is the justice? How can God let some of us off and not others? (e.g. some drunk drivers get home safely, some do not.)

The justice is in the fact that the laws governing what we call, or what the Bible calls, "salvation" are perfectly universal and perfectly fair.

The same is true of the laws that govern whether drunks crash on the way home from the bar. Some do crash and some don't crash. It doesn't seem especially fair, nor is it fair from the point of view of whether one really "deserved" to crash. But it is perfectly fair in the sense that the physical laws governing intoxication and its effects on driving ability, as well as the laws that govern everything connected with how crashes happen, are perfectly constant and absolute. Gravity is never suspended, nor is double gravity ever imposed. Every drunk driver gets fair and equal treatment as far as gravity, and toxicology, are concerned.

The same is true of salvation. God's system is perfectly fair and equal. Everyone on earth is saved or not according to the conditions that Jesus describes in the Gospels. But note how general His conditions are, repeatedly referring to "wickedness" and "righteousness" in various ways. These are concepts that are commonly understood everywhere on earth. So salvation is possible everywhere.

But just as anti-venom is not universally available, knowledge and acceptance of the gospel can also be limited. It is important to spread the knowledge of the gospel in the same way that it is important to spread knowledge of physical cures and health practices.

In the end "faith" is the deciding factor in the same sense that universal standards and practices of good health, sanitation, nutrition, exercise and similar things are deciding factors for human physical health. Without these things a healthy human population is not possible, even if any individual can be healthy in almost any circumstances. Without faith a spiritually healthy human population is not possible, even if it is also true that a well-intentioned individual can be saved regardless of what they know or believe.

So God's system itself is perfectly just and fair - but just and fair only in the same sense that physical laws are just and fair. The purpose of the Incarnation is to work within that perfect system to extend the justice and fairness that comes with the knowledge of who God is and how He works. It is exactly parallel to the advantages that come with increasing knowledge of how the physical world works.

This is why the value of the Lord's coming is so frequently described in terms of light in the darkness and the benefits of that light. And light overcomes darkness, just as Jesus overcame the power of darkness. Knowledge will overcome ignorance, and the benefits of knowledge will overcome its dangers - or so the prophets tell us. It's a matter of trust. [Biased]
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Hope you have some snow this Christmas!

Not likely, unfortunately. It is so totally unfair. [Frown]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Johnny S:
[QB] Wow, still going. [Big Grin]

Although the thread wasn't quite so lovey-dovey when I left... I think Jamat has gone soft. [Waterworks]

Johnny S welcome back. You've been missed.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

The same is true of salvation. God's system is perfectly fair and equal. Everyone on earth is saved or not according to the conditions that Jesus describes in the Gospels. But note how general His conditions are, repeatedly referring to "wickedness" and "righteousness" in various ways. These are concepts that are commonly understood everywhere on earth. So salvation is possible everywhere.

Okay, I think I've got you.

This is probably going over old ground but if we believe in a theistic creator then didn't God make these 'physical laws' in the first place? As far as I can see your system falls back to a penal understanding too, just one step removed.

(But as I said, I think we might have had this conversation before ... indulge my amnesia. [Roll Eyes] )
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

The same is true of salvation. God's system is perfectly fair and equal. Everyone on earth is saved or not according to the conditions that Jesus describes in the Gospels. But note how general His conditions are, repeatedly referring to "wickedness" and "righteousness" in various ways. These are concepts that are commonly understood everywhere on earth. So salvation is possible everywhere.

Okay, I think I've got you.

This is probably going over old ground but if we believe in a theistic creator then didn't God make these 'physical laws' in the first place? As far as I can see your system falls back to a penal understanding too, just one step removed.

(But as I said, I think we might have had this conversation before ... indulge my amnesia. [Roll Eyes] )

I'm sure we've had every possible related conversation before [Biased]

Welcome back, John [Smile]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freddy:
In the end "faith" is the deciding factor in the same sense that universal standards and practices of good health, sanitation, nutrition, exercise and similar things are deciding factors for human physical health. Without these things a healthy human population is not possible, even if any individual can be healthy in almost any circumstances. Without faith a spiritually healthy human population is not possible, even if it is also true that a well-intentioned individual can be saved regardless of what they know or believe.

I have some problems with the 'analogy' reasoning though I can see the consistency of your thinking Freddy. To see God acting in terms of physical laws seems to beg the question of the supernatural transaction at the centre of the Gospel. The issue for me is the precise nature of that transaction and the reason for its necessity. Think of John Ch 3. Jesus said to Nicodemus that he must be 'born again'. To a ruling pharisee that would not have been a foreign concept as some Jewish Christians have informed me. Nicodemus would have considered hinself 'born again' already in about 3 watershed times of his life, such as his Bar Mitzvah and his marriage and his appointment to the ruling council. For Jesus to suggest another 'new birth' would have puzzled him exceedingly.

So what exactly was Jesus demanding here of him and what is demanded of us, two millenia later and so very far removed from Judaism? Whatever it is, it takes in the heart of what we call the atonement would you agree?

You also suggest in this clip that maybe a "well intentioned individual can be saved regardless of what they know or believe."

This implies, if you believe it, that Jesus is not, as he claimed, the 'only' way to the father, doesn't it?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This is probably going over old ground but if we believe in a theistic creator then didn't God make these 'physical laws' in the first place? As far as I can see your system falls back to a penal understanding too, just one step removed.

I can't remember either whether this is old ground or not. But I like your thought because it tells me a little more about what you mean by a penal understanding.

I hope that you don't think that I've been saying that punishment doesn't happen. I do believe in punishment, I just don't believe that God is the one who punishes.

As I understand it, God created the universe in such a way that a central feature is the law of opposites. So if closeness to God brings light, warmth, love, truth, and therefore happiness, then distance brings the opposite, and therefore unhappiness.

This feature pervades the universe. In physical terms it means survival and success for anything or anyone who lives in more perfect harmony with physical laws, and suffering, defeat and death for the less perfect.

So, yes, this is in a sense a penal system. Jesus doesn't undo this system or negate its consequences. He just makes it possible for us to succeed within it - not by our power but by His, which is, and always was, the only power that exists.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I have some problems with the 'analogy' reasoning though I can see the consistency of your thinking Freddy. To see God acting in terms of physical laws seems to beg the question of the supernatural transaction at the centre of the Gospel. The issue for me is the precise nature of that transaction and the reason for its necessity.

You're right, I think, that this whole discussion is about the nature of the supernatural transaction that is at the center of the Gospel.

I think that the nature of this transaction is that God came into the world to restore order by overcoming the power of darkness that was threatening to overwhelm humanity, enslave us, and eventually destroy us.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Think of John Ch 3. Jesus said to Nicodemus that he must be 'born again'...
So what exactly was Jesus demanding here of him and what is demanded of us, two millenia later and so very far removed from Judaism? Whatever it is, it takes in the heart of what we call the atonement would you agree?

Yes, I would agree. The power of hell that would enslave us is the power of the love of self and the love of worldly things, when they become dominant in our hearts. These are the loves and desires that we are born into.

To be born again is to place these two good and useful sets of loves and desires in their rightful place, subordinate to the love of God and the love of the neighbor. The reason that this is compared to a second birth is that through the process of understanding, believing, and practicing God's Word, He causes a new heart or a new will to grow up within us. This is really a whole new person - a second birth. This is often referenced in Scripture:
quote:
Ezekiel 11:19 Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh,

Ezekiel 18:31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit.

Ezekiel 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

Psalm 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me.

The idea is that when people obey Him, and repent of their sins, God creates a new heart in them. In order for this to happen a person has to be willing to give up the old heart, or the old life.

People have to be willing, in effect, to die in order to live. This is at the center of why Jesus died on the cross - to perfectly model the process of internal death and rebirth and overcome the power of hell, which opposes this, in the process.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You also suggest in this clip that maybe a "well intentioned individual can be saved regardless of what they know or believe."

This implies, if you believe it, that Jesus is not, as he claimed, the 'only' way to the father, doesn't it?

Jesus is the only way to the Father. There is no alternative means of salvation other than what He taught. Nor can humanity as a whole be saved in any other way than by accepting, believing in, and obeying the Gospel.

But this is, according to my analogy, like saying that there is no way for there to be improved health worldwide except by means of better sanitation, hygiene, healthcare and nutrition, as these things are understood in western culture. This may or may not actually be true.

Better yet, it is like saying that unless everyone on earth lives by the healthcare principles of, say, "Dr. Perfect Health" they can never be healthy. This would be setting up a man as the ultimate, perfect authority on health - acknowledging that he was essentially god as far as health was concerned.

The point is that even if we said this, it wouldn't mean that people who had never heard of "Dr Perfect Health" would necessarily be unhealthy. It would only mean, if there was such a thing, that all of the other systems and ideas of health were deficient in some way, and that people are healthy only insofar as their ideas and practices were consistent with the true ideas and practices of Dr. Perfect Health.

So it's not that Jesus as an individual ushers you into God's presence. It is rather that since He is God, He is the ultimate authority on the way to heaven and heavenly happiness. Ultimately everyone who wishes to have heavenly joy in their life must worship Him because He is God and the only possible source of that joy. So everyone in heaven worships Him. Anyone, however, of any religion, who believes and practices similar things to what Jesus taught will easily be able to see Him as God in the next life. He is the embodiment of what they already believe and practice.

So Jesus is the way the truth and the life. There is no other way to heaven.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Sometimes Freddy I forget why and over what I ever polarize with you.

Martin
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

So, yes, this is in a sense a penal system. Jesus doesn't undo this system or negate its consequences. He just makes it possible for us to succeed within it - not by our power but by His, which is, and always was, the only power that exists.

Isn't this sense of fulfiling physical laws and making it possible for us to succeed by His power PSA? (In the sense of God creating the laws in the first place.)

This all sounds incredibly like God is constrained by his own 'laws' ... something I thought opponents of PSA were very anti ...?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm sure we've had every possible related conversation before [Biased]

Welcome back, John [Smile]

Thanks JJ.

Sometimes having the same conversations again is boring and sometimes I notice for the first time what was obvious to you the first time you said it.

Mostly I just like the sound of my own voice. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This all sounds incredibly like God is constrained by his own 'laws' ... something I thought opponents of PSA were very anti ...?

I think that it all depends on how we see the laws and what we mean by Him being constrained by them.

As I see it, He IS the laws, and He is not constrained by them, He simply acts by means of them.

His fundamental purpose springs from the fact that He is love itself, and the laws spring from the same source. They are the means by which love operates for the long term benefit of creation, which He loves. His ultimate purpose is to bring creation, especially humanity, into the happy state that is called heaven, or heaven on earth.

This is different than the idea that justice must be satisfied, because it is not clear how this penal "justice" is consistent with love. I'm not saying that it is clear how everything that goes on in creation is consistent with love - much of it doesn't seem that way at all. But it is important, as I understand it, that these inconsistent features not be associated with God, but rather with hell.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

This is different than the idea that justice must be satisfied, because it is not clear how this penal "justice" is consistent with love. I'm not saying that it is clear how everything that goes on in creation is consistent with love - much of it doesn't seem that way at all. But it is important, as I understand it, that these inconsistent features not be associated with God, but rather with hell.

I suppose this is where we differ. I can see the logic of your argument but it surely leads to a form of dualism rejected by traditional Christianity - i.e. that evil is some kind of power or force which is an 'opposite' to God and outside of his control. It was this kind of dualism that was prevalent in gnostic thought and rejected by the early church councils.

So, we've been here before (thanks JJ [Biased] ) but it does remind you that essentially these debates turn crucially on theodicy - how do we explain evil? CV and PSA seem to have very different answers here.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I can see the logic of your argument but it surely leads to a form of dualism rejected by traditional Christianity - i.e. that evil is some kind of power or force which is an 'opposite' to God and outside of his control.

Evil is not a power except in the sense that it is the power of darkness, as Jesus says.

Evil is not outside the control of God. God permits evil to exist for the sake of a higher good, which is that humanity will freely choose good over evil. So God does not "wield" evil in the sense of directing it. Rather, He permits it to exist because the alternative is not as good, and therefore not as consistent with the divine will, or the divine love.

This is no kind of dualism. God is the only true force.

I would compare it to Durch Elm Disease. To the elms of the world, this disease is evil itself, a very powerful force. From their point of view, goodness is locked in a titanic struggle with this force. They see these two giant forces vying for control of the universe.

But from our point of view this disease is a pesky irritant, harmful to nothing except elm trees. The titanic struggle exists only from the point of view of the elms.

The same is true of the human struggle with evil. The power of evil is miniscule, and exists almost purely in human minds. It is in no way a threat to God, it is just a disease that afflicts humans. It is not a force. There is no dualism.

The whole point of the Incarnation is to help people with this disease, or to take away its power in human minds. The struggle is not really a struggle with evil, but a struggle to keep it from controlling us.

So how does PSA place evil within God's control? [Confused]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QUOTE] As I see it, He IS the laws, and He is not constrained by them, He simply acts by means of them.

The problem here is that the Bible sees God's law as reflective of his very nature. He cannot stand apart from his laws without internal inconsistency which would be a form of schizophrenia. His acting by means of them logically means he must be constrained by them,or am I missing something?

quote:
His fundamental purpose springs from the fact that He is love itself, and the laws spring from the same source. They are the means by which love operates for the long term benefit of creation, which He loves. His ultimate purpose is to bring creation, especially humanity, into the happy state that is called heaven, or heaven on earth.
Just how do you define love then? God's love in the Bible is tough love surely. He acts in such a way as to divide his followers from his supporters. The harmony you seem to see as ideal is not often seen in scripture. Rather what we see as a black and whiteness, a line in the sand, a moral proclamation that is in many ways justified only by the assertion that 'this' in each context is God's word, backed by his power and justified by his unerring sense of good and evil measured by his personality. Take Elisha's calling down fire from heaven on the troops sent to bring him in. This was God's man doing God's will in his age. What sort of love is demonstrated? Now you will no doubt suggest that Jesus wouldn't have done this. Well, no, not the Jesus of the gospels, but the Jesus of Revelation 1-3 is a more dangerous Jesus. How do you fancy having your candlestick removed for your backsliding ways? The question is, is he the same Jesus? If not, then you are guilty of remodelling him into the image of the God you want him to be. In other words seeing only one aspect of his revelation of himself and thereby making him into a being of your own desire rather than the being set forth in the Bible.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Jamat - if we're talking about bringing fire down on people, then I don't see any love there at all, either tough or otherwise, without putting more semantic stress on the word "love" than it can reasonably be asked to bear, as Sir Humphrey would say.

But fortunately, the Jesus I believe in (most of the time, stumblingly) told His disciples not only not to call fire down from heaven, as Elisha did, but also that their desire to do so showed they did not know what spirit they belonged to. I hope, that as we learn the spirit we do belong to, we will abandon seeing vengeance, death and destruction as being the outworkings of God's love.

To be honest, I read your last post as "You think Jesus is loving, but actually He can be a real bastard and you need to get used to that."
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As I see it, He IS the laws, and He is not constrained by them, He simply acts by means of them.

The problem here is that the Bible sees God's law as reflective of his very nature. He cannot stand apart from his laws without internal inconsistency which would be a form of schizophrenia. His acting by means of them logically means he must be constrained by them,or am I missing something?
I think that what you are missing is the fact that God only does what He wishes to do. He is not constrained by the laws, He acts by means of them because they ARE Him, or are the extension of His will. He desires the long term benefit of humanity, and the laws are the means by which He brings this about. So He is not constrained, He does what He does because He wants to.

So, yes, God's law is reflective of His very nature. He cannot stand apart from His laws without internal inconsistency which would be a form of schizophrenia.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Just how do you define love then?

One way of saying it is that love is life. Without love there is no life, and this is what God wishes to give to His creation.

Another way of saying it is that love has three qualities, as I have mentioned before:
Acting from love is therefore doing whatever is required to fulfil these conditions.

Another way to put it is in this quote that is often read in my church:
quote:
The essence of love is not to love self, but to love others and through love to be joined with them. It is also the essence of love to be loved by others, for this is how this joining is achieved.

Love consists in willing what one has to be another's, and in feeling the other's delight as delight within oneself. That is what it is to love. In contrast, to feel one's own delight in another, and not the other's delight within oneself, is not to love; for this is loving self, whereas the first is loving the neighbor.

This is a description of human love, but the divine love doesn't really operate differently. Everything that God does is for the long term benefit of humanity in particular, and creation in general.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
God's love in the Bible is tough love surely. He acts in such a way as to divide his followers from his supporters. The harmony you seem to see as ideal is not often seen in scripture.

I don't disagree. Acting to promote someone's long term welfare does not always look loving in the short term.

This is clearly illustrated in the Bible, so, yes, it doesn't always look like harmony.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Take Elisha's calling down fire from heaven on the troops sent to bring him in. This was God's man doing God's will in his age. What sort of love is demonstrated? Now you will no doubt suggest that Jesus wouldn't have done this. Well, no, not the Jesus of the gospels, but the Jesus of Revelation 1-3 is a more dangerous Jesus.

Yes, Elijah did that. Then when the disciples wanted to do the same thing Jesus reprimanded them:
quote:
Luke 9:53 But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. 54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”
55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of.

So Jesus would not do that, and yet His parables often contain descriptions of justice meted out as violent retribution. The same is true, as you note, of Jesus in Revelation. How do we explain the inconsistency?

The idea is simple. Here is an explanation as it is given in my church:
quote:
Jehovah God or the Lord never curses anyone, is never angry with anyone, never leads anyone into temptation, and never punishes, let alone curses anybody. It is the devil's crew who do such things. Such things cannot possibly come from the fountain of mercy, peace, and goodness.

The reason why here and elsewhere in the Word it is said that Jehovah God not only turns His face away, is angry, punishes, and tempts, but also slays and even curses, is that people may believe that the Lord rules over and disposes every single thing in the whole world, including evil itself, punishments, and temptations.

And after people have grasped this very general concept, they may then learn in what ways He rules and disposes, and how He converts into good the evil inherent in punishment and the evil inherent in temptation.

In teaching and learning the Word very general concepts have to come first; and therefore the sense of the letter is full of such general concepts.

So God presents Himself in the Bible in a way that ordinary people can understand. But when people study and move to a more sophisticated grasp of what the Bible teaches, these are the things that need to be reconciled.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The question is, is he the same Jesus? If not, then you are guilty of remodelling him into the image of the God you want him to be. In other words seeing only one aspect of his revelation of himself and thereby making him into a being of your own desire rather than the being set forth in the Bible.

Yes, they are the same Jesus. The idea is to look for the over-arching biblical truths, and then interpret individual passages in their light. It is not remaking God into a being of our own desire, but rather looking for the consistencies within the biblical presentation. If you aren't capable of doing this the Bible becomes hopelessly self-contradictory. But if you believe that the Bible really is God's Word then you have to find a way to reconcile it.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
If Freddy and I virtually agree, it must be right.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
That's right. And I didn't even read Karl's answer before I wrote mine. [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
That's right. And I didn't even read Karl's answer before I wrote mine. [Paranoid]

Well in that case,The mouths of two or three witnesses have spoken. I must stand corrected. [Big Grin] Happy Christmas.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Happy Christmas Jamat, Johnny, and everyone! [Angel]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Happy Christmas Jamat, Johnny, and everyone! [Angel]

Yep, Santa has already been here (Oz)... in his rusty, holden Ute!
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
I'm back, what was the question?

Happy Christmas to all on the new calendar.

Myrrh
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
Bump?

The Thread that Dare Not Speak Its Name has a lot that I appreciated first time round in terms of the arguments being put forth now in the "Christ, PSA, and Hell" thread. I don't want to steal Karl's ideas and I don't know the etiquette of quoting other folks across threads, but I thought this:


quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
if we're talking about bringing fire down on people, then I don't see any love there at all, either tough or otherwise, without putting more semantic stress on the word "love" than it can reasonably be asked to bear, as Sir Humphrey would say.

But fortunately, the Jesus I believe in (most of the time, stumblingly) told His disciples not only not to call fire down from heaven, as Elisha did, but also that their desire to do so showed they did not know what spirit they belonged to. I hope, that as we learn the spirit we do belong to, we will abandon seeing vengeance, death and destruction as being the outworkings of God's love.

was an especially good bit of food for thought.
 
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

This is different than the idea that justice must be satisfied, because it is not clear how this penal "justice" is consistent with love. [/QB]

It seems from the Bible that there is a spiritual war going on amongst the angels that we don't understand. Satan appears to be battling against God. God is love but Satan hates God and has chosen God as his enemy. As far as I can see God has been very patient with evil and tried to show evil people the error of their ways so that they will turn from sin. We are taught that God sent prophet after prophet but the people would not listen so eventually he sent his son because he thought they would listen to him. We have seen however that although the pharisees saw the love of God revealed in his son they rejected him. Why? They didn't want to love and therefore they didn't want to be loved. Before his crucifixion Jesus said 'shall I not drink from the cup of suffering my father has given me?' Why would God give his own son suffering? In my view it's because he loved the world so much that despite its evil he was willing to suffer in an attempt to convince evil to turn from it's hateful ways to love. It is not God's punishment which is stubborn it is the evil that will not turn in the face of such love. God's message is clear Satan doesn't love you but I do turn to me. Yet many of the pharisees said no we will join your enemies, we choose to be your enemy. So Jesus wept for Jerusalem, but ultimately God must draw the line somewhere and say hate will not rule and must be shown to be wrong. He does not punish because he hates but because he will not allow hate to continue forever. Yet he has persevered with those who hate to the point of offering to take their punishment for them and in doing so demonstrating his great love. Is that not right?

[ 10. February 2008, 21:13: Message edited by: Makepiece ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
Bump?

The Thread that Dare Not Speak Its Name has a lot that I appreciated first time round in terms of the arguments being put forth now in the "Christ, PSA, and Hell" thread. I don't want to steal Karl's ideas and I don't know the etiquette of quoting other folks across threads, but I thought this:


quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
if we're talking about bringing fire down on people, then I don't see any love there at all, either tough or otherwise, without putting more semantic stress on the word "love" than it can reasonably be asked to bear, as Sir Humphrey would say.

But fortunately, the Jesus I believe in (most of the time, stumblingly) told His disciples not only not to call fire down from heaven, as Elisha did, but also that their desire to do so showed they did not know what spirit they belonged to. I hope, that as we learn the spirit we do belong to, we will abandon seeing vengeance, death and destruction as being the outworkings of God's love.

was an especially good bit of food for thought.
What have you done? [Eek!]

I'm not sure (obviously [Roll Eyes] ) that it is as simple as Karl makes out.

The reference he makes to the rebuke over the disciples wanting to rebuke a Samaritan village comes in Luke 9. In the very next chapter, just a few verses later, Jesus sends out the 72. There he speaks a lot about the terrible judgment to come (on Korazin and Bethsaida for example).

How do we reconcile these passages? After all they are both the words of Jesus.

IMHO it makes much more sense of the text if the issue is delayed judgement. In Luke 9 the disciples were wanting present personal revenge. Jesus wants us to love our enemies so he rebukes them for that. Luke 10, OTOH, is about God's future judgment. Let's not conflate the two issues.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
He does not punish because he hates but because he will not allow hate to continue forever. Yet he has persevered with those who hate to the point of offering to take their punishment for them and in doing so demonstrating his great love. Is that not right?

No that's not right, in my opinion. Wouldn't it be easier just to say that hate is self-destructive, and so it is self-punishing. It is just a matter of exposing its real nature - which Jesus did, both in His life and in how He died. The difficulty is that hate and evil are deeply deceitful, so it takes a very long time for it to be fully exposed.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If Freddy and I virtually agree, it must be right.

All that's left now is for you to actually agree. [Biased]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If Freddy and I virtually agree, it must be right.

All that's left now is for you to actually agree. [Biased]
We were actually agreeing about the loving nature of God. The point being that anything in the Bible that looks different than that needs explaining.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Yes.

I've been thinking about this whole vexed question, prompted also by some other threads there have been lately. I came to a sort of staging post, as one so often does, in the bath the other night.

Suppose I thought I knew someone really well. Mrs Backslider perhaps. Suppose I knew her to be faithful and honest.

Then someone tells me that actually she's shagging the bloke next door.

Do I believe them? Well, suppose I'm convinced that she is indeed faithful and honest. Then, I can do one of two things. Believe them, and redefine "faithful and honest" to include shagging the bloke next door behind my back, or not believe them, and maintain some meaning to the terms "faithful and honest".

I feel, often, that some evangelicals are asking me to take the first line. To believe that God is indeed good, loving, forgiving and merciful, but to redefine them to include all sorts of things that one would not call good, loving, forgiving or merciful. Just as I would find redefining "honest and faithful" to include "shagging the bloke next door behind my back" bizarre and perverse, so I find what I feel like I'm being asked to do with regard to God.

[ 12. February 2008, 15:05: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Very nice comparison, Karl.

I don't think that it is right to redefine "loving God" in a way that includes being satisfied by punishments, much less slaughtering large populations. There is no question that people get punished, and even slaughtered, but it's not God's love that makes it happen.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Good comparison Karl - I do think it strikes at the heart of the matter.

Obviously I would have used other analogies, but the point is well made.

It begs another question though - how do we define what 'loving' is?

ISTM that you are coming to Christianity with an a priori assumption of a definition and then filtering the scriptures accordingly.

Now I concede that all of us do this to some degree, but at what point do we actually jettison a concept of 'revelation' altogether? At what point do we admit that God is entirely of our own making and any adherence to the scriptures and Christian tradition is merely a pretence? (In which case, let's all join Madge in his attempt to construct an atheistic morality. [Biased] )

(PS My guess is that you'll say that Jesus defines what love is like ... but, as I have repeatedly pointed out, Jesus has plenty to say about God's judgment.)
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Anthropomorphism is a danger, granted. But I submit to you that theopromorphism presents us with an equal, if not more serious, danger. Yes, humans get angry. But human anger is not like God's anger. Likewise, God gets angry but God's anger is not like human anger.

Why in this conversation do we have to accept an anthropocentric and therefore sinful definition of anger as definitive to the argument? Is it not possible that there is an incomprehensiblly theocentric conception of 'anger' that is so holy that it is beyond our comprehension?

[ 12. February 2008, 23:00: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Johnny/Numpty - you are confirming what I said - inviting me to redefine the adjectives used to describe God until they bear little semantic relationship to any other use of them. There seems little point in describing God as "loving" if it means something completely different to what "loving" means in any other context. This is exactly parallel to asking me to redefine "faithful" so that I can reconcile it with shagging the bloke next door.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Meant to add:

If this creates an unresolvable tension with revelation through Scripture, as Johnny suggests, then one of two things can happen:

1) We accept that God is as a literal and face value reading of some of the Scriptures in question suggest, but then have to abandon some of the adjectives which describe God. Unfortunately, they're Scriptural too. Do I reject "God is merciful and just", or do I reject "God ordered the slaughter of entire peoples, including their babes in arms"? If I take the Numpty line, and say that "God is loving, but it means something completely different" to reconcile this problem, and accept God The Homicidal Maniac, then I resolve one problem and create another - an invitation to a love relationship with a completely unlovable and frankly repulsive supreme being.

2) We say that the revelation through Scripture is flawed.

The way some Con evos talk you'd think I'd never thought through their solutions [Roll Eyes] Perhaps they just can't really "bellyfeel" that these solutions just do not convince me.

[ 13. February 2008, 08:55: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
I wonder if your analogy can be resolved using hats Karl.

God IS loving, merciful, etc. He is these in a more-or-less normal sense of the word. Wearing his father hat, he wants to forgive and accept the whole of humanity.

But God also wears a Judge hat. It is not that when he is wearing this hat, he is not loving. The loving judge metes out an appropriate punishment. That is, his love as a judge takes a different expression to his love as a father.

I agree that you can level the charge against me that I run the risk of distorting the normal definition of love. But something that struck me on the other thread is that there is also a risk of distorting the normal definition of justice. Most Christians who do not subscribe to PSA would agree that God is just. Yet several times on the other thread folk commented along the lines that 'God's justice is not like ours, you are making his justice too anthropocentric.'

The way through this dilemma it seems to me is to note that Christian revelation and tradition think of God as both loving and just and that whilst there is scope for human analogy, neither entirely fit in nice neat human boxes.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I don't think I have a problem per se with God handing out just punishments, except inasmuch that Christianity is based on the premise of forgiveness, and if I want God to forgive me (which I rather do), then I also have to want Him to forgive everyone else, or I'm setting myself up as a special case, and I don't see why I should be.

That aside, that's a very different issue from what's giving me problems here. The Joshua slaughters cannot be interpreted as just; how can it be just to slaughter babes in arms? It isn't; it's monstrous. It's this sort of thing which is more of a problem, as is the Ko-Ko God - "I've got a little list" - and if you're on it, you'll get in. If you're not, then there's no hope for you and you're going to fry.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Johnny/Numpty - you are confirming what I said - inviting me to redefine the adjectives used to describe God until they bear little semantic relationship to any other use of them. There seems little point in describing God as "loving" if it means something completely different to what "loving" means in any other context. This is exactly parallel to asking me to redefine "faithful" so that I can reconcile it with shagging the bloke next door.

Thank you for sticking with this, Karl.

To my mind, the way out of seeming to ignore/abandon Scripture on this is to realize how problematic a literalistic interpretation is.

Instead, Scripture is designed so that it is both literally meaningful and in many places figurative at the same time. Jesus has no trouble telling parables in which the "master" or "king" destroys people who fail to come to his banquet, but in real life when the apostles want to call down fire from heaven He reproves them. Both stories are meaningful, and it requires little thought to realize that the strong statements in Jesus' stories are meant for effect, not as literal descriptions of justice.

The usual response that I get to this idea is "how do you tell the difference between the literal and the figurative?" But I don't think that it is that difficult to discern. One clue, as Karl points out, is to stick with the normal semantic relationships of words and actions. A loving God cannot slaughter and remain loving in the normal meaning of the word. Nor can He be full of wrath against the human race, nor can He be satisfied by the death of His son.

The biblical descriptions of these things are, in my opinion, simply anthropomorphic explanations of a deeper reality that is harder to explain - especially to ancient, poorly educated, people. Good does not punish, evil does. If we sin, God does not punish us, the sin itself punishes us. God did not order the slaughter of the people of Canaan, this is what the sinful nature of the people of the time understood Him to desire. Yet the biblical descriptions can nevertheless serve a good purpose and teach a good message - that evil must be overcome and eradicated.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Johnny/Numpty - you are confirming what I said - inviting me to redefine the adjectives used to describe God until they bear little semantic relationship to any other use of them. There seems little point in describing God as "loving" if it means something completely different to what "loving" means in any other context. This is exactly parallel to asking me to redefine "faithful" so that I can reconcile it with shagging the bloke next door.

Come on Karl of all words in the English language 'loving' is the most elastic. It can mean a million and one things in different contexts. This is not a issue peculiar to evangelicals - 'how do you define love?' is one of the fundamental questions of humanity.

You have to prove your definition of love as much as any conservative does. I've heard people describe drunken, casual sexual encounters as 'making love' - would you agree with the use of the word there? If not, on what grounds?

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
2) We say that the revelation through Scripture is flawed.

The way some Con evos talk you'd think I'd never thought through their solutions Perhaps they just can't really "bellyfeel" that these solutions just do not convince me.

Okay, but if we say that revelation is flawed, how do we tell which bits are?

I hear how frustrating you find con evos (don't forget that I have to mix with them all the time [Roll Eyes] ) - as long as you realise that it is exactly the same in reverse ... these issues are hardly new to us as well and we don't 'get' the way you deal with them either.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
To my mind, the way out of seeming to ignore/abandon Scripture on this is to realize how problematic a literalistic interpretation is.

I'm not hearing anyone suggest that we want such an interpretation.

As Karl rightly points out these are deep and painful issues. There are no easy or simplistic answers here.

I respect Karl's integrity and so know he will disagree (usually very eloquently too [Biased] ) but I think that the liberal way out is the easy one... it comes across (even if not intended as such) as if we can just 're-write' the bits we don't like. I'd prefer the Prometheon ( [Razz] ) task of continuing to wrestle.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Now, Johnny, the funny thing is I see the Con Evo way "accept God on His own terms" as the easy way, submission, and insisting that one cannot simply re-write "love" (it may have a lot of meanings, but equally there are wide swathes of meaning it does not have, like genocide and draconian punishment) but rather have to struggle with it (as I am) as being the "wrestling" way. I was only thinking this on the way home here; if I may be so bold, the Con Evo way looks like Islam - submission, whereas what I'm trying to do is Israel - wrestling with God. If Abraham could tell God what a good and just God can and can't do, so can I.
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That aside, that's a very different issue from what's giving me problems here. The Joshua slaughters cannot be interpreted as just; how can it be just to slaughter babes in arms?

Oh, ok. You're quite right that that's a different point, and I entirely agree with you. I tend towards quite a strong notion of the progressivity of revelation in the Bible so I don't have any problem with saying that that was not just, in the light of what we know about the justice of God in Christ. I'm aware that gives me a whole host of other problems, but I prefer them to that of thinking that God really commanded the slaughter of such innocents (in the New Testament, it's Herod who does that).
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Now, Johnny, the funny thing is I see the Con Evo way "accept God on His own terms" as the easy way, submission, and insisting that one cannot simply re-write "love"...

But that's just it - all of us 're-write' love. You make it sound as if there is some 'English dictionary' [not the OED [Big Grin] ] that objectively defines 'love' for all of humanity. I asked you earlier how you get your definition of love ... you stilled haven't answered.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I was only thinking this on the way home here; if I may be so bold, the Con Evo way looks like Islam - submission, whereas what I'm trying to do is Israel - wrestling with God. If Abraham could tell God what a good and just God can and can't do, so can I.

[Confused] I like the analogy Karl but am puzzled by it. Both the biblical occasions you allude to (Genesis 18/19 & 32) refer to the Patriarchs wrestling with God and 'prevailing' ... only the 'prevailing' ends up being God getting them to see it his way.

In fact it is rather bizarre that you should quote Abraham in Genesis 18 - the chapter ends with Abraham telling God that a good God can't destroy Sodom (for the sake of of ten) - and then what happens in chapter 19?

If you are going to uphold Abraham as an example then surely the conclusion is that it is legitimate to question God (in the manner that you do) but he wants to (through this process) to bring us to a position where we see that all deserve his judgment ... hence his forgiveness is all the more wonderful?

I'm trying not to be obtuse. You were the one who picked the example of Abraham!
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
[QB]The reference he makes to the rebuke over the disciples wanting to rebuke a Samaritan village comes in Luke 9. In the very next chapter, just a few verses later, Jesus sends out the 72. There he speaks a lot about the terrible judgment to come (on Korazin and Bethsaida for example).

How do we reconcile these passages? After all they are both the words of Jesus.

IMHO it makes much more sense of the text if the issue is delayed judgement. In Luke 9 the disciples were wanting present personal revenge. Jesus wants us to love our enemies so he rebukes them for that. Luke 10, OTOH, is about God's future judgment. Let's not conflate the two issues.{?QB]

Just dipping back in, John.

Of course, the alternative way of reconciling these passages is that, in the first, Jesus is rebuking the disciples because they are cursing the Samaritan village. In the second, Jesus is prophesying the fate of K & B, if they continue to reject Jesus' message. The question that remains is, was Jesus talking about the last judgement or the events of AD 70.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Of course, the alternative way of reconciling these passages is that, in the first, Jesus is rebuking the disciples because they are cursing the Samaritan village. In the second, Jesus is prophesying the fate of K & B, if they continue to reject Jesus' message. The question that remains is, was Jesus talking about the last judgement or the events of AD 70.

I don't really see that so much as an alternative reading but more of a complementary one.

I'd be happy with that reading.

However:

1. Jesus is still prophesying judgment. I know that you would see the promised destruction as simple 'cause and effect' but if God created the world in the first place we can't entirely 'let him off the hook' for building this 'cause and effect' into the world.

2. Whether or not he is talking about the fall of Jerusalem he is still talking about judgment ... see point 1 [Biased]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
1. Jesus is still prophesying judgment. I know that you would see the promised destruction as simple 'cause and effect' but if God created the world in the first place we can't entirely 'let him off the hook' for building this 'cause and effect' into the world.

Setting up the situation in such a way that people are free to rebel and bring unhappiness on themselves is not the same as punishing them.

He built "cause and effect" into the world as an inevitable aspect of our "independent" existence. When we jump off high buildings God isn't punishing us by slamming us onto the ground.

All God's "punishments" are like this. He doesn't punish, we punish ourselves, or are punished by "cause and effect."

I would completely let God off the hook.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Setting up the situation in such a way that people are free to rebel and bring unhappiness on themselves is not the same as punishing them.

He built "cause and effect" into the world as an inevitable aspect of our "independent" existence. When we jump off high buildings God isn't punishing us by slamming us onto the ground.

All God's "punishments" are like this. He doesn't punish, we punish ourselves, or are punished by "cause and effect."

I would completely let God off the hook.

Your argument only works because it is an analogy. However, if we look closely at the points of similarity with those of contrast it soon falls down.

- this is not like gravity. According to your interpretation of Luke 10 you are saying that if you jump from a high building you get splatted, unless you repent (after having jumped off the building) 'cos then God suspends the laws of 'cause and effect'. So God suspends the laws for some, but not for all. Doesn't sound very fair to me, and it certainly breaks down the analogy.

- We are not talking about impersonal physical forces. We are talking about personal relationships. I frequently use this language with my daughters - I tell them that if they do X then Y will happen to them, not because I ant to do Y but because Y is the inevitable consequence of action X. I tell them that but already they know that Y is not inevitable in that sense, Y happens because I will it to. That is a much fairer analogy because it is a personal one.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
- this is not like gravity. According to your interpretation of Luke 10 you are saying that if you jump from a high building you get splatted, unless you repent (after having jumped off the building) 'cos then God suspends the laws of 'cause and effect'. So God suspends the laws for some, but not for all. Doesn't sound very fair to me, and it certainly breaks down the analogy.

The analogy doesn't break down if you have a different understanding of what repentance is.

Repentance, as I understand it, isn't simply asking God's forgiveness and getting Him to suspend the law for you. Repentance is changing your ways, with God's help, so that you can do His will, living within the law. This is the normal meaning of repentance. The gravitational equivalent would not be the suspension of the laws of gravity but a means of dealing with gravity - like wings, a parachute, or landing on a cushion. You can't sprout these in mid-jump, but you can survive the jump and do better next time, or be warned about gravity ahead of time and take a parachute along.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
- - We are not talking about impersonal physical forces. We are talking about personal relationships. I frequently use this language with my daughters - I tell them that if they do X then Y will happen to them, not because I ant to do Y but because Y is the inevitable consequence of action X. I tell them that but already they know that Y is not inevitable in that sense, Y happens because I will it to. That is a much fairer analogy because it is a personal one.

It's true that we're not talking about impersonal physical forces but personal relationships. And the more consistently and perfectly loving a person is, the more predictable and reliable our interactions are with them. If Y happens because you will it to, and if you are perfectly loving, there must be a loving reason for it that is a loving reason.

God allows consequences to happen because He is perfectly loving and He knows that in the long run it is best for the human race to learn from the consequences of their actions. There is a good reason for His allowing these things, however terrible they might be, to happen - and this reason is consistent with the normal definition of "loving."
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Setting up the situation in such a way that people are free to rebel and bring unhappiness on themselves is not the same as punishing them.

He built "cause and effect" into the world as an inevitable aspect of our "independent" existence. When we jump off high buildings God isn't punishing us by slamming us onto the ground.

All God's "punishments" are like this. He doesn't punish, we punish ourselves, or are punished by "cause and effect."

I would completely let God off the hook.

Your argument only works because it is an analogy. However, if we look closely at the points of similarity with those of contrast it soon falls down.

- this is not like gravity. According to your interpretation of Luke 10 you are saying that if you jump from a high building you get splatted, unless you repent (after having jumped off the building) 'cos then God suspends the laws of 'cause and effect'. So God suspends the laws for some, but not for all. Doesn't sound very fair to me, and it certainly breaks down the analogy.

Actually, I don't know that it is that poor an analogy. The people of K & B were facing judgement because of a very specific sin - that of rejecting the peaceful way of Jesus in favour of the political message of rebellion against Rome. Jesus didn't will the Romans to destroy the Jewish state, he just foresaw it as an inevitable consequence of their actions. The repentance would have been to renounce an earthly kingdom for the Kingdom of God. By analogy, that would be not jumping off the building, rather than changing their mind in mid air. When we are talking about our position vis-a-vis God, it is never too late to repent. When we are talking about relationship with a totalitarian state or a law of nature, this, sadly, is not the case.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
When we are talking about our position vis-a-vis God, it is never too late to repent. When we are talking about relationship with a totalitarian state or a law of nature, this, sadly, is not the case.

I think the point is that the predictable long term consequence of sin is sorrow, not because God punishes, but because sin is inherently sorrowful in the long run.

If a person repents of sin, however, they avoid this consequence - not because God mercifully witholds the consequence but because He mercifully set it up so that less sin means, in the long run, less sorrow.

The relevance here to Christus Victor is that Jesus came to make it possible for people to sin less, and so to avoid sorrow. He did this by overcoming the power of hell, thus loosening its grip on human hearts and minds, and simultaneously (really part of the same process) teaching the truths that help people turn away from sin and turn towards God.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Freddy & JJ,

You seem to be forgetting past sin that needs to be forgiven. As Freddy seems to be aware the analogy needs to 'sprout' wings mid-jump.

I think I now see why you guys have to distinguish so clearly between forgiveness and repentance. The model collpases unless they are totally separate issues with God in a constant state of forgiveness.

And what you have to demonstrate is that such a distinction is warranted by the NT. It think you are struggling here. Below are just a few verses I came up in a 30s search - which all describe forgiveness as conditional. And as I say, if forgiveness is conditional then your model collapses.... IMHO [Big Grin] .

"But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."


"And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."

"And so John came, baptising in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."

"I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'"

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You seem to be forgetting past sin that needs to be forgiven. As Freddy seems to be aware the analogy needs to 'sprout' wings mid-jump.

Yes, past sins need to be forgiven. But the comparison with the need to sprout wings mid-jump only holds if we assume that we die as soon as we have completed our first sin. The more usual pattern is that we live to jump again, and can do it better next time. We sin repeatedly in life, and we have numerous opportunities to either change or confirm our ways and habits.

But sin is not a list of offenses that accumulate and need to be individually reconciled. Sin is a state of being that grows worse or gets better over time. If a person has an incompetent employee, he or she may keep a list of the things the employee has done or has failed to do. But the issue is not the specific acts but the overall incompetence. If the employee changes his or her ways and becomes a competent employee, the past incompetence is no longer an issue, unless there is money owed or some other kind of reconciling that needs to happen.

My point is that past sins are forgiven when a person repents and changes their ways.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think I now see why you guys have to distinguish so clearly between forgiveness and repentance. The model collpases unless they are totally separate issues with God in a constant state of forgiveness.

I think it's just the other way around. Forgiveness and repentance are inextricably linked, opposite sides of the same coin. God is, it is true, in a constant state of forgiveness, but the forgiveness is not received unless there is repentance.

To return to the gravity model, gravity is in a constant state of forgiveness. It will instantly cease from smashing you to the ground the moment you have wings, parachute, cushion, or whatever. It is unchanging in its response to you. You are the one that changes.

God's love towards every person is unchanging. God doesn't change. He is consistently forgiving. Still, if we jump from high buildings without wings or a parachute, we fall.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
And what you have to demonstrate is that such a distinction is warranted by the NT. It think you are struggling here. Below are just a few verses I came up in a 30s search - which all describe forgiveness as conditional. And as I say, if forgiveness is conditional then your model collapses.... IMHO [Big Grin] .

I agree with all of those verses. There is no forgiveness without repentance. Forgiveness is conditional for every person. However, as it originates in God it is unconditional. He loves everyone, sinner or saint. The model holds.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
There is no forgiveness without repentance. Forgiveness is conditional for every person. However, as it originates in God it is unconditional. He loves everyone, sinner or saint. The model holds.

Simple question Freddy - God's forgiveness, is it conditional or not?

When you've made your mind up which it is then we can carry on this discussion.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
(Enters fray, I think for the first time, on p38).

Isn't this a well known "hard" question, Johnny S. What Jesus says does not seem to be the same as what Paul says. And the conditional "if" in the first letter of John is different again.

My own belief goes something like this. The offer of God's forgiveness is indeed unconditional. It is in His nature to always have mercy. So, like the father of the Prodigal, he looks for a sign that the offer is becoming "operational" - there is a sign of change. And "afar off" he sees the Prodigal trudging back, with all sorts of fears, conditionalities in his own heart. And he rushes towards the Prodigal and embraces him, as one back from the dead.

"Can a mother's tender care cease towards the child she bear?

Yes, she may forgetful be.

Yet will I remember thee"

Is that a clear enough answer?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The offer of God's forgiveness is indeed unconditional.

You'd make a great politican B62. [Biased]

ISTM therefore that the forgiveness itself must be conditional then. And if conditional then God does not / cannot forgive those who do not repent.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

You'd make a great politican B62. [Biased]

Oh God, I hope not!

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

ISTM therefore that the forgiveness itself must be conditional then. And if conditional then God does not / cannot forgive those who do not repent.

I don't know. I wonder about this. Some days I fervently hope that Hell will, ultimately, be empty. But some days, when I am made aware once again of the extreme cruelty and indifference of human beings towards one another, the "blood of Abel cries out from the ground". I tend to resort to a good truth in these moments.

"On Christ the solid Rock I stand
All other ground is sinking sand".

It does seem possible to me to hold in one's head a view of a generous and good God, and an understanding of the badness of people, and then say, "well maybe Hell will be necessary after all". But I'm glad the judgment of these things is not in my hands.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I'm glad the judgment of these things is not in my hands.

That makes two of us. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The offer of God's forgiveness is indeed unconditional.

You'd make a great politican B62. [Biased]

ISTM therefore that the forgiveness itself must be conditional then. And if conditional then God does not / cannot forgive those who do not repent.

I agree with Barnabas that God's forgiveness is unconditional. I also agree that we don't receive that forgiveness, or that the forgiveness doesn't do us any good, unless we repent.

It's just like gravity. It always forgives us, but we don't benefit from its forgiving features unless we have the means to make use of them and employ those means - such as wings, a parachute, etc.

So Jesus says:
quote:
Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
It seems to me that this is saying that being perfect involves loving those who do not love you, and that this is what God does. While it does not explicitly say that He loves everyone equally, this is implied in His "sending rain on the evil and the good." Similarly in Luke:
quote:
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. 36 Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.
He is kind to the unthankful and evil. This implies to me an absence of retribution.

I think that the confusion comes only if you see God as the source of both punishments and blessings. As I have said, I see God only as the source of blessings. All punishments are our own doing, or the work of the hells. It is, as I said, just like gravity. God is not the source of the "punishment" of being thrown to the ground when we fall. Falling, and the resulting impact, is simply what happens when we are unsupported. Hell works continuously to make us fall, but the Lord is continuously working to keep us from falling, or giving us wings, or helping us to land on a cushion. These means are called "forgiveness."

Every form of punishment works on this same principle. The sources of punishment are constant, as are the means of being delivered from punishment. God's love is constant and unconditional. The spiritual laws that govern these things are absolute, universal, and continual. The system is perfectly and precisely fair.

So it's not that God does not/cannot forgive those who do not repent. He forgives everyone. But the forgiveness does not help those who do not repent - because He is not the source of their punishment in the first place.

His forgiveness is the means to avoid the punishment of evil, if we make use of those means.

But if we fail to repent, we fail to make use of His forgiveness, and we suffer because of it.

The principle is simple. Virtually all consequences, both natural and spiritual, work on this same principle. Theological terminology only confuses the issue here, leading us to overthink something that is as straightforward as gravity.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Just seen the significance of the [Big Grin]

I'm glad you're not in the judgment seat either. But I want to get back to Freddy's quote here.

quote:
There is no forgiveness without repentance. Forgiveness is conditional for every person. However, as it originates in God it is unconditional. He loves everyone, sinner or saint. The model holds.
Given that scripture is not univocal on the conditionality of God's forgiveness (a given I assert but you might not concede) then the whole PSA thing (and the whole CV thing) seem to be resolved in the end by the interpretation we choose to believe is more balanced, more truthful, more in keeping with Tradition, or Scripture? I think there is choice there, mixed up no doubt with loyalties and obediences.

Why would you not want Freddy's model to hold, given that there is a reasonable choice to be made?

I argued on another thread that it is the P in PSA which causes the controversy. Substitutionary atonement is to be found in all mainstream traditions right from the start. Jesus died for me. While one can see the bases and arguments of advocates, just how essential is that P, given as I say the lack of one voice in scripture? Is it really necessary? Luke records the risen Jesus saying (Luke 24) "It was necessary for Christ to suffer" and I believe that.
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I argued on another thread that it is the P in PSA which causes the controversy. Substitutionary atonement is to be found in all mainstream traditions right from the start. Jesus died for me. While one can see the bases and arguments of advocates, just how essential is that P, given as I say the lack of one voice in scripture?

I think there is cause to be wary of overstating the multivocity of Scripture, and its supposed implications. There are, of course, several ideas relating to the Atonement in Scripture. But that doesn't mean that these ideas are mutually contradictory, still less that we can privilege one over others if they are indeed found in Scripture. More likely is that these ideas are alltrue, or aspects of the truth, at the same time - a bit like God being three and one at the same time. He is three in one sense, and one in another. The Atonement is penal in one sense, and victorious over sin in another, an expression of unconditional love in a third sense, etc. These senses are related to one another and not to be taken to exclude one another any more than God's trinity excludes his unity.

So the P is as essential as you think it is in Scripture. One reason I think it is essential in Scripture is that I am still persuaded that in Romans 3 (to take the most important example) hilasterion carries a connotation of propitiation, and that the key problems the Atonement resolves are a) the wrath of God, set up as the Big Problem in the opening chapters, and b) the justice of God in 'passing over sins committed beforehand'. But I appreciate that this is a minority interpretation at present.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I argued on another thread that it is the P in PSA which causes the controversy. Substitutionary atonement is to be found in all mainstream traditions right from the start. Jesus died for me. While one can see the bases and arguments of advocates, just how essential is that P, given as I say the lack of one voice in scripture? Is it really necessary? Luke records the risen Jesus saying (Luke 24) "It was necessary for Christ to suffer" and I believe that.

It's the P and the S that are problematic to me. I just don't see either penalties or substitutions to have anything to do with the Christian message. And this is why I am not willing to accept those views as part of the gospel.

[ 16. February 2008, 15:03: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Here's the link I used earlier.

andreas, I appreciate this is a Wikipedia link, but it raised no criticisms when I quoted it before. Please look particularly at this excerpt

quote:
All branches of the Christian faith embrace substitutionary atonement as the central meaning of Jesus' death on the cross, while some differ in their larger atonement theories. The Eastern Orthodox Church incorporates substitutionary atonement as one (relatively minor) element of a single doctrine of the Cross and Resurrection, the Catholic church incorporates it into Aquinas' Satisfaction doctrine rooted in the idea of penance, and Evangelical Protestants interpret it largely in terms of penal substitution
Is that a misreprentation of the Eastern Orthodox position, as you understand it? If so, how? It is certainly a fair representation of the Catholic and the majority evangelical protestant understanding.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
If you look at it theologically, then yes, we do not have a substitutionary view of atonement. In fact, our view of atonement has such a specific meaning that it cannot, by its very meaning, be substitutionary.

If you look at the rhetorics we have used, however, you might find verses that in isolation could be used to "prove" some sort of substitution taking place, without of course that being proof, because the spirit of the text those references belong to and of the writer that wrote this or that verse would be different.

You see, the Atonement starts with God the Son's assuming human flesh for himself and becoming human. The Incarnation is the beginning of atonement, and not the Cross. The Cross is another manifestation of the same Love that was manifested in the Incarnation. And it is the transforming power of that Love, which is the same in the Incarnation, in the Baptism, in the Crucifixion, in the Resurrection, in the Pentecost, that is our atonement. It's a unified experience that has to do with Who Jesus Christ is. His Presence is our Salvation, and not something he said or something he did.

Because, our ultimate goal for this life is theosis, and theosis means the conscious and unceasing presence of God within you, to become by grace what Jesus Christ is by nature... this is why there can be no sense of substitution in atonement. God's presence means God, our atonement is our salvation, and this means Jesus Christ, God becoming man so that man become God.

I don't know how helpful that analysis is, but feel free to ask questions or raise concerns.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I've seen your argument before, andreas and it is possible to embrace that theology and also see elements of substitution in the atonement. "Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the Scriptures". "I am the Good Shepherd ... I lay down my life for the sheep". "He bore our sins in his body on a tree". I don't "do" proof texting but these examples from John, Paul and Peter are just three of many, many in the scriptural tradition.

I appreciate the understanding that Augustine was wrong about original sin and so the whole meaning of atonement is seen against a different understanding of the problem of sin and the destiny of theosis. But these things of themselves do not require the ruling out of substitution. Or if you don't like the word, how about "on-our-behalfing". There is a sacrifice "on our behalf" here, indelibly, in the annals of our faith. I just don't see how that can be argued away.

So the Wikipedia article is, in your view wrong to see any element of substitution in the Eastern Orthodox understanding of Cross and Resurrection? Are you sure your view is typical of Orthodoxy?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
There is a difference between substitution "on our place" and the non-substitutionary view I expressed "for us".

God benefits mankind, right? But he doesn't do that when we failed to do so ourselves. Because the benefit he brings is something beyond created nature's power. We could not bring God down to earth, and this is what Jesus Christ did. He didn't do that in our place, he did that for us men and for our salvation.

An element of substitution might get found in the rhetorics we have used (hey, I'm guilty about that myself!) but not in the theology that is being consistently expressed throughout the centuries.
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
I believe in theosis too! It is thoroughly biblical. Don't quite see why it's incompatible with the idea of substitution though: Christ becomes what we are (sin-bearing and thus under God's judgment) so that we can become what he is.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Because theosis has nothing to do with sin. God the Son did not become human because of the Fall. He becomes man because of us men and for our salvation, and he does that Fall (and sin) or no Fall.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
There is a difference between substitution "on our place" and the non-substitutionary view I expressed "for us".

"For us" and "on our behalf" have exactly the same meaning in English. I know from the Latin version of the Creeds that we are talking "pro nobis" here - I presume the Greek is saying the same. But you can put me right if there is some subtlety there.

I think your concern relates to the idea that that which was done "for us" must not be seen as a necessary sacrifice for sin. To use your word, the problem with this view is that it seems to me to reduce the whole atonement argument in Romans 1-7 to "rhetoric"! I object in advance to any suggestion that my view comes from wearing Augustinian spectacles. It's just what the words say.

There is, for example, the following argument. "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly ... while we were still sinners, Christ died for us". This language makes it clear that we needed help with the problem of sin, and it also makes it clear that the help came in the form of a sacrificed life and death. (There's a lot more like that, as I'm sure you know.)

So I remain puzzled. I've revisited Bishop Kallistos (I have some of his writings at home) and I'm still puzzled! But I'm happy to accept your explanation of the way things are.

Please remember that I am not here arguing for the "P". Simply for the "S"! Basically, I am a CV person who embraces SA as well. Nor do I want to rehash a 38 page thread - I have (at some cost) skim-read the pages but I can't guarantee this dimension has not been covered before.
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Because theosis has nothing to do with sin. God the Son did not become human because of the Fall. He becomes man because of us men and for our salvation, and he does that Fall (and sin) or no Fall.

I mostly agree with that. But there is also sin - hence the need for substitution as well as all the rest of it.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Sin is not something "compulsory"... Jesus' All Holy Mother, for example, had no sin. Plus, the answer to sin is forgiveness, which God freely gives to all people, not having a guy crucified!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Plus, the answer to sin is forgiveness, which God freely gives to all people, not having a guy crucified!

So Pauline understanding, as exemplified above, is just rhetoric? And if it is not rhetoric, what is it?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Barnabas, you are asking too much from me. I can't explain the whole Paul in one thread. I just can't! Paul has been interpreted in certain ways for centuries, especially by the Reformers. I can't un-do that all alone with a few posts.

Only thing I can say, to keep it short, is that what Paul wrote is authoritative for me as well, and I wouldn't go beyond his teachings on Jesus Christ. Paul is accepted entirely and fully by the Orthodox Church.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Perhaps best left there, andreas. I'm content with that.
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Sin is not something "compulsory"... Jesus' All Holy Mother, for example, had no sin. Plus, the answer to sin is forgiveness, which God freely gives to all people, not having a guy crucified!

Afraid I just don't buy this... it might not be compulsory, but I do think anyone who accepts Paul as authoritative must accept that 'all' have sinned, and that the death and resurrection of Jesus were, in some sense at least, for sin. (Apologies if you have covered this earlier in the thread, I appreciate that I am a latecomer. And I appreciate that you can't cover the whole of Paul in one thread but I think you need to say something more to substantiate your point!)
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that the confusion comes only if you see God as the source of both punishments and blessings. As I have said, I see God only as the source of blessings. All punishments are our own doing, or the work of the hells. It is, as I said, just like gravity. God is not the source of the "punishment" of being thrown to the ground when we fall. Falling, and the resulting impact, is simply what happens when we are unsupported. Hell works continuously to make us fall, but the Lord is continuously working to keep us from falling, or giving us wings, or helping us to land on a cushion. These means are called "forgiveness."

Every form of punishment works on this same principle. The sources of punishment are constant, as are the means of being delivered from punishment. God's love is constant and unconditional. The spiritual laws that govern these things are absolute, universal, and continual. The system is perfectly and precisely fair.

So it's not that God does not/cannot forgive those who do not repent. He forgives everyone. But the forgiveness does not help those who do not repent - because He is not the source of their punishment in the first place.

His forgiveness is the means to avoid the punishment of evil, if we make use of those means.

But if we fail to repent, we fail to make use of His forgiveness, and we suffer because of it.

The principle is simple. Virtually all consequences, both natural and spiritual, work on this same principle. Theological terminology only confuses the issue here, leading us to overthink something that is as straightforward as gravity.

Thanks Freddy. I don't quite understand you yet but I am beginning to see why we see it differently.

Surely your view means that there is a whole 'cause and effect' world which God does not control?

Surely your view only works if God's dealings with humanity is only a subset of humanity's dealings with the world? (He has no control over the physical laws of this planet... even though he created it!?)

I don't get it. If God forgives everyone then why should he stand by and watch while people hit the floor? (Because they choose not to repent.) How is that view significantly different from saying that God loves all of us but allows those who continue to reject him to be cut off from his presence forever in hell?
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

Surely your view means that there is a whole 'cause and effect' world which God does not control?

Surely your view only works if God's dealings with humanity is only a subset of humanity's dealings with the world? (He has no control over the physical laws of this planet... even though he created it!?)

I don't get it. If God forgives everyone then why should he stand by and watch while people hit the floor? (Because they choose not to repent.) How is that view significantly different from saying that God loves all of us but allows those who continue to reject him to be cut off from his presence forever in hell?

When you ask why does God "stand by and watch while people hit the floor", are you referring to God's seeming inaction on this temporal plane, or to the idea that God doesn't interact after death with those who have not embraced him in life?

I think I'm asking my clarification question poorly, but I don't understand what you mean by saying that Freddy's argument would only work if God has no control over the physical laws of this planet. To me, God does not EXERCISE control over the physical laws of this planet--does not screw with cause and effect--in this lifetime, in the normal course of things.

That doesn't mean he isn't able to act--as we see with the Christ who is resurrected, not spared.

[ 17. February 2008, 06:08: Message edited by: infinite_monkey ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I believe it is pretty mainstream understanding to see God as both "Creator" and "Sustainer of Creation". All things hold together in Him.

Intervention is very much a human term - if we're not careful we get to a sort of dualism within which God, having wound up the universe in the original act of Creation, basically lets it run along, barring the occasional miraculous intervention. Or alternatively, a complete determinism within which human choices become little if anything more than our subjective impressions of a divine inevitability.

I think Christianity refuses both options, pronouncing both the reality of human freedom and responsibility and the reality of God's sovereignty. The challenge is to embrace both of these realities, and avoid the trap of analysing one or the other out of existence just because we cannot "see" how they fit together. I think this conundrum is at the heart of the theological arguments over the problems of sin, pain and atonement. We find different balance points between the poles of sovereignty and freedom.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
When you ask why does God "stand by and watch while people hit the floor", are you referring to God's seeming inaction on this temporal plane, or to the idea that God doesn't interact after death with those who have not embraced him in life?

I'll try and explain what I mean a bit more.

Apparently God forgives everyone but those who do not repent experience the consequences of their actions - like jumping off a bridge.

We can only let God off the hook on judgment if these consequences are things that are outside of his control. If God deliberately built the world in such a way that these consequences would be his intention for those who reject his Son then it is no different from a conevo description of God's judgment.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
Afraid I just don't buy this... it might not be compulsory, but I do think anyone who accepts Paul as authoritative must accept that 'all' have sinned, and that the death and resurrection of Jesus were, in some sense at least, for sin.

Sean D (and Barnabas)

Where does Paul say that substitution is what happened on the Cross?

Let's begin from there, so that I can see clearly what you mean by substitution.

For me it means something (or in this case: someone) instead of something else (someone else). As in, Christ, instead of us.

My point is that this does not stand, because there was no issue of "instead of us" in the first place. It's not something we could have done to bring God down to earth. It's not something we could have done to become God. So, Jesus is not here instead of us, but for us, i.e. to benefit us through his presence.

If it's clear what I mean, now let's get to Paul. Where do you see Paul teaching substitution?

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
We can only let God off the hook on judgment if these consequences are things that are outside of his control. If God deliberately built the world in such a way that these consequences would be his intention for those who reject his Son then it is no different from a conevo description of God's judgment.

Getting God "off the hook" in my view means that we have built a crooked theology and we try to find loopholes so that we do not ascribe that theology to God...

How much different the ancient view is that God does not punish, and that even the most wicked creature partakes in good at some extent, and that even in the worst sin exists some good... The absolute zero for our scale is non-being, and even the worst sinner is a bit above that! It's not a matter of consequences as it is a matter of who we truly are. Because a wicked person is being tormented by his very selfishness, by his ego he is not able to participate in love. It's not a consequence as it is ontology, who we are.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
but I do think anyone who accepts Paul as authoritative must accept that 'all' have sinned

Paul also says that all have died, but we know that at least two persons, Enoch and Elijah, haven't died. Why is one part of the Romans being used that much by Protestants (all have sinned) but another (all have died, 5.12, 5.14)) isn't?

Secondly, at that same epistle (to the Romans) Paul says that "many sinned" and that just like the many sinned, the many will be made righteous (5.19). Why doesn't he use "all" there instead of many? And if you say that by "the many" Paul means "all", then this applies to death also (5.15), but not "all" actually died... Perhaps we could move that discussion on Kerygmania, or we could continue here, I don't know.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

How much different the ancient view is that God does not punish, and that even the most wicked creature partakes in good at some extent, and that even in the worst sin exists some good... The absolute zero for our scale is non-being, and even the worst sinner is a bit above that! It's not a matter of consequences as it is a matter of who we truly are. Because a wicked person is being tormented by his very selfishness, by his ego he is not able to participate in love. It's not a consequence as it is ontology, who we are.

Ah, at last I see.

Andreas, you are a repressed Augustinian. All these attacks against original sin are merely to deflect us away from your true love ...

If a wicked person is wicked in an ontological sense then his humanity must be evil at the level of being. Therefore either God created us evil or our beings have become evil somehow.

Wow, you really are much, much further into original sin and its effects than I realised ... come on Andreas, it is now time to come out of the closet.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Huh? [Ultra confused]

Perhaps I wasn't clear... It's not the "what" we are (we are "very good") but the use we make of that "what", the extent to which we are selfish or selfless.

Can reality be described on white-black terms? No. Take fornication for example. Friendship, union, intimacy still exist in fornication. It's misuse though, one's turning to oneself, is what makes it a sin. Still something good comes out of it, and still the person doing it partakes in the good of friendship, union and intimacy to a low extent. Which is why they do it in the first place. But the ego comes and makes it a sin, because the ego is the sin!

[ 17. February 2008, 10:29: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Paul also says that all have died, but we know that at least two persons, Enoch and Elijah, haven't died. Why is one part of the Romans being used that much by Protestants (all have sinned) but another (all have died, 5.12, 5.14)) isn't?

Secondly, at that same epistle (to the Romans) Paul says that "many sinned" and that just like the many sinned, the many will be made righteous (5.19). Why doesn't he use "all" there instead of many? And if you say that by "the many" Paul means "all", then this applies to death also (5.15), but not "all" actually died... Perhaps we could move that discussion on Kerygmania, or we could continue here, I don't know.

If you are saying that interpretations of Romans 5 handle 'all' and 'many' in different ways then - well done, welcome to roughly 2000 years of theological debate.

If you are trying to add to or move that debate on a bit, then please would you actually say something about what Paul means here.

I'm not one for simply proof texting but 1 John 1 is pretty clear here. We're all sinners - anyone who says otherwise is deluded ... not my words, the Apostle John's.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you are saying that interpretations of Romans 5 handle 'all' and 'many' in different ways then - well done, welcome to roughly 2000 years of theological debate.

Thanks for the warm welcome! [Big Grin]

In my view Paul uses those words interchangeably. What he means by all he also means by many. The problem is that you Protestant guys took it and made something out of it that Paul did not intend.

Paul says that "all died". Yet I don't see you arguing that Enoch died... Why is that? If Enoch did not die, while Paul says "all died", why do you have a problem with Mary not sinning, when Paul says "all sinned"?

In my view Paul is 100% Orthodox. And I will try to explain what I mean as the thread unfolds.

As far as I can see, Paul's problem is death. This is the real enemy. Being getting drawn to non-being. This is the tragedy of creation for Paul. And it is this that Paul ascribes to the ancestral sin. Not sin, but death. In which death "all have sinned". And he sees the death of Christ as a medication for death.

Paul does not say that even babies are sinners. Or that Mary was a sinner. He doesn't say that we are born sinners because of what our ancestors did. Neither is he saying that we are declared just. On the contrary, Paul says that we are to become righteous if we want to be Christ's disciples. Like John does in the same epistle you mentioned in your last post.

Instead of a forensic justification, Paul speaks about a real becoming righteous. Instead of an original sin, Paul speaks about ancestral sin bringing death into the foreground.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:


If it's clear what I mean, now let's get to Paul. Where do you see Paul teaching substitution?


Well since you ask ....I'm missing church this morning, "courtesy" of a car breakdown, so I've got some time for a reply.

Just a few examples below. The emphasis on pronouns helps me to see what is going on.

Romans 4:25. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Romans 5:6-8. You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his love for us in this; while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

1 Cor 15:3. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures .....

2 Cor 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it written, "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree".

And delving into other letters

Hebrews 9:27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people ...

1 Peter 2:25. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live to righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

1 John 4:10 This is love, not that we loved God but He loved us, and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

Someone instead of someone else? Looks like it to me.

andreas, I've used NIV translations and haven't checked these in other versions, so I guess there may be an issue of two there. But basically, substitution, "on-our-behalf-ing", seems an absolutely obvious conclusion to draw from this plethora of examples - and there are lots more.

Maybe this should go into Keryg, but I think we can safely leave that up to the Hosts?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I agree fully with the verses you quoted, and I'm really surprised you see substitution in those verses! Really! I see those verses saying "He did it for you and for your salvation" but not "He did it instead of you, in your place"...

In fact, I'm so surprised you read substitution in those verses, I don't know how to go this discussion further!

[ 17. February 2008, 11:06: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
OK mate! I'm puzzled too. I'll give it a bit more thought - and maybe another Shipmate or two may be able to illuminate? I keep thinking Passover for some reason ....(scratches head)
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Surely your view means that there is a whole 'cause and effect' world which God does not control?

It's not that He doesn't control them, it's that He applies them consistently. Gravity is not arbitrary or inconsistent. It is always the same. It doesn't play favorites. Yet it is an extension of God's power - as is photosynthesis, evolution and every other physical law and process. The fact that world is always round does not mean that God doesn't control its roundness.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Surely your view only works if God's dealings with humanity is only a subset of humanity's dealings with the world?

That's right. God's relationship with humanity is governed by consistent laws that are the way that He deals with humanity.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't get it. If God forgives everyone then why should he stand by and watch while people hit the floor? (Because they choose not to repent.)

Are you suggesting that it is either God's will that people hit the floor when they fall, or that the hitting of the floor is outside of God's control? Surely there are other options.

For example, another option would be that it is immensely useful for there to be a force like gravity to hold people and other things on the surface of the planet. This use is so beneficial that the fact that people may occasionally fall and hurt themselves is outweighed (heh-heh) by it. God could intervene and stop everyone who is about to fall, or crash, or whatever, but the consequences of this inconsistency within creation, all things considered, would not actually be beneficial.

It works the same way in humanity's spiritual relationship with God. There are spiritual equivalents of "gravity" and spiritual equivalents of "falling." We know what makes us fall and we know what can prevent us from falling, and what can lift us up after we have fallen. These are consistent spiritual forces governed by God's consistent spiritual laws. God is in those laws, and the laws are the laws of love.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
How is that view significantly different from saying that God loves all of us but allows those who continue to reject him to be cut off from his presence forever in hell?

I don't deny the biblical teachings about the eternity of hell. But Christianity's view of hell is a caricature. There is not literal fire but rather deep, fiery unhappiness. People can choose between happy and unhappy alternatives in life, and they can also remain blind to the true nature of those alternatives. People can refuse to believe that hatred and revenge are unproductive and self-defeating, and they can persist in that refusal. Hell is simply the misery that is inherent in sin, whether the perpetrator recognizes their unhappiness or not.

God does not stand by idly as people make these choices and play out their own will. He is present with and loves every person on earth and every devil in hell. Without His presence they would instantly cease to exist.

But God's love allows every person to seek happiness in their own way, even wicked, self-destructive and futile ways. Just as applying gravity inconsistently would ruin the world, applying spiritual laws inconsistently would ruin spiritual life.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
the ego comes and makes it a sin, because the ego is the sin!

And who created the ego Andreas? Either God created us as evil or that 'ego' has become 'tainted' somehow.

Go on, I promise I won't tell anybody ... you [Axe murder] original sin.


quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In my view Paul is 100% orthodox.

We all agree on that. [Razz]


quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
As far as I can see, Paul's problem is death. This is the real enemy. Being getting drawn to non-being. This is the tragedy of creation for Paul. And it is this that Paul ascribes to the ancestral sin. Not sin, but death. In which death "all have sinned". And he sees the death of Christ as a medication for death.

[Confused] Yes, and death is the penalty or wages for sin. He is pretty specific about that.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you suggesting that it is either God's will that people hit the floor when they fall, or that the hitting of the floor is outside of God's control?

Yep.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Surely there are other options....

And the one you give (that this is an inevitable consequence of God creating humans with freedom in a physical world) seems incredibly similar to saying that 'hell' is an inevitable consequence of giving mankind the freedom to believe in or reject God.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I don't deny the biblical teachings about the eternity of hell. But Christianity's view of hell is a caricature. There is not literal fire but rather deep, fiery unhappiness. People can choose between happy and unhappy alternatives in life, and they can also remain blind to the true nature of those alternatives. People can refuse to believe that hatred and revenge are unproductive and self-defeating, and they can persist in that refusal.

No one is talking about Dante's Inferno here. So I'm right with you here.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
God does not stand by idly as people make these choices and play out their own will. He is present with and loves every person on earth and every devil in hell. Without His presence they would instantly cease to exist.


Ummh. A pretty good definition of hell is the absence of God's presence (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 1: 9).

Whether or not we cease to exist without his presence is another topic!
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
And who created the ego Andreas? Either God created us as evil or that 'ego' has become 'tainted' somehow.

Nobody. The ego is another word for being selfish. If we choose to be selfish, we speak of a selfish ego. It's the stance we choose to have towards life, other men and God. Ego is another word for selfishness, and people are not created and are not born with it.

Original sin would be if I thought people are born that way. I don't believe that we are born that way I believe we are born like Adam was created.

quote:
[Confused] Yes, and death is the penalty or wages for sin. He is pretty specific about that.
Sin is the sting of death. Death is ontologically prior to sin, it is it's ontological cause. We sin as we move towards non-being, because we move towards non-being. And not the other way around!

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Ummh. A pretty good definition of hell is the absence of God's presence (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 1: 9).

Err, 2 Thess. 1.9 does not say that!

Hell is uncreated, like Heaven is. And uncreated means that it is the very presence of God, in whom we all have our being. Hell and Heaven are names for the same reality, namely God.

[ 17. February 2008, 12:45: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Err, 2 Thess. 1.9 does not say that!

Sorry, I mistook that for 2 Thess 2.9!

Now I see what you mean, but it's an issue of interpretation, as far as I am concerned!
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Nobody. The ego is another word for being selfish. If we choose to be selfish, we speak of a selfish ego. It's the stance we choose to have towards life, other men and God. Ego is another word for selfishness, and people are not created and are not born with it.

I know you think that - I was just teasing you. It is one my few pleasures left in life!? Sorry. [Disappointed]

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Original sin would be if I thought people are born that way. I don't believe that we are born that way I believe we are born like Adam was created.

Speaking as a parent I can't see how anyone can not believe in OS. I never had to teach my children to sin ... it seemed to come naturally to them ... and indeed that seems to be the universal human experience.

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Sin is the sting of death. Death is ontologically prior to sin, it is it's ontological cause. We sin as we move towards non-being, because we move towards non-being. And not the other way around!

I don't see why you are arguing with me over this. Your problem seems to be with the Apostle Paul. (e.g. Romans 6: 23). Trying enlightening him.
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
Crumbs. Miss a day and what a welter to think about!

I don't think death is prior to sin; that doesn't seem the case according to Genesis or according to Paul: sin entered the world through Adam, and death through sin (Romans 5:12). That sounds more like Paul Tillich to me than the church fathers. Death is the final enemy, but it is caused by sin - so sin must be dealt with.

I think it is hard to take 'all' to mean 'many'. The whole point of chs 1-2 of Romans is that all means all: there is no-one who can boast, not even the mother of God.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I know you think that - I was just teasing you. It is one my few pleasures left in life!? Sorry. [Disappointed]

Sorry for not getting it. [Hot and Hormonal]

quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
I don't think death is prior to sin; that doesn't seem the case according to Genesis or according to Paul: sin entered the world through Adam, and death through sin (Romans 5:12).

Not prior chronologically. Prior ontologically. It might sound strange to you guys (I think it might, but then many here say you are not that different from the Orthodox, so it might not sound strange after all) but for the fathers, the beginning of the Universe, ontologically speaking, lies at the end, and not at the chronological beginning. I will have to unpack that later perhaps, but drawing from that, I can say with Paul that the ontological beginning of sin is non-being, i.e. death.

In 1 Corinthians 15.56 Paul says (and he is not being novel here, he is expressing standard Orthodox teaching) that sin is the sting of death. Like the bee, ontologically is prior to its sting, so is death ontologically prior to sin. It is it's beginning! Now that I think of it, I have heard that a striking difference at a conference held a few years ago between Catholics and Orthodox on salvation was the fact that Catholics insisted that salvation is primarily salvation from sin, while the Orthodox insisted that salvation is primarily salvation from death. And as I think about it and take into account our discussion here, I can see why this difference was pointed out.

quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
all means all

Then how do you square that out with at least two people not dying (Enoch and Elijah) when Paul says clearly that all died? Why the double standard? (thank God the bible says they didn't die, or else it could be dismissed as another of those peculiar Orthodox beliefs [Razz] )
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In 1 Corinthians 15.56 Paul says (and he is not being novel here, he is expressing standard Orthodox teaching) ...

This sums up your approach Andreas. I know this is probably just you expressing yourself clumsily (as we all do sometimes [Hot and Hormonal] ) but it also reveals your attitude that comes across in these threads.

While we are talking about chronology may I point out that Orthodox Christianity flows out of the the teaching of the Apostles, not the other way round.

I am hapy to accept the three 'legs' of scripture, tradition and reason (which I actually see as consistent with sola scriptura) but comments like the above reveal just how skewed your view is towards Orthodox tradtion.

I'm just waiting for the moment when you post ... "Jesus was mistaken on X, but the Orthodox Fathers managed to put him straight!" [Biased] )

[ 18. February 2008, 00:59: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you suggesting that it is either God's will that people hit the floor when they fall, or that the hitting of the floor is outside of God's control?

Yep.
I guess you are saying the first, that it is God's will that people hit the floor when they fall - and that their legs break, or whatever the physical consequences are.

Are you wondering why people find this objectionable?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Surely there are other options....

And the one you give (that this is an inevitable consequence of God creating humans with freedom in a physical world) seems incredibly similar to saying that 'hell' is an inevitable consequence of giving mankind the freedom to believe in or reject God.
Not inevitable. But freedom is nothing without possible alternatives.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
God does not stand by idly as people make these choices and play out their own will. He is present with and loves every person on earth and every devil in hell. Without His presence they would instantly cease to exist.

Ummh. A pretty good definition of hell is the absence of God's presence (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 1: 9).
If God is omnipresent there is no such thing as His true absence. Hell is the relative absence of God - not because He is not there but because He is not invited or accepted.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I guess you are saying the first, that it is God's will that people hit the floor when they fall - and that their legs break, or whatever the physical consequences are.

God's permissive will, but not his deliberate will.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Not inevitable. But freedom is nothing without possible alternatives.

[Confused] If God created the world, and if we are not dualists, then he chose what those alternatives would be.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
If God is omnipresent there is no such thing as His true absence. Hell is the relative absence of God - not because He is not there but because He is not invited or accepted.

That is an assertion from your theological framework not an argument.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The ontological argument andreas is advancing must make the following teaching by Paul somehow imperfect, misleading (let's avoid the word "novel").

Romans 5:12 - scroll down to get Greek and English

Or as the NIV puts it

12. Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin ...

In the Pauline world view, sin was the forerunner and cause of death. Given classic Jewish understandings of scripture (1st century AD) - i.e. no hang-ups re evolution etc - Paul would see no difference between chronological and ontological truth here. For him it is just truth.

And for Paul (1 Cor 15:26) death is clearly the last enemy.

So I would be very interested to be referred to a Patristic source of this Orthodox ontological teaching re sin and death. From my uneducated protestant viewpoint, it seems to reverse the very clear meaning of scripture on this point.

Now that I see it, it may also be an underlying cause of the different views of substitution involved in Christ being "made sin" etc - see earlier exchanges.
 
Posted by Bucca (# 12995) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Speaking as a parent I can't see how anyone can not believe in OS. I never had to teach my children to sin ... it seemed to come naturally to them ... and indeed that seems to be the universal human experience.

Indeed. People have to learn how to share; innately we are all selfish when born. Anyone who watches a baby will see that, as far as they are concerned, all the world is a resource to their "ego".
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:


[QUOTE] Originally posted by andreas1984:
[In 1 Corinthians 15.56 Paul says (and he is not being novel here, he is expressing standard Orthodox teaching) that sin is the sting of death. Like the bee, ontologically is prior to its sting, so is death ontologically prior to sin. It is it's beginning! Now that I think of it, I have heard that a striking difference at a conference held a few years ago between Catholics and Orthodox on salvation was the fact that Catholics insisted that salvation is primarily salvation from sin, while the Orthodox insisted that salvation is primarily salvation from death. And as I think about it and take into account our discussion here, I can see why this difference was pointed out.

The concept of death needs defining here. God told Adam he would die if he ate. In what sense then did he die? not physically but spiritually.. In that sense, Paul teaches then that the wages of sin are 'death'.
 
Posted by Bucca (# 12995) on :
 
If adam ate then he would experience death, he ate, became "aware" of Good and Evil (despite it having previously being saidthat "God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and because of this he also experienced "death" (of the personal level stuff) rather than keeping a god-centred mind and seeing the immortality of the All.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The concept of death needs defining here. God told Adam he would die if he ate. In what sense then did he die? not physically but spiritually.. In that sense, Paul teaches then that the wages of sin are 'death'.

I agree there is much room for confusion over this. I think, rather as the footnote to my NIV bible puts it, that scripture teaches us this way. Physical death is the penalty for sin. But it is also the symbol of spiritual death.

When Paul argues in Rom 5:14 that "Death reigned from Adam to Moses", he seems to me to be saying that although there was no law (no Mosaic law) nevertheless people continued to die. Certainly they died physically!

Of course, all of that leads back (yet again) to the Original/Ancestral sin argument as well. These things are very tricky to untangle in cross-traditional discussions.
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Not prior chronologically. Prior ontologically. It might sound strange to you guys (I think it might, but then many here say you are not that different from the Orthodox, so it might not sound strange after all) but for the fathers, the beginning of the Universe, ontologically speaking, lies at the end, and not at the chronological beginning. I will have to unpack that later perhaps, but drawing from that, I can say with Paul that the ontological beginning of sin is non-being, i.e. death.

I would be grateful if you would indeed unpack this further! It just doesn't seem to me to make good sense of Paul or Genesis. Adam was warned not to eat the fruit, lest he 'surely die'. Then when Adam and Eve do eat it, Adam is told that now because from dust he came to dust he will return. Paul says that death entered through sin: in Adam all died. It seems to me best to understand some highly mysterious OT passages in the light of this rather than vice versa: Enoch was dead in Adam even if he did not die physically (although no doubt in Christ he was made alive).

Death is indeed the (final not only) enemy. It is indeed to be overcome, something from which we must be saved. I have no problem with saying any of that, clearly it is thoroughly biblical. But what I don't get is why this necessarily excludes the possibility that we also need to be saved from sin. As others have pointed out that seems clearly true of Paul, but also of John e.g. John 3:36 (God's wrath remains on those without the Son) and perhaps the most important text, 1 John 2: he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins. It is also in Matthew ('you are to call him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins').

The point of quoting these is not to see who can quote the most number of proof texts and win, but to say that the idea of the necessity of salvation from sin seems fairly widespread in the NT. You are right to quote texts saying that we also need to be saved from death but that does not mean that's the only thing we need to be saved from.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think, Sean, that the ontological argument makes death the "thing in itself" and sin a kind of derivation of that "thing in itself". That is where andreas's "sting" comes in. So that if you are saved from death you are, ipso facto, saved from sin? Something like that, anyway. Think I'll pm Father Gregory ...
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I am hapy to accept the three 'legs' of scripture, tradition and reason (which I actually see as consistent with sola scriptura) but comments like the above reveal just how skewed your view is towards Orthodox tradtion.

This is only because the three 'legs' approach is not Orthodox. For us fundamental is the Revelation of God to man, and this revelation takes place from the beginning of the world (with angels and for the creation of mankind for men).

In this sense the Orthodox Tradition is equated with the Revelation of God to man. Dude, when I say the Fathers, I mean a line of people starting from Adam and Melchisedeck and Abraham and Moses, going to Panagia, the Apostles and the Martyrs, going to elder Paisios and Porfyrios and Sophrony.

It's not a category of people that existed after after the Apostles...

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect you to accept any of this. I'm just trying to explain where I come from.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The ontological argument andreas is advancing must make the following teaching by Paul somehow imperfect, misleading (let's avoid the word "novel").

Romans 5:12 - scroll down to get Greek and English

Or as the NIV puts it

12. Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin ...

First of all Paul said two things about death/sin.

On the one hand he said that death entered the world through sin. On the other hand he said that sin is the sting of death. We have to address both sayings of Paul.

I said that Paul is Orthodox in saying that sin is the sting of death, because he is not being novel here, he echoes the Orthodox Tradition, like the prophet Hosea does. In fact, one could say that Paul quotes from the Old Testament.

In my view, the two things Paul says are in harmony, because chronologically death came after Adam's sin, while ontologically death comes prior to sin.

Which is why death is the last enemy. Because it's the greatest enemy.

In your view, how do the two sayings of Paul fit together?

I will give patristic references later. I will try to find something in English online, and that's not easy because only a select few writings are available in English online...

Oh, one more thing. This chronologically later being ontologically prior view, affects our views on the Incarnation as well. In my view, God the Word became man not because of the Fall but so as to effect the deification of creation drawing all things to Himself in the eschata. If we say that God the Son became man because of the Fall, we are saying that something chronologically prior is the cause for the Incarnation. If we say that the eschata are the cause, we are putting as the cause something chronologically later.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Speaking as a parent I can't see how anyone can not believe in OS.

Then why is it that only Protestants and Catholics believe in Original Sin? Why not the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Taoists, the secularists, the Hindu? They become parents as well. I think it has to do with the common culture shared by Protestants and Catholics rather than with objective reality.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The concept of death needs defining here. God told Adam he would die if he ate. In what sense then did he die? not physically but spiritually.. In that sense, Paul teaches then that the wages of sin are 'death'.

Well, Paul speaks about pain and suffering first. The tragedy of creation shocks him, and he offers that explanation as to why this happens. The entire creation, he wrote, is under bondage. I think his view is more unified...

quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
You are right to quote texts saying that we also need to be saved from death but that does not mean that's the only thing we need to be saved from.

I don't say we need to get saved only from death, but primarily from death. There is a big difference there.

Will unpack more...

[ 18. February 2008, 10:14: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Sorry for triple posting...

My use of "ontological" might not be that accurate since death and sin are not "onta" (beings), but I hope you get my point despite the poor terminology. I'm talking about cause and effect.

Last night I was thinking about it, and I remembered something else. Which makes more sense, since they are not "onta" (in beings the cause lies at the end, and not the beginning).

Death, as non-being, is where we come from chronologically and it is what we are made of, since creation is created "out of nothing". In this sense we carry nothingness in us, and we tend to get drawn towards it. God however gives us the potential of overcoming that.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In this sense the Orthodox Tradition is equated with the Revelation of God to man.

Thanks for putting me straight.

If this is representative of Orthodox thought in general then it is very reassuring that you guys make me look positively inclusive and ecumenical. Con-Evos are liberals, basically.

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
This chronologically later being ontologically prior view, affects our views on the Incarnation as well. In my view, God the Word became man not because of the Fall but so as to effect the deification of creation drawing all things to Himself in the eschata. If we say that God the Son became man because of the Fall, we are saying that something chronologically prior is the cause for the Incarnation. If we say that the eschata are the cause, we are putting as the cause something chronologically later.

[Ultra confused] You're just saying the same thing in reverse. Why does God need to deify creation? Did he bodge it first time round?


quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Then why is it that only Protestants and Catholics believe in Original Sin? Why not the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Taoists, the secularists, the Hindu? They become parents as well. I think it has to do with the common culture shared by Protestants and Catholics rather than with objective reality.

Er, Andreas, the answer to that question would be ... original sin. That doesn't prove it to be so, but it is entirely consistent. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The concept of death needs defining here. God told Adam he would die if he ate. In what sense then did he die? not physically but spiritually.. In that sense, Paul teaches then that the wages of sin are 'death'.

...I don't say we need to get saved only from death, but primarily from death. There is a big difference there.
I remain astonished that anyone thinks that the Bible is talking about literal death in this context. I would think that Jamat's point would be universally accepted by Christians.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[Ultra confused] You're just saying the same thing in reverse. Why does God need to deify creation? Did he bodge it first time round?

[brick wall]

God deifies creation because it's creation and not God! To deify does not mean to correct an error or to save from sin. It means to make God. And creation has that potential by grace, it was created for that reason. The reason for creation is the eschata, and not the beginning. We were not created perfect and fell from perfection. We were created to become perfect in the eschata.

Incidentally, this is at the heart of the Origenistic controversy. Origen proposed a perfect creation from which we fell, thinking that Christ became man so that we can get restored to where we fell from, while the Church chose a different approach, namely that we were created immature, and perfection lies at the end of history, not at its beginning.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I remain astonished that anyone thinks that the Bible is talking about literal death in this context. I would think that Jamat's point would be universally accepted by Christians.

Well, Paul speaks about creation waiting with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God, so that it can get set free from its bondage to corruption. The whole creation, Paul says, has been groaning together and has been feeling great pain together (like that of childbirth) till now.

[ 18. February 2008, 11:18: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I guess you are saying the first, that it is God's will that people hit the floor when they fall - and that their legs break, or whatever the physical consequences are.

God's permissive will, but not his deliberate will.
Yes, that is exactly how I would put it. Evil things are not willed by God, but He permits them to happen for the sake of a higher good. Gravity is by and large a useful force. Its negative effects are permitted for the sake of the greater good.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Not inevitable. But freedom is nothing without possible alternatives.

[Confused] If God created the world, and if we are not dualists, then he chose what those alternatives would be.
Yes, He chose what those alternatives would be, the idea being that they are the best possible alternatives - even if they include things that are evil.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
If God is omnipresent there is no such thing as His true absence. Hell is the relative absence of God - not because He is not there but because He is not invited or accepted.

That is an assertion from your theological framework not an argument.
God's omnipresence is a well accepted Christian premise. Besides, the Bible specifically speaks of His presence in Hell:
quote:
Psalm 139:7 Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning,
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
10 Even there Your hand shall lead me,
And Your right hand shall hold me.

Of course the Bible often also speaks of God being in certain places (Bethel, Jerusalem, His tabernacle or temple) and not being in others. Doesn't this simply mean that He is more present or less present according to certain factors, such as our reception of Him?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
God deifies creation because it's creation and not God! To deify does not mean to correct an error or to save from sin. It means to make God. And creation has that potential by grace, it was created for that reason. The reason for creation is the eschata, and not the beginning. We were not created perfect and fell from perfection. We were created to become perfect in the eschata.

Incidentally, this is at the heart of the Origenistic controversy. Origen proposed a perfect creation from which we fell, thinking that Christ became man so that we can get restored to where we fell from, while the Church chose a different approach, namely that we were created immature, and perfection lies at the end of history, not at its beginning.

My turn. [brick wall] [brick wall]

I understand all that.

However, fall or created immature you are still left with God needing to provide for what is lacking in his creation... that must be the case or you wouldn't say 'by grace'.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

First of all Paul said two things about death/sin.

On the one hand he said that death entered the world through sin. On the other hand he said that sin is the sting of death. We have to address both sayings of Paul.

<snip>

In my view, the two things Paul says are in harmony, because chronologically death came after Adam's sin, while ontologically death comes prior to sin.

Which is why death is the last enemy. Because it's the greatest enemy.

In your view, how do the two sayings of Paul fit together?

andreas, I'm glad that you see that your view depends upon an "ontological" understanding about the relationship between sin and death, though I note your retreat from the word.

In my view, the two sayings sit together like this. There is no need for the ontological argument if death came into the world through sin. The two Pauline statements are perfectly harmonious. The defeat of sin, ipso facto, means the defeat of death. However we see death. Just as the sting is the "deadliness" of the bee, so sin is the "deadliness" of death.

Your argument I suppose is that the sting, being a part of the bee, is in someway subordinate to it. But the analogy points in a different direction. The power of death is taken away by the removal of its essential poisonous cause, sin. So the sting is not subordinate. It is the primary cause of damage.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I remain astonished that anyone thinks that the Bible is talking about literal death in this context. I would think that Jamat's point would be universally accepted by Christians.

I think the problem, Freddy, is that Pauline thought would not make the neat physical/spiritual distinctions which we sometimes make. When he talks about death he means the whole thing - unless it is clear from context that he only means a particular aspect of it.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So the sting is not subordinate. It is the primary cause of damage.

Let's add a third saying of Paul.

He wrote that in death everybody sinned. Romans 5.12

I have read that this verse has been mistranslated by Augustine, who didn't know Greek that well, as to mean that "in Adam all sinned". This translation is completely alien to the Greek speaking fathers, who read it differently. If I remember right, the fathers have read it "in which [death] all sinned", with the exception of St. Photius who proposed another reading "because all sinned". In other words, none read it to say "in which [Adam's sin] all sinned".

How do you read Romans 5.12?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The same way I read 1 Cor 15:22
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Ah, but traditional Orthodoxy would not object to death being introduced and reigning in all, even in Jesus Christ, through Adam. The question for our discussion here has to do with the relation between sin and death and whether all people have sinned in Adam or not!
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
In Hebrews 2.15, Paul writes:

And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Let's add that saying to our discussion.

One more thing:

Barnabas, I hope you don't mind me bringing an example from St. John Chrysostom's commentary on Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, about the passage you mentioned.

Just like in Adam all die, so will all in Christ live. What then? Tell me, everybody died in Adam the death of sin? Then how was Noah [found] righteous in his generation? And how [was] Abraham? And how [was] Job? How [were] all the rest? And what then does it mean that all will live in Christ? And where are those who will go to the Gehenna? If this word has been said concerning the body, it stands. If it has been said concerning justice and sin, it does not stand. So that after you hear the bringing to life to be common to all people, you won't think he means the sinners will be saved as well, he added: Each in his own order*. (translation mine)

[*order as in "the order of phoenix"]

[ 18. February 2008, 14:23: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas, you are being too agile and may be missing a point or two on the way. Let me slow you down. I will look at your argument and quote in due time. But first, do I take it that you concede that I have a consistent argument re the two Pauline quotes to which you referred earlier? That is an important step in the dialogue. Before widening the argument (which is what you are seeking to do), may we have a stock take please?

For I now believe you are shifting your ground from ground which you (rightly) were beginning to find uncomfortable.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I think your explanation is consistent, but there is a flaw in it, namely that Jesus Christ, in whom sin did not have any handle, died. If it was true that where no sin is, no death is either, then Christ wouldn't have died. If, on the other hand, our nature is blameless, but death is the result of the ancestral sin, then Christ, being of this earth, like we all do, was under the ancestral sin, and died the death we all die despite sin having no handle in him.

I think that it is important to take all of Paul into account, and this is why I gradually widen our focus to include more sayings of Paul regarding death and sin.

That said, please, do stop the discussion at whatever point you want to be clarified. If previous points need to get discussed further or if new questions or insights are born, then by all means say so!

[ 18. February 2008, 15:27: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Think I'll pm Father Gregory ...

In the meantime, here's a post of fr. Hrehory that might be relevant.

[ 18. February 2008, 15:50: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984
I think your explanation is consistent, but there is a flaw in it, namely that Jesus Christ, in whom sin did not have any handle, died. If it was true that where no sin is, no death is either, then Christ wouldn't have died.

But it is not a flaw from my POV. Jesus died because he was made sin, not because he was sinful.

This sin and death and Adam thing. I dug out this from Bishop Kallistos, which seems to make me both orthodox and Orthodox on this issue. Anyway, not Augustinian.

"For the Orthodox Tradition then, Adam's original sin affects the human race in its entirety, and it has consequences on both the physical and moral level: it results not only in sickness and physical death, but in moral weakness and paralysis". Tick from me.

"But does it also imply an inherited guilt? ...Original sin is not to be interpreted in juridical or quasi-biological terms, as if it were some physical 'taint' of guilt, transmitted through sexual intercourse." Tick from me

So I cannot see why Orthodoxy needs the "ontological" argument you were advancing - at least there is clearly one Orthodox bishop who doesn't need it. Anyway, taking that into account, here are some observations your quote from John Chrysostum.

First of all, I am really puzzled that you have quoted it! Noah did die, so did Job. I suppose it turns on what he really means by "the death of sin". Perhaps it is a kind of anti-Augustinian argument? But in any case, the main context is the general resurrection, of which Christ is the first fruit. Chrysostum seems to me to be pointing out, correctly, that in the Traditional understanding some will be raised for eternal bliss, some for eternal judgment. I think that is an argument against universal salvation, rather than the order of sin and death. But that's just the way it looks to me.

Back to where this interesting discussion came from, (whether the S. in PSA was Orthodox as the Wikipedia article indicated), I can't see the journey has proved anything. But I enjoyed the views!
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
Andreas, thank you for continuing to engage in this discussion. I appreciate that it is frustrating to you at times so thank you for working so hard to explain this all! I particularly admire the fact that what you are trying to do is show that there are two aspects of what Paul is saying, and we must try to make sense of both of them. I still think though that this means that whilst your view (death is overcome) can be subsumed into ours, you are not engaging with the biblical and patristic witness that sin also needs to be overcome in order to overcome death.

I agree that Augustine, much as I love him, mistranslated/perpetuated a mistranslation of Romans 5:12 (he did not know Greek). It is not that in Adam all sinned so much as in Adam all died, hence verse 15: the many died by the one trespass. So the distinction between ontological and chronological priority doesn't work here: had it not been for the trespass, there would not have been death.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Yes, Sean D. Very elegantly and graciously put; sums up my present understanding very well. And I echo your thanks.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I propose a resolution that I believe will accommodate us all ... but there is an Orthodox sting in the tail.

Death and sin are locked into a vicious circle downward into non-humanity/hell. Resurrection and deification are an upward "virtuous circle" into God.

Here's the sting ...

It's in the sequencing and, primarily, the initiation .... death leads to sin leads to death.

NOT ... sin leads to death leads to sin.

Now this is not pedantry for the crucial difference between us and animals is that we know that we shall die. Remember that the TEMPORARILY forbidden tree was the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. Death is corrupting both physically and spiritually. When death is destroyed sin loses its power for love has NOTHING to do with the fear of punishment (1 John 4:18) but rather has EVERYTHING to do with the undoing of death. That is why we can now eat BOTH of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil AND the tree of life. Prometheus has no place here. God is not peeved that we stole the goodies ... we just weren't READY for it in Eden. We hadn't grown up yet.

The law was to do with rewards and punishments. All it did was expose sin and bring death. Grace without the resurrection is absolutely impossible. That is the crucial difference between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox now.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Barnabas

I prefer working with primary sources. Bishop Callistos' works are secondary sources, while the works of the Orthodox Saints are primary sources for Orthodoxy. I wouldn't want to make a negative comment on him, because I appreciate his work, but do know that his work is not exactly uncontroversial. Of course, this can be said about theologians in general. There are theological fights going on, but I'm not so much interested in them as I am in what the Saints have to say.

Dear Sean D

I appreciate the time you take to explore things further here. This thread is long, and might become much longer, but I appreciate the opportunity to learn ourselves and each other better here.

I'd like to ask you to unpack a bit on your view on sin. What do you think the scriptural and patristic witness to be concerning sin?

Incidentally, a few posts ago, I presented with one patristic witness, John Chrysostom, who said that not all die the death of sin...

My view (a big portion thereof) can be shown in these posts here:

post 1

post 2

It seems that while I was taking a break from typing this post father Gregory made a reply.

I agree with what he wrote, and I would like to put some emphasis on his "not mature enough" view. It's only recently that I realized there is a consensus for that view of mankind, so I think it's important to point that out. In a sense, we are being created, we have not been created yet.

Thanks for this fascinating discussion. All of you.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Andreas

Yes, that "not mature enough" point really is vital. It represents the theodicy background of St. Irenaeus and the Greek fathers generally. It was the early tradition in the west as well until Augustinianism fully prevailed. Of course it is fully geared to a modern view of human development so why it is not more widely recognised and valued in the west I have no idea. Perhaps it is because the other view puts a premium on the psychological conflict vis-a-vis conversion, sola gratia etc. and that tradition is loathed to let go of that. Luther on the toilet 'n all that.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
It took me much time to understand this.

It was not until I read an almost full explanation of that view on a theological book that it all made sense. Then I was able to examine under that light many many Greek speaking Saints to realize that it was not a peculiarity of Saint Ireneus, but the consensus of the universal church...

In fact, even the controversy with Origen (fifth ecumenical council) can be seen under that light. Origen proposed that we have been created perfect and then fell, and then Jesus Christ comes to bring us back to the perfection from which we fell. He was condemned for that, because the church view was that we have not been created perfect, but immature. Even though the church thought the world we see today is not God's original creation (and you know how I feel about that), they said that the world God created was immature, even though death and pain did not exist in it, and still in need of the salvation of deification.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Think I'll take some time out to read Father G's online sermons.

I'm not that bothered about his sequences of sin-death-sin or death-sin-death; I have been intrigued for some time by the picture of Adam as innocent but immature. And I'm not Augustinian re sin as a "sexually transmitted" disease.

For years I've believed in the huge significance of Ezekiel's banning of the saying "The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge". But I also see the significance of Ezekiel's corollary "The soul that sins is the one which will die". So while I can see much merit in the Orthodox notion of all falling together and being raised together (i.e the church as a body, not just a collection of saved individuals), I do not think one can so easily discard both the OT and NT pictures of the significance of individual responses. Nonconformists do have a tendency to individualism, so I think all of this links together in my understanding of the significance of sin and death, of salvation and resurrection.

Anyway, that's a brief summary of where I'm at prior to this bit of hard work. I'll give this thread a miss for a couple of weeks or so - then come back to see where you've all been. The thread seems disinclined to die! Pause for thought ...
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
200,000 years ago a hominid of the modern sort paused over a kill in the East African plains. She thought to herself, "This animal is dead. I killed it." Stooping to look down, she felt a momentary pity for her supper. Then she remembered her father. An animal also killed in the hunt. Tears had failed to dislodge a certain bitterness in her heart for a father she never knew. She slit the animals throat and cursed the Great Spirit. Maybe she would find happiness tonight. Experience taught otherwise. She could remember. Worse still she could imagine. The dream of death would never leave her. A bloody sacrifice was always necessary and yet it never sufficed. Tomorrow would be the same.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
(breaks promise for two points, then I'm off)

Father G - yes I see the point

andreas - Romans 5:12.

Here is a blue letter bible link showing Textus Receptus and Westcott Hort Greek. I've looked at both carefully and don't get your translation point. Maybe you can enlighten me further?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Barnabas62

I have struck gold! I was hoping that John Meyendorff's essay on Original Sin might be online and it is, (excerpted from his book: "Byzantine Theology"). Here is the key extract about Romans 5:12. Scroll to the bottom for the link to much more contextual material.

quote:
The scriptural text, which played a decisive role in the polemics between Augustine and the Pelagians, is found in Romans 5:12 where Paul speaking of Adam writes, "As sin came into the world through one man and through sin and death, so death spreads to all men because all men have sinned [eph ho pantes hemarton]" In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt ("in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned"), and this translation was used in the West to justify the doctrine of guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek — the text read, of course, by the Byzantines. The form eph ho — a contraction of epi with the relative pronoun ho — can be translated as "because," a meaning accepted by most modern scholars of all confessional backgrounds.22 Such a translation renders Paul’s thought to mean that death, which is "the wages of sin" (Rm 6:23) for Adam, is also the punishment applied to those who like him sin. It presupposed a cosmic significance of the sin of Adam, but did not say that his descendants are "guilty" as he was unless they also sinned as he did.

A number of Byzantine authors, including Photius, understood the eph ho to mean "because" and saw nothing in the Pauline text beyond a moral similarity between Adam and other sinners in death being the normal retribution for sin. But there is also the consensus of the majority of Eastern Fathers, who interpret Romans 5:12 in close connection with 1 Corinthians 15:22 — between Adam and his descendants there is a solidarity in death just as there is a solidarity in life between the risen Lord and the baptized. This interpretation comes obviously from the literal, grammatical meaning of Romans 5:12. Eph ho, if it means "because," is a neuter pronoun; but it can also be masculine referring to the immediately preceding substantive thanatos ("death"). The sentence then may have a meaning, which seems improbable to a reader trained in Augustine, but which is indeed the meaning which most Greek Fathers accepted: "As sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, so death spread to all men; and because of death, all men have sinned..."

Mortality, or "corruption," or simply death (understood in a personalized sense), has indeed been viewed since Christian antiquity as a cosmic disease, which holds humanity under its sway, both spiritually and physically, and is controlled by the one who is "the murderer from the beginning" (Jn 8:44). It is this death, which makes sin inevitable and in this sense "corrupts" nature.

John Meyendorff Extracts
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Of course, this was my point in the story about the hominid.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thanks Father G. Basically I didn't understand the controversy, but I can see it now.

quote:
A number of Byzantine authors, including Photius, understood the eph ho to mean "because" and saw nothing in the Pauline text beyond a moral similarity between Adam and other sinners in death being the normal retribution for sin.
I think that is pretty much where I was (emboldened bits). I'll reflect on this during my time off.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
The controversy has to do with whether we are still created "very good", like Adam did, or we have our natures flawed or tainted by birth.

The Orthodox went with saying that our sin is always personal, like our ancestors' sin was theirs alone (hence we speak of ancestral sin). In this sense babies are not sinners, but innocent and very good, with the potential of remaining sinless (like Panagia did) or sinning (like the rest of us did). It's a matter of personal choice, it does not have to do with our nature.

In that text by Meyendorff (grrrrr... again a secondary source; I don't like that!) it is said that "Patriarch Photius even goes so far as to say, referring to Western doctrines, that the belief in a “sin of nature” is a heresy." Of course it is, but who realizes that nowadays?

For the Orthodox fathers nature is always blameless. It remained blameless after the ancestral sin. Our free will is to blame if we choose sin over virtue, not our nature.
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Now this is not pedantry for the crucial difference between us and animals is that we know that we shall die. Remember that the TEMPORARILY forbidden tree was the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. Death is corrupting both physically and spiritually. When death is destroyed sin loses its power for love has NOTHING to do with the fear of punishment (1 John 4:18) but rather has EVERYTHING to do with the undoing of death. That is why we can now eat BOTH of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil AND the tree of life. Prometheus has no place here. God is not peeved that we stole the goodies ... we just weren't READY for it in Eden. We hadn't grown up yet.

Wow. Will have to reflect on this a bit more... but I really like it e.g. the potential for reconciliation between evolution and theology.

I think what I was struggling with in Andreas's explanation was that it sounded as if the fact that humanity was going to die, led us to sin. I found that hard to square with Paul. Yet I do agree that at the beginning, human immortality was conditional rather than absolute. That is, it depended on being able to continue to partake of the tree of life, rather than being an inherent attribute of humanity. So I guess what one could say is that death was potentially present prior to sin (hence I concede Andreas's 'ontologically prior', if this is what is meant by it). Death was not actually prior, nor was it inevitable (had humanity not sinned, they would have continued to enjoy the tree of life until Christ had come and led the creation to completion).

Perhaps so far so good although perhaps Orthodoxy holds that death would have been inevitable (that is the impression I get from Fr Gregory's posts but I could be misinterpreting here). If so, that I would struggle with a great deal. I think what I also struggle with though is the idea that it is the ontological priority of death that causes sin. Is it that we sin in order to try and secure life for ourselves? Could you explain that a bit more, ideally (since I am a pietistic sort of soul) in biblical terms?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

For the Orthodox fathers nature is always blameless. It remained blameless after the ancestral sin. Our free will is to blame if we choose sin over virtue, not our nature.

There's this guy called Paul - you should read him sometime ... I think he would shed some light on this debate. [Big Grin]

For example Romans 6 - he is VERY clear about freedom there. Humanity is divided into two camps - either we are slaves to sin or slaves to God. The whole point of the chapter is that there is no middle 'free' position.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
There's this guy called Paul - you should read him sometime ... I think he would shed some light on this debate. [Big Grin]

Interesting you mention Paul. You see, the Greek speaking fathers wrote tons of pages commenting all of his epistles while Augustine, if I remember right, he only made commentaries for one* and a half** of his epistles. Yet somehow he became this huge expert on Paul...

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
For example Romans 6 - he is VERY clear about freedom there. Humanity is divided into two camps - either we are slaves to sin or slaves to God. The whole point of the chapter is that there is no middle 'free' position.

You are using a text which Paul himself says he writes it that way because he speaks to spiritual babies, and not grown up men, and calls it spiritual milk and not solid food, and then you take Paul's word's on slavery literally... Dear Lord!

God does not want slaves, but sons, and the whole point of the Economia is for us to finally become what we are called to be, sons of God.

That said, and to speak in Paul's terms, enslaving yourself either to sin or to God presupposes your own personal free will. You enslave yourself to either God or sin. You. And that you means your free and personal will. It's not a "middle" position, but what makes Paul's use of words possible in the first place. It's what makes the gospel possible. You were sinners, Paul says. Now choose to leave all that behind you. Make a choice. Follow Christ and stop living the way you did. Get the new life Christ offers.

*Galatians, which is not that long an epistle...
**think it's a small part of Romans, not even half of the epistle

[Incidentally, Barnabas, the misinterpretation of Romans 5.12 referring to Adam's sin is said to begin with... Origen! Interesting how the Origenistic controversy pops in again...]

[ 19. February 2008, 11:10: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Sean

quote:
Is it that we sin in order to try and secure life for ourselves? Could you explain that a bit more, ideally (since I am a pietistic sort of soul) in biblical terms?
In my hominid story the huntress is corrupted by her fear of death and her anger at the deity who let her father die. Here is a key text ... noteworthy of course because the death of Christ is massively important in Hebrews ...

quote:
Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. (Hebrews 2:14-15)
Human sin is a voluntary and case by case submission of either terror or evasion from the legacy of death as a conscious and God-alienating awareness. This is why the law is important ... it attempts to deal with this corruption by constraining our relationship with God in the cult ... that is, sealed by blood sacrifice. The death and resurrection of Christ overturns all that and puts the initiative for resolving the impasse of death on God's side. The whole purpose of the incarnation was to undo death ... and, therefore, deal with sin's root.
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
Thank you. I think though that what I am looking for though is something that draws a stronger connection between the possibility of death, and sin. That is, the text from Hebrews shows that fear of death is a slavery, but not really that the slavery in question is the same as that of sin. So whilst I can agree that the death and resurrection of Christ overcomes death, what I am still unsure of is why that overcomes sin.

I guess what I am saying is that I don't accept your definition that sin is

quote:
a voluntary and case by case submission of either terror or evasion from the legacy of death as a conscious and God-alienating awareness.
The archetype of sin in Genesis 3 seems to be much more to do with a refusal to trust God when he says that you will die IF you do this. Quite the opposite in other words: I will do this and I will not die, instead of, I will do this, because I am afraid I am going to die.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Sean

The basic temptation was to try and have the power over death apart from God. That was what the serpent intimated. He had insinuated the consciousness of death (as a possibility at this stage) engendering fear and an impassioned resort to exclusion against God. The serpent makes God out to be a peeved deity who won't share the goodies with humanity .... which is precisely the Promethean myth. Basically, it's jealousy of a make believe God ... a reflection of the devil's own hubris. What it is not is a mere "keep off the grass."
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Sean D

I'm pretty much where you are at. As part of my reading programme, I found this on Fr Gregory's website, and in view of recent questions, I thought it might be an informative read. I'm still puzzling over it myself. It is intriguing, as I said before.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think I might as well post this preliminary question as well. From the link above I find this excerpt.

quote:
Likewise, the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise and the angel standing guard with the flaming sword is not an act of divine retribution but a compassionate and merciful provision lest we eat of the second tree, the Tree of Life, and die eternally. The fruit of this tree, if we had eaten it, would have condemned us forever.
What Genesis 3 v 22 says is
this - Blue letter Bible, giving AV Hebrew and Septuagint.

These two statements seems to contradict.

[ 20. February 2008, 08:28: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Great, more secondary sources [Razz]

If man at that state became immortal, this would mean the perpetuation of a sad state with no potential of salvation. Our mortality is a great opportunity, and the fact that we can be forgiven is connected with our mortality. Demons do not repent and angels do not sin, yet men can repent and get forgiven exactly because we are mortal. I think that's what fr. Gregory means, but we will wait for him to clarify.

Getting created mortal with a potential of deification is what the Greek speaking fathers taught, and it is fully compatible with Genesis.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Well, here's the Patristic comment from the same link.

quote:
Listen to St. John Chrysostom:-

"Partaking of the tree, the man and woman became liable to death and subject to the future needs of the body. Adam was no longer permitted to remain in the Garden, and was bidden to leave, a move by which God showed His love for him … he had become mortal, and lest he presume to eat further from the tree which promised an endless life of continuous sinning, he was expelled from the Garden as a mark of divine solicitude, not of necessity."

[Hom. in Gen XVIII, 3 PG 53 151]

Whereas Genesis says simply "unless he eat, and live for ever".

I don't think Chrysostum makes things any better.

Here is an issue I see for the understanding that death is the progenitor of sin, coupled with the immaturity of Adam. If Adam eats the Tree of Life he is freed again from the curse of death. So his sin of immaturity will not be repeated. He will have learned from his mistake. And his immortality will free him from future sinful tendencies. His eating of the Tree of Life will free him from the curse of death and the temptation towards an endless life of sin. Solution, not problem! And in contradiction to Chrysostum's forecast of an endless life of sinning.

You don't get that problem with the other explanation. The Tree of Life really is a danger to Adam because of his sin - if he eats of that he really is condemned to an endless life of sinning. Freedom from the power of death doesn't cure his sinful nature. And if not for him, then not for us. I don't think you can have "special rule" for Adam. For as "in Adam" all die.

Anyway, all of this may just be my ignorance. It is just the way things look. And I appreciate the dangers of pushing the logic of these Creation stories too far.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So his sin of immaturity will not be repeated.

On the contrary, he will lose the potential of becoming mature! It's not the sin of his immaturity the problem here. It's the way he walked in his immaturity.

In his immaturity he could walk the way to maturity, by entering a dialog with God. The whole creation in Orthodoxy is seen as a logos of God, to which man is to respond with another logos into a dialogos. Creation is the dialogos of God and man, it is not something fixed. We are being created, we are not created yet. So, our response has an effect in our creation.

Instead of Adam getting mature through that dialog (and getting eventually created) he chose the opposite way.

It's not the sin he made that was the problem. It was not irreparable. In fact, for Orthodoxy God asking Adam where he is and what he did and why he did it was God giving a chance to Adam and Eve to get back in a constructive relationship with him.

For the Orthodox, were Adam to say "God, I sinned. Eve is innocent, I am to blame. Forgive Eve." or Eve "God, I am to blame. Forgive Adam. He is not to blame" God would have forgiven them and embraced them and the sin would not be an issue.

But they chose a different way. "The woman You gave me is to blame" and "the serpent is to blame" leads to them not being able to accept God's forgiveness and God. They chose a way apart from God and God can't overrule their freedom.

Their response shows that they did not want to give place in their hearts for the other. I did nothing wrong. The woman. And you gave her to me, so you are to blame. I did nothing wrong. The serpent. And I don't care about Adam.

Loving each other, living in each other, like the three divine persons live in each other would have been their redemption...
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
I find that to be contradictory. If the point of the incarnation, cross and resurrection is to deal with death - not with sin, why not just allow us to eat of the tree of life? That would overcome death. But clearly it would not overcome sin. Hence Christ's life, death and resurrection must have to do with overcoming sin not only by overcoming death but by tackling sin head-on as well, surely?

Fr Gregory, I appreciate your explanation. I understand the concept a little better now, I think. What I am still uncomfortable with is the biblical basis for it. As yet I don't see where Scripture suggests that it was the fear of death that prompted sin - if anything it is a lack of proper fear of the death which God warned of when he forbade Adam to eat the fruit.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think I might as well post this preliminary question as well. From the link above I find this excerpt.
quote:
Likewise, the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise and the angel standing guard with the flaming sword is not an act of divine retribution but a compassionate and merciful provision lest we eat of the second tree, the Tree of Life, and die eternally. The fruit of this tree, if we had eaten it, would have condemned us forever.
What Genesis 3 v 22 says is
this - Blue letter Bible, giving AV Hebrew and Septuagint.
These two statements seems to contradict.

I'm sort of amazed at this idea from Ireneus, since this is precisely what the New Church teaches.

The contradiction with the words of the text is explained when you consider the context.

The context of the statement is that Adam and Eve have sinned and disobeyed God, which they were told would cause them to die. The imagery of them then taking of the Tree of Life and living forever implies that they would live despite being in disobedience and opposition to God. In other words it means that they would persist in their disobedience - a state of living death, since no one can live apart from God. Or another way to see it is that they would become gods in their own right - independent of, and opposed to, God Himself, an impossible state and one that is consistently called "death" in the Bible.

So "live forever" really means "die forever", or to live forever in a state of living death, which is hell. Ezekiel put is this way:
quote:
Ezekiel 13:18 You hunt souls for My people, and you keep souls alive for yourselves, and have desecrated Me among My people, to slay souls that will not die, and to keep alive souls that will not live.
There is much more to the explanation, but it only makes sense if you accept the idea that Adam and Eve were not literal individuals. Instead, according to this idea, they represented our earliest ancestors taken collectively for the purpose of giving an account of humanity's spiritual history. Myths and legends were the ancient way of describing and handing down these kinds of concepts.

So the expulsion from the Garden was a merciful act, protecting Adam and Eve from "living death."
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
I find that to be contradictory. If the point of the incarnation, cross and resurrection is to deal with death

Oh no, the point of the Incarnation is NOT to deal with death... The Incarnation takes place Fall or not Fall... The point of the Incarnation lies in us becoming what God is. This is the potential of the Incarnation that we all become by grace what God is by nature.

Man, to quote Saint Maximus the Confessor, is potentially infinite, potentially uncreated, potentially eternal...

As we walk our way to maturity God allows us to become Gods. In the Incarnation creation is received into God, God enters creation to deify creation and we get the potential of becoming what Jesus Christ is.

The death of Christ might deal with death, but that's not the point for the Incarnation.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You are using a text which Paul himself says he writes it that way because he speaks to spiritual babies, and not grown up men, and calls it spiritual milk and not solid food, and then you take Paul's word's on slavery literally... Dear Lord!

God does not want slaves, but sons, and the whole point of the Economia is for us to finally become what we are called to be, sons of God.

Of course Paul is using 'slave' as a metaphor - He makes that point explicitly in verse 19. No one takes that literally. However, it is a metaphor of something, something which you are either completely ignoring or twisting to fit your systematic theology.

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
That said, and to speak in Paul's terms, enslaving yourself either to sin or to God presupposes your own personal free will. You enslave yourself to either God or sin. You. And that you means your free and personal will. It's not a "middle" position, but what makes Paul's use of words possible in the first place. It's what makes the gospel possible. You were sinners, Paul says. Now choose to leave all that behind you. Make a choice. Follow Christ and stop living the way you did. Get the new life Christ offers.

Have you read Romans 6? The 'slavery' metaphor of the second half of the chapter balances the 'united with Christ' picture in the first half.

Whatever 'slavery' to sin --> 'slavery to God' means it must be analagous to dying and rising with Christ.

Why watch TV when you have the entertainment of watching Andreas try to draw 'choice' out of death and resurrection? Dead people don't choose anything, and they certainly cannot 'choose' to rise again.

[ 20. February 2008, 10:22: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Is it not the case that for Christ to save us, death in both the physical and the spiritual sense must be dealt with?

I can only really make sense of Genesis if eating (prematurely if you like, I accept the Orthodox argument here) of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil causes spiritual death - separation from God and a dead end as far as theosis goes, and then we are barred from the Tree of Life not as a kind of accidental consequence but as a deliberate act of mercy by God and a first step in our redemption because eating of it would have resulted in physical or eternal or existential immortality, and that combined with spiritual death is Hell.

That being the case I just can't see the argument that Christ's victory is over physical/existential death. That would just be allowing access to the Tree of Life without resolving the spiritual death and as Barnabas asks, why bar it in the first place? It seems to me that it must be the spiritual death - sin - that Christ dealt with on the Cross thereby opening the way for the bar to the Tree of Life to be removed.

Orthodox thoughts on the matter greatly appreciated.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Is it not the case that for Christ to save us, death in both the physical and the spiritual sense must be dealt with?

I think we need to examine what salvation means.

For the Orthodox salvation is union with God, God's presence. And God's presence, which deifies us, is not something man can get by himself. This is why Pelagianism has nothing to do with Orthodoxy. Even a mature Adam, an Adam that did not fall but walked the way to maturity, still needs to "get saved" by the Incarnation.

It is the limitation that being created comes with, that is lifted (as a potential for us all) in the Incarnation.

Since we have not inherited a spiritual death from Adam, sin is not the big problem. If we sin, we can repent and ask for forgiveness. God will forgive. But even when we are forgiven we remain humans. We need the next step towards becoming sons of God and this is where the Incarnation comes to play.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

The imagery of them then taking of the Tree of Life and living forever implies that they would live despite being in disobedience and opposition to God. In other words it means that they would persist in their disobedience - a state of living death, since no one can live apart from God.

Yes, Freddy, but if eating the Tree of Life is the cure for death (and thereby the cure for sin - see earlier arguments) then they would not persist in their disobedience and opposition. Freed from the threat of death, they would see instantly the error of their ways.

The alternative is that sin really is the "deadliness" of death. Freedom from the threat of physical death does not cure sin. The Tree of Life is only bad news if sin persists despite immortality. Then it is precisely the bad news to which you point.

That central issue has been on the table for the last page or so of this thread.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Is it not the case that for Christ to save us, death in both the physical and the spiritual sense must be dealt with?

I think we need to examine what salvation means.

For the Orthodox salvation is union with God, God's presence. And God's presence, which deifies us, is not something man can get by himself. This is why Pelagianism has nothing to do with Orthodoxy. Even a mature Adam, an Adam that did not fall but walked the way to maturity, still needs to "get saved" by the Incarnation.

This is straw man argument against Pelagius. He was arguing against Augustine's new doctrine of Original Sin in which we are born damned, estranged from God, born sinful, unable to turn to God without free will and so on - we cannot judge Pelagius' beliefs outside of this context.

For example, Pelagius did not believe we had lost God's grace and so Augustinian arguments that we need God's grace to do good is meaningless to him, it's obvious we, he said, that we are able not to sin because God wouldn't have given us the commandments otherwise.

You deny Christ's teaching, 'if you would enter into life keep the commandments' and so on, by bringing in incarnational theology into an argument Pelagius wasn't having.

The council of Orange instigated by Augustinians was specifically against those like Cassian who argued that we have a synergistic relationship re free will and God, the same Orthodox position we hold today, it confirms Augustine that we have no free will to do good. That Cassian and others believed Pelagius was saying we don't need grace is to argue from the Augustinian view against Pelagius who criticised OS for presenting something that had no precedent in the Church, that is, a non-existent grace in the first place.

That Augustinians and confused synergists like Cassian brought their weight against Pelagius and had him declared a heretic through political clout is no reason for us doing the same. Pelagius was cleared by two Church councils and Augustine's doctrines found flawed. That much we know.

How would you argue against such a novel idea as Augustine's? To deny that we need such a 'grace' to do good? To support Augustinians who claimed that Pelagius denied we need grace is to get trapped in their reasoning. Pelagius was denying the whole of OS which created a new relationship with God of an already damned and estranged automaton humanity. That is not the Church's teaching and Pelagius was arguing for the Church.


Myrrh

Here's some Augustinian arguments against Pelagius: (OS against Pelagius)
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Myrrh

We have available a history on Orange and the Christianity of that region, and nowhere is Augustine mentioned. On the contrary, the Christians who lived there were influenced by the spirit of Saint Basil's monasticism via Saint Cassian.

Augustine's influence as far as original sin is concerned, I feel, came much later, when the Franks knew Christianity via Augustine.

Anyway, that's historical speculation from my part.

While Augustine was mistaken, so was Pelagius. I am astonished as to why you defend him, especially since we don't have much of what he wrote available. But then, we have available pieces quoted in the works of those who wrote against him, and you might agree with those parts, I don't know.

It's been a long time since I last read those anti-Pelagian works, so I can't remember exactly what he wrote. If you insist, I could re-examine them.

As for my part, I accept Cassian's explanation that Pelagius was a Nestorian and that's why he was condemned by the same ecumenical council that condemned Nestorius himself.

What is salvation? What is Grace? God. God's presence. Can man in isolation from God attain that? No. In fact, there can be no pure isolation from God, because he is the very foundation for our being. Only non-being is isolated from God. Everything that is partakes to some extent to God.

So, to consciously and fully partake in God we need two partners. God and man. God to be present, and man to be present in and with God.

Let's say Adam never fell. And let's say that he became mature. He still would not be God. He still would not be what Jesus Christ is. To be able to become what Jesus Christ is, the Incarnation is needed. Do you disagree with this? If you do, on what basis?

Would you mind us continuing discussing Pelagius on a different thread?

P.S. a) Was Cassian condemned by name by anyone? Who would have dared such a thing?
b) I would have dealt with Augustine's mistakes differently... I would bring the same arguments the ninth ecumenical council brought against his teachings (although they were not aware at the time that they were his!)
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yes, Freddy, but if eating the Tree of Life is the cure for death (and thereby the cure for sin - see earlier arguments) then they would not persist in their disobedience and opposition.

I see. Is there really any biblical reason to see the Tree of Life as the cure for sin? Certainly the leaves of the Tree are for the healing of the nations, but we are speaking of its fruit.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Freddy

The issue is why should eating the fruit of that Tree be dangerous to Adam? What is clear from the Genesis story is that if you eat the fruit of it, you will live forever. This must not be allowed, says God in the Garden.

Now andreas and Fr Gregory are arguing that the primary cause of sin in all people since Adam is death. Here is Fr G.'s earlier post quoting John Meyendorff's essay, which says this.

quote:
Mortality, or "corruption," or simply death (understood in a personalized sense), has indeed been viewed since Christian antiquity as a cosmic disease, which holds humanity under its sway, both spiritually and physically, and is controlled by the one who is "the murderer from the beginning" (Jn 8:44). It is this death, which makes sin inevitable and in this sense "corrupts" nature.
And andreas argues that death is "ontologically" prior to sin and says this is how the Fathers in Orthodoxy teach it.

So it seems not at all unreasonable to argue that on basis of these claims the Tree of Life is a solution to sin. Take away death and according to Meyendorff you take away the inevitability of sin and the corruption of nature. Eating the fruit of the Tree of Life gives eternal life and removes the propensity to sin again on the basis of these claims

Chrysostum's argument however, also quoted, says the consequence of eating the Tree of Life will be endless sinning. But that statement is inconsistent with death being ontologically prior to sin and it is also inconsistent with the Meyendorff statement. It is of course consistent at least in part with an Augustinian view of Original Sin and the Fall. But it almost seems rude to point that out.

Anyway, I hope this makes my understanding of the argument clear. It's not the only one, I guess!
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Errr... Adam already was "in sin". The difference is made by the fact that the people that are born in Adam are not born "in sin". No "Original sin", just "Ancestral Sin"...

What does afflict creation? Pain, suffering, death. This is the great problem. And not sin, because we are born like Adam was created and we are free to choose, and even when we sin, we can choose to repent. But death cannot be undone. (well, it was not possible for death to be undone, till the Resurrection)

Were God to "eternalize" Adam, Adam would have become like Satan, because eternalization means that one does not change his attitude towards God. (Which is why in the eschata the wicked will be in hell, and the righteous in paradise; no change of heart will take place.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Errr... Adam already was "in sin".

Which makes no difference to the efficacy of the Tree of Life. On the basis of your own argument.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I don't get it. I spoke of death being the cause for sin, not for life undoing sin.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Barnabas62

The Tree of Life is not a "saving tree" .... it is simply the tree of immortality. To eat of that IN SIN would indeed be ETERNAL damnation. Better to die and be denied access temporarily to Paradise so that salvation history might proceed from Eve to Mary and from Adam to Christ. Since the Incarnation ... and through to ... the Ascension / Gift of the Spirit ... the door of Eden has been reopened. This is, however, a new Eden with the desired fruit of theosis. The serpent wasn't wrong about the promise of being like God ... he deceived about the way that was to be achieved. That's the thing about the devil, he hooks you with half a truth (just like the heresies).
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Father G

Of course it isn't a saving tree! I know that. But that has not been my point. You have been consistently arguing that death causes sin. I'm simply pointing out an apparent consequence of that argument. It leads to an absurdity.

I think Greyface expressed it well here.

quote:
Is it not the case that for Christ to save us, death in both the physical and the spiritual sense must be dealt with?

I can only really make sense of Genesis if eating (prematurely if you like, I accept the Orthodox argument here) of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil causes spiritual death - separation from God and a dead end as far as theosis goes, and then we are barred from the Tree of Life not as a kind of accidental consequence but as a deliberate act of mercy by God and a first step in our redemption because eating of it would have resulted in physical or eternal or existential immortality, and that combined with spiritual death is Hell.

That being the case I just can't see the argument that Christ's victory is over physical/existential death. That would just be allowing access to the Tree of Life without resolving the spiritual death and as Barnabas asks, why bar it in the first place?

Now there is very likely a misunderstanding here and I'm happy to accept it is all mine! My arithmetic in on the table. Please get out your red pencil.

[ 20. February 2008, 16:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
So it's the significance of physical death you are talking about in the salvation schema?

OK. Death is not good but it is preferable to eternal damnation.

The resurrection addresses both. Spiritual death (eternal damnation) is extinguished for Christ has dealt with sin. Physical death has no more dominion over us for Christ is risen.

We must be saved also from that which FORMERLY was necessary to protect us ... and so we may eat from the Tree of life for death (both physical and spiritual) is no more.

I really don't see the problem.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
So it's the significance of physical death you are talking about in the salvation schema?

Not me. You - or to be completely accurate John Meyendorff and you. Here is the Meyendorff quote again

quote:
Mortality, or "corruption," or simply death (understood in a personalized sense), has indeed been viewed since Christian antiquity as a cosmic disease, which holds humanity under its sway, both spiritually and physically, and is controlled by the one who is "the murderer from the beginning" (Jn 8:44). It is this death, which makes sin inevitable and in this sense "corrupts" nature.
And you said in an earlier post

quote:
Human sin is a voluntary and case by case submission of either terror or evasion from the legacy of death as a conscious and God-alienating awareness.
Which makes human sin subordinate to the legacy of death, by any reasonable interpretation. I think I might be forgiven the speculation. Take away the legacy of death and where are the causes of sin?

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:

The resurrection addresses both. Spiritual death (eternal damnation) is extinguished for Christ has dealt with sin. Physical death has no more dominion over us for Christ is risen.

That is common to all of us - the issue on which we disagree is how Christ has dealt with sin. But your quoted statement is in no way dependent on any particular relationship between sin and death.

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:

I really don't see the problem.

The problem was originally created by your explanation (and andreas') that there was something both distinctive and significant in the way the Orthodox saw the relationship (both historical and ontological) between sin and death. Well, after this canter round the course, I really don't see the significance!

But what the heck! We appear to have ended up with substantial agreement on essentials. That'll do for me.

[ 20. February 2008, 16:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Take away the legacy of death and where are the causes of sin?

Are you suggesting that sin will carry on after death has been crashed? Because as far as I can tell, the end of death will mean the end of sin as well (and of Satan's affecting the rest of creation)...

ETA: This blog post might be worth reading. Grrrr. Yet another secondary source.

By the way, I drop my use of the term "ontological" since they are not actual onta (beings)... I will just change that for cause-effect relation.

[ 20. February 2008, 17:55: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas, I'm not trying to tell you anything. I've just been trying to make sense out of what you and Father G have been telling me.

There is a promise in scripture in Rev 21, that there will be a time and a place when and where there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away. But even then and there, there will be some who experience "the second death" in a fiery lake. Who am I to speak for their eternal state of mind? (Actually, I really don't know what to make of that last bit, but it doesn't bother me greatly.)
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
After that ironic twist, with the "second death" reference from the Revelation, I'd like to ask you guys to explain a bit what you mean by substitutionary atonement.

If Jesus substituted us on the Cross, does this mean we were to get crucified? If Jesus' death is substitutionary, then why do we still die? Was God expecting something from us, something we wouldn't give, so Christ had to substitute for us? What was that? And why was a substitution necessary? How it works?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Now andreas and Fr Gregory are arguing that the primary cause of sin in all people since Adam is death.

Having read the posts since you posted this, I just want to add that this argument, however andreas and Fr. Gregory mean it, or don't mean it, is unrelated to my own reasons for keeping Adam and Eve away from the Tree of Life.

I hope that no one actually thinks that we are talking about literal magic trees in a literal magic garden with a talking snake, animals individually named by Adam, and a God that walks around in it.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Now andreas and Fr Gregory are arguing that the primary cause of sin in all people since Adam is death.

Having read the posts since you posted this, I just want to add that this argument, however andreas and Fr. Gregory mean it, or don't mean it, is unrelated to my own reasons for keeping Adam and Eve away from the Tree of Life.

I hope that no one actually thinks that we are talking about literal magic trees in a literal magic garden with a talking snake, animals individually named by Adam, and a God that walks around in it.

Thought so Freddy, hence my post. And I think we agree on your last para as well. We're sifting truth from Creation stories, is all.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas

Substitutionary atonement? I posted this a while back in the thread. Would you like to start there? Or re-start?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I skimmed through the Wikipedia article.

I'd like to discuss substitutionary atonement with you.

Is it your view that God expected us to do something to get atoned, but we wouldn't do it, and Christ did something instead of us, in our place? Or God expected us to do something we couldn't do? And why expect us to do something we can't do in the first place?

If I understand the Wikipedia article right, the reason why substitutionary atonement is incompatible with Orthodoxy is because for us Orthodox salvation is Jesus Christ Himself, the Godman, Divinity entering and taking upon itself creation, the mingling of the two, or rather the assumption of creation unto the Godhead. I know I said it before, but this is why don't see works as bringing salvation, because we only see God's presence bringing salvation.

It seems to me a strange construct: First men cannot do meritorious works, and salvation does not come through works, but then Christ does a work that is meritorious and brings salvation through works! A very strange construct...

Also strange is the focus on the Cross as if that was the whole point for the Incarnation... While the Orthodox see death being dealt on the Cross, and Love being manifested to the entire creation through the Cross, we believe the deifying potential to come through the Incarnation itself and get sealed with the Resurrection...

Please guide me if I mistook the whole thing.

[ 20. February 2008, 19:29: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Amen to that Andreas.

Freddy ... after demythologising let's reconsttruct a meaning. I am, of course, going to follow the Orthodox interpretation.

What is it that we find ourselves outside in the condition of sin and death?

For Eden read a creation in intimate communion with God. This is why the anthropomorphisms are important in Genesis 2. It reflects that intimacy .... soon to be lost. What is NOT lost in human freedom ... even after the expulsion.

Back in the Garden, what to make of ...

(1) The snake? .... ancient primal fear of the mammal toward the reptile .... this could go back a LONG way in the archetypes of the psyche. The meaning though concerns the temptations we feel to use our freedom for autonomy from and not intimacy with God. There is no possibility of deification without God.

(2) The tree of the knowledge of good and evil? .... sacred trees are as old as, well, Adam! Fecundity, synergy between the animal and plant worlds ... again, an ancient archetype. The meaning? The fruit of moral discrimination .... the sort that is in the image of God in us and the freedom to choose the good. WITH GOD eating this tree is fine ... BUT first we must not eat ... that is we must learn to grow in intimacy with God so that our maturity will match the gift. It's a bit like a child not experimenting with matches. When you have an intimate knowledge of matches, THEN you can "play."

(3) The tree of life. Once intimacy with God is established with God in maturity we are ready to taste of the tree of life for we already by then have life (God) and the longed for process of deification can begin in earnest.

All of this could have happened in "Eden" but primal man messed up by trying for deification without God. From that point death was necessary to halt the decline into damnable permanence. With death destroyed in the resurrection and God and humanity reunited (deification) repentance is the only gateway to theosis and "Eden" returns ... but with new "flowers."

What does it REALLY mean though to say that "death is destroyed"? We still die after all. Consider St. Lazarus ... the one who died twice! The first raising proleptically placed Lazarus in a different plane of being. He got kingdomised (!) so that although he had to die again, his second death was swallowed up in the victory of Christ and he had and has the life of Paradise. His immortality therefore was conditional on Christ's own resurrection and that happens both in and DESPITE this world which must eventually dissolve away for the New Creation fully to be born. (You can speculate about the Big Bang and the possible Big Crunch if you like at this. It's not necessary but it is entertaining).
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Damn the time limit on the edits!

In the penultimate paragraph for "deification" read "Incarnation." I lost the subject orientation of that sentence, which, of course is Christ. The EFFECT of that though (as Andreas said) is the possibility of deification for us, (St. Athanasios .... at last Andreas ... a primary source! [Razz] [Smile]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It seems to me a strange construct: First men cannot do meritorious works, and salvation does not come through works, but then Christ does a work that is meritorious and brings salvation through works! A very strange construct...

You haven't quite got Protestantism yet Andreas.

The construct that is usually opposed to Christ's work is the natural human desire to try to reach salvation by good works - which is not seen as a good thing but rather a form of idolatry from which we need to be saved. Like you we think that salvation is something God does for us in Christ.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Freddy ... after demythologising let's reconsttruct a meaning. I am, of course, going to follow the Orthodox interpretation.

I agree with your approach. I will explain the New Church version, which is somewhat similar.
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
For Eden read a creation in intimate communion with God. This is why the anthropomorphisms are important in Genesis 2.

Yes, that's it. Eden is the intimate communion with God enjoyed by the people of the Golden Age.

The trees are the things they know, the animals are the things they feel. Everything is in perfect harmony.

The serpent, however, is the very lowest kinds of feelings, the sense impressions themselves. The impulse to obey the suggestions of the senses gradually had an influence on the earliest people.

To eat of all the trees but not the Tree of Knowledge meant that it was good to know things from God, but not good to think from the senses apart from God. To eat of that tree meant to want to understand good and evil from themselves and to prioritize the knowledge learned through the senses ahead of that learned from God. This, of course, is what the serpent wants.

Having eaten this, the Tree of Life becomes dangerous. The reason that it is dangerous is that more than anything else in the Garden this tree represents communion with God and the reception of His life. But the desire to become wise apart from God is fundamentally incompatible with what that tree is. The tree would therefore torture and destroy the person, because God's intimate presence would be unbearable to the person and they would perish in eternal death.

The meaning of the person then being protected by being sent out of the Garden is that to the extent that anyone eats of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil they are simply unable to grasp the intimate knowledge that the Tree of Life represents. It is walled off from them.

The one to break down the wall, or provide the way through it, is Christ. This is why this is the point when the first messianic prophecy is given.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I don't think I'll be able to contribute much from now on, because classes will take much of my time. So, I'd like to thank all for the discussion. It has been quite revealing, and I got to understand things better as a result of it!

I'd also like to make a few short notes...

First of all, I'd like to say that this sounds like the sola fide issue to me. I have heard that the only time the Scriptures mention "faith alone", is to say that through faith alone man will not be saved. Something like that it seems to me to be the issue of why Christ died. In Hebrews 12 (a chapter mentioned earlier) it is said that since we die, Christ died as well, to destroy the one who uses the power of death, Satan.

Satan uses death to lead to sin to lead to death (to echo fr. Gregory). Of course, this is conditioned on man's free will. So, with the death and resurrection of Christ, we are shown not to be afraid, and if we want, we can follow Jesus Christ showing no regard for death. The whole point of course is to be able to freely choose Jesus Christ who presents us with a positive way of living.

Secondly, I think that it is very probable that the differences between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox Christians stem from a different view on what salvation is and how man gets saved (per hesychastic councils). Salvation does not come through God's works, because it is not a work. Rather, it is the presence of God in a humble and loving heart. God appears, and a humble heart mellows and experience joy, peace, and wholeness. Joy, peace and wholeness not of this world, that is.

It's not an issue of works, which is why substitution is meaningless. It is an issue of love and Love, and on the Cross we can see God's Love manifested. Because He has proved to be meek and gentle and loving and humble. Which is why the meek, the gentle, the loving and the humble can receive Him. Blessed they are, truly!

Was there anything else I would like to say? I don't remember... Anyway. Gaudete! Jesus Christ has been born! Walk the Way and fear not. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I'll be off line for a couple of days. All the best with the studies, andreas.

You are right to emphasise love. Greater love has no-one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Substitution needs more unpacking, but only in the shadow of that agreed overarching understanding. Later.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Freddy

Spot on from an Orthodox point of view. Your reconstruction is much more lucid than mine. We do have differences of course, (especially on the Trinity), but here (again) we are one. [Smile]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Dear Myrrh

We have available a history on Orange and the Christianity of that region, and nowhere is Augustine mentioned. On the contrary, the Christians who lived there were influenced by the spirit of Saint Basil's monasticism via Saint Cassian.

Andreas - I really can't understand how you get to this. It was a council called by Augustinians, those who believed in his basic Original Sin doctrine, against the semi-Pelagianism of those like Cassian. This is well known in the Augustinian West.

(The Canons of the Second Council of Orange
(529)Dennis Bratcher, ed.
)



quote:
Augustine's influence as far as original sin is concerned, I feel, came much later, when the Franks knew Christianity via Augustine.

Anyway, that's historical speculation from my part.

Not so, Augustine created his OS doctrine and during his lifetime fought to impose it on the Church, he succeeded in the West as first Pelagius was condemned by his supporters and then the semi-Pelagian view.

What I'm trying to say, and I'm struggling, is that viewing Pelagius re grace from Augustinian arguments against him is straw man, because no one until Augustine said that mankind was without it.

It is usually said that Pelagius claimed we don't need grace to do good, (Augustine said we can't do good because we've lost grace), but this is against Augustine saying we need grace (obtained in baptism) to do good. Orthodox have to agree with Pelagius here...

Put another way, with Pelagius we say mankind has the ability to do good (denied by Augustine), so it's obvious then that if we 'need' grace to do good, then we haven't lost it.


quote:
While Augustine was mistaken, so was Pelagius. I am astonished as to why you defend him, especially since we don't have much of what he wrote available. But then, we have available pieces quoted in the works of those who wrote against him, and you might agree with those parts, I don't know.
I defend him because you and other Orthodox malign him, most not even knowing how heretical Augustine's doctrines are for us.

Pelagius was arguing specifically against Augustine's Original Sin doctrines - we mustn't extrapolate his arguments out of this very specific context which is: against a novel heresy. He was found by two Eastern Councils to be Orthodox.


quote:
It's been a long time since I last read those anti-Pelagian works, so I can't remember exactly what he wrote. If you insist, I could re-examine them.

As for my part, I accept Cassian's explanation that Pelagius was a Nestorian and that's why he was condemned by the same ecumenical council that condemned Nestorius himself.

I thought Nestorian didn't agree with Pelagius? So for what was Pelagius condemned?

quote:
IX. Nestorianism and Pelagianism
It is here that Nestorianism is connected with Pelagianism.
Pelagius, who lived at the same time as Nestorius, taught, as we shall see, that man is born free from stain or defect, that he is consequently able to resist sin without the help of Divine grace, and that he does not necessarily need redemption.
It has been well said that the Nestorian Christ is a fit saviour for the Pelagian man;
and so the followers of Pelagius, condemned in the West,
were welcomed at Constantinople by Nestorius,
but were condemned by the Council of Ephesus. (See pp.154-7.) (THE CHRISTIAN FAITH: AN INTRODUCTION TO DOGMATIC THEOLOGY By CLAUDE BEAUFORT MOSS, D.D.)

quote:
What is salvation? What is Grace? God. God's presence. Can man in isolation from God attain that? No. In fact, there can be no pure isolation from God, because he is the very foundation for our being. Only non-being is isolated from God. Everything that is partakes to some extent to God.

So, to consciously and fully partake in God we need two partners. God and man. God to be present, and man to be present in and with God.



But this is what Pelagius was defending against Augustine who denies it.


quote:
Let's say Adam never fell. And let's say that he became mature. He still would not be God. He still would not be what Jesus Christ is. To be able to become what Jesus Christ is, the Incarnation is needed. Do you disagree with this? If you do, on what basis?
OK, what I'm trying to say here is that we set limits to God's creation of man in Genesis I by rejecting that man is already created in His image and likeness. Adam already is God, even though there is a distinction between the uncreated and the created Adam cannot be other than the uncreated God, created.

As far as I know, Orthodox teaching is that we are created in Christ's image; this is as much in Christ's image before the incarnation as it is after (otherwise we deny Genesis I).

Myrrh




quote:
Would you mind us continuing discussing Pelagius on a different thread?
Not at all, have you the time with your work-load?


quote:
P.S. a) Was Cassian condemned by name by anyone? Who would have dared such a thing?
b) I would have dealt with Augustine's mistakes differently... I would bring the same arguments the ninth ecumenical council brought against his teachings (although they were not aware at the time that they were his!)

I don't think Cassian was mentioned at all, and although his semi-Pelagianism was condemned I think he was still seen as a 'father' of the Church in the West. But not really sure - I may be thinking of something much later. Will have a look for it.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I've read quite a bit around this issue while away and want to try something out in this thread before getting back to the questions andreas raised re the nature of "Substitution" in Substitutionary atonement.

There is a well known passage in 1 Corinthians which seems to me to highlight the issue of the significance of the cross. It is this one.

And from it I want to emphasise two phrases

quote:
17(b)...lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

23(b) ...but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God


What is this power of the cross to which Paul refers? And why this emphasis on preaching Christ crucified (note not crucified and resurrected)?

I would be grateful for an Orthodox view. I've realised it is pretty impossible to discuss this subject unless protestants like myself get a handle on the huge significance Orthodoxy gives to the Incarnation as an act of salvation, particularly the idea of Christ assuming both fallen and unfallen nature by being made man. Kallistos Ware, for example, argues that when Paul talks about Jesus being "made sin", this is what he means; by being born a man he understands from within what it is like to be human in a sinful world.

While I can see that argument, I think the real distinctive of the protestant world view is that we see Christ "made sin" specifically on the cross. That for us is a huge element of the power of the cross and that is why we preach Christ crucified. We do not just preach Christ crucified, of course, and we certainly see such preaching as foolishness, as Paul says. But we see it as the "foolishness of God"(v 25 in 1 Cor 1). Substitionary ideas are means of coming to terms with, of grasping, this foolishness. And we may often end up looking foolish when we push these models (which really are imperfect versions of the real thing) to their logical conclusion. But this grasping of God's foolishness is pretty central to mainstream protestantism, I think. No conversation about substitution will be worth much without grasping that, even if you do not agree with it.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Barnabas

If you want to find out what Orthodoxy says on Scriptures, by all means get the books by people like John Chrysostom or Cyril Alexandreia where they comment on the Scriptures. They wrote on all the epistles of Paul and all the New Testament in general and a big deal of Old Testament as well. Much of what the fathers wrote is lost, but, at the same time, much of what they wrote is still preserved.

Grab a book and start reading their exegesis. Orthodoxy sees things the same way.

Now, for Christ being made sin. We had this discussion before, in Kerygmania. It was not until I read Chrysostom's and Cyril's explanation on Paul that I found out that the Protestant take on that verse you proposed is radically different from what the Church was teaching throughout the centuries.

For the ancients Christ being made sin means that he took up the mortal nature of man. And by virtue of his taking for himself that mortal nature, that mortal flesh, on the Incarnation, he died on the Cross. And because he died, we say that he was made sin.

Now, from an Orthodox point of view, on the Cross Jesus Christ loved the entire humanity. God's love is entirely selfless and humble. And it remains a secret many cannot grasp. But for those who receive this secret, Love transforms them and gives them eternal life. The power of the Cross is God's Love which was made manifest. Instead of a god that resembled human kings, we saw real God, who is Utter Humility and Powerlessess. Those seeking power will lose themselves, but those who seek the other people's good and seek no power for themselves shall be exalted.

Jesus Christ: Man's foolishness, God's Wisdom. Man's powerlessness, God's Power. Man's death, God's Life. Man's hatred, God's Love.

You guys are so keen on discussing the Scriptures. And you revere some of the ancient fathers, since you accept the credo and some of the ecumenical councils. Why don't you read their commentaries on the Scriptures? Why prefer people who did not shed their blood and sweat for Christ and for Christ's children over the ones that did?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
In the light of Andreas' comments, an icon that has always had a profound impact on me in relation to the cross is that of the Extreme Humility.

Extreme Humility

A label should be put underneath ... "This is God."

That is the true power of God. It is an entering into our death even as WE kill Him. Why? Because even in that "place" God shows us personally his self-abasing love for all. This is what destroys death. It is a resurrection power infinitely stronger than the Big Bang ever was.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think Paul shed enough blood to satisfy your criteria, andreas. Personally, I find his meaning in 1 Cor 1 to be quite transparent. Anyway, to save you or anyone else the trouble, I will look at the Chrystostum commentaries to start with (actually I've a feeling I've read at least some of them already, but a revisit won't do any harm.)

I treat everyone's opinion with respect, andreas, (certainly initially) but particularly those of the writers of the inspired scriptures. And there is a very great deal of scripture which really does not need the interpretation of others, no matter how learned they might be or how sacrificial their lives. It is not a code book.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Cool. So, some of us today, *cough* the Protestants *cough* understand Paul because, after all, what he wrote is clear, well some of it, but the Universal Church just couldn't *get it* and was teaching differently than Protestantism for two thousand years.

And those Saints who protected the world, and because of whom the entire cosmos continued to exist up to our days, are secondary to the Protestant reading of Paul. I mean, sure, their relics might be healing two thousand years later, but Paul is very clear and we must adhere to what Paul said...

Like those Jews were thinking Moses is very clear (and indeed he is...)

Dear Barnabas, I do applaud your reverence and loyalty to Paul. I wouldn't ask you to do anything less than that. However, I do think that what you view as apparent is only apparent to those who share the same tradition you do, and here I am saying that it's not apparent universally.

If you are confident that what Paul says is obvious, then you would expect the Universal Testimony of the ancient Church to back up your exegesis. That's all I am saying.

By the way, much of what's preserved today from Chrysostom's homilies on the New testament can be found in CCEL...
First and Second Corinthians
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon
Hebrews, and the gospel according to John
The gospel according to Matthew

I'm off [Yipee] (and sorry for my use of irony!)

[ 24. February 2008, 17:28: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thanks for the links, andreas. I knew I had seen them before (and read at least some of the homilies). And I am delighted to be able to say that I find Chrystostum's homilies speaking very clearly to me in terms that I understand and agree. Both in the 1 Cor 1 areas that I flagged - and even more so in 2 Cor 5:21 (the "made sin verse).

Here's the link to Homily XI re 2 Cor. The whole context for Chapter 5 v 21 is worth reading, particularly as Chrysostum makes it clear that Christ is "made sin" on the Cross. But here is the quote which sticks out for me.

quote:
If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude?
Again, footnote 702 to this verse is worth reading in its entirety because it illustrates a crucial difference with Augustine. But here is a remarkable extract

quote:
(From a quote by Beet) "By laying upon Christ the punishment of our sin, God made him to be a visible embodiment of the deadly and far-reaching power of sin.” But Chrysostom shows by his comments his acceptance not only of the vicarious atonement, but also of the gratuitous justification, as set forth concisely yet distinctly in this pregnant utterance. There are passages in these and other Homilies which look as if the author held to justification by works, but here he is outspoken to the contrary. Justification comes by grace, not merit, and the righteousness required is the free gift of God.
Spurgeon could hardly have put it better! Perhaps you can put a paper thickness between vicarious atonement and substitutionary atonement if you want to be picky? But basically, Chrysostum and I believe the same stuff about this Pauline utterance. (I vaguely remember discovering things like this before in Chrysostum).

Of course this may all be a piece of ignorant misconstruing on my part - but I reckon Chrystostum believed in substitutionary (vicarious if you like) atonement demonstrated by the death of Christ on the Cross - that story is as substitutionary as you can get. I think he also believed in the centrality of the Cross in Christian preaching. He could have preached the essence of that homily on v 21 in my church this morning - and been very welcome.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Sorry Barnabas but this is beginning to annoy me. It's ChrysostOM not ChrysostUM. (St. John might be nice as well. Who wants simply to be called "Golden-Mouthed.")
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Apologies. How about the substance, rather than the spelling?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Thankyou Barnabas.

I think Andreas and I may differ here. I have never denied that there is a place for the courtroom in St. Paul's theology. Forensic atonement it is not .... existential yes. However, I do disagree that, from the perspective of the whole witness of the Fathers as to the synthesis of Scripture, this is a the central and all illuminating truth about redemption. It cannot serve thus because it only deals with one albeit important element ... our acquittal as guilty persons. Nonetheless God did this out of love for his creation, NOT to "calm himself down" so to speak. This is where (particularly) forensic atonement and divine necessity lead and it ain't Orthodox by any standard, St. John Chrysostom or otherwise.

Vicarious sacrifice in juridical terms also has no place for the resurrection. For this reason alone it cannot serve as the governing metaphor of what is happening on the cross.

On my salvation page I wrote the following ...

quote:
JUSTIFICATION

The language here, the metaphor, is that of the court but not like any mere human court of law. The metaphor sees Man standing as it were "in the dock," hopelessly condemned by his failure to maintain the covenant relationship with God. The remedy enacted by God, however, cannot simply be understood in terms of the theory of "substitutionary atonement," that distorted but much beloved doctrine of our Protestant brethren.

According to this theory, all Christ has to do is to substitute himself for us, take our punishment for sin, and allow us to walk free. This degraded version of justification is unsatisfactory because it glosses over in some sort of cheap legal transaction the human and sacrificial elements of the death of Christ that are so vital to its converting power. Justification means, "making righteous." We lose sin and gain righteousness not in legal transactional terms but in a personal inward manner that involves a titanic struggle against the evil forces that enslave humanity. If, therefore, justification remains connected to the historical dimension of sacrifice, (as it does in St. Paul’s letters), then the legal metaphors are very useful. However, justification by itself cannot provide both the key and the context to a holistic understanding for the same reason that sacrifice cannot. The resurrection is not an integrated part of the vision of man made whole in this scheme either.

REDEMPTION

There are two different words for redemption in the New Testament. The first, lytro-o, (lutrow ) means to "buy off" or "ransom." It has three applications: -

1. ransoming from captivity … as in the release of prisoners. Christ has forgiven our sins by his sacrificial death.

2. ransoming from debt … as in the forgiveness of money owed. Christ has dealt with what we owe God from whom we have estranged ourselves.

3. ransoming from slavery … the meaning of this is clear. Christ has set us free from the curse of our own moral helplessness and the death that is its due.

Unlike sacrifice and justification, ransom is much more focussed on the goal of salvation being our liberation from sin, suffering, evil and death by the victory of Christ. It embraces the resurrection as the crowning glory of Christ’s justifying sacrifice for our freedom. Not unsurprisingly, therefore, it is redemption that is most often used by the Church Fathers as the key and context to the experience of salvation in the Church; precisely because it incorporates the other biblical ideas connected with sacrifice and righteousness in a paschal frame of reference. The great deliverance of humanity from the grip of evil and death was secured at the resurrection but it will not be manifest in its entirety until the Last Day, the Judgement and the New Creation.

This is the link ...

"The Death and Resurrection of Christ"

[ 25. February 2008, 11:00: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
We lose sin and gain righteousness not in legal transactional terms but in a personal inward manner that involves a titanic struggle against the evil forces that enslave humanity.

How do you square that with passages like Romans 4 and Ephesians 2 where very strong language is repeatedly used to stress that 'grace is a gift' and that 'this is nothing of ourselves'?

Indeed (whether or not Paul wrote Ephesians [Big Grin] ) it seems that one of the major themes of his writings is this point that salvation is 'nothing of ourselves'.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I don't like cheap grace either, Father Gregory, and it was one of the reasons why I was much taken with St John Chrysostom's explanation of 2 Cor 5 v 21. It reminded me very much of the powerful Pauline asserion in Romans 3:31. "Do we then nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law". I'm not just a "Crosstianity" Christian either!

You catch me at present looking at St Cyril's commentary on St Luke's gospel - there is a scanned in version available on line. Unlike St John, I had not read St Cyril before and am finding his commentary on the Passion profound. We might do better to use the term "vicarious", because "substitutionary" is now loaded, but I am beginning to think St Cyril sees vicarious sacrifice on the cross as well. I do appreciate how important the Incarnation is for any full understanding of St Cyril. More perhaps later on that.

As you've probably read from my previous posts, I'm not a great enthusiast for pushing the logic of these forensic understandings of atonement too far. They can easily separate us from the power of the resurrection, without which we are all still in our sins. I'm much taken by the great prayer in Ephesians 1 which has much to say on the matter.

Thanks for the link to your sermon, I appreciate it, as I did the rest of your response.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Dear Barnabas

Out of necessity, I will make two posts. In this post I will address all the verses you have already referred to. In the post that will follow I will address the quote you just made, because I want to read the whole text first.

quote:
Let's get started...

2 Cor. 5.21: God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Here's what St. John Chrysostom says about that:

quote:
For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He hath both well achieved mighty things, and besides, hath suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong. But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? “Him that knew no sin,” he says, Him that was self-righteousness “He made sin,” that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, to die as one cursed.
I note that a) he doesn't say that God gave His Son instead of us, or in our place, but for us, that is for our benefit. There is atonement here, but not substitutionary atonement. Just like the Credo says. "For us and for our salvation"
b) "made sin" refers to Jesus Christ's death.

In a like manner, St. Cyrill of Alexandreia explains the verse: When you hear that he became sin, do not think that he did sin. Rather that for our sin he was given by God the Father, and he is called sin like the sacrifices for sin under the Law of Moses they called sin.

Note that both these fathers said nothing about Jesus Christ experiencing a so called separation from God the Father which is the alienation we sinners experience and this is why he is called sin. They say nothing of the sort, even though you Barnabas have given that explanation for the verse. On the contrary, they explain that the verse refers to Jesus Christ's death on the Cross.

quote:
Romans 5.12: Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, in which all sinned

What does this mean "in which all sinned" asks Saint John Chrysostom? After he fell (Adam), and those that did not eat from the tree became from him all mortal. Again, no mention of Original Sin, just the basic understanding of the ancestral sin, in which with Adam's personal sin death enters creation.

quote:
1 Cor. 15.22: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Saint Cyril explains it thus: Just like in Adam all were condemned, since the human nature "suffered" death, so after we get justified in Christ when we will put aside sin we will also put aside the death that came from it. The "condemnation" for the Saint has always been death. Again, no mention of Original Sin, just Ancestral Sin which brought death...

Saint John is even more revealing (which is natural, since we have fragments from Saint Cyril while we have whole books from Saint John):

What then? Tell me, have we all died the death of sin? How then was Noah righteous in his generation? How was Abraham? How was Job? How were the all rest? And what does it mean that we will all find life in Christ (if you interpret the death to mean a death of sin)? Where are then those that will go to Gehenna? If this word (verse) have been said on the body, then it stands. If it has been said on righteousness, it does not stand.

Which is exactly the opposite, Barnabas, you have been saying!

quote:
To conclude: A) In the "made sin" verse the fathers understand Jesus Christ's human death and not a spiritual alienation from God the Father which is the result of sin.
B) "In which all sinned" refers to death which entered creation because of the ancestral sin. The verse is not understood by the fathers to refer to what we now call Original Sin.
C) "in Adam all die" is understood to mean human death and not sin. In fact, the very notion of an Original Sin is condemned strongly by the fathers!

quote:
I hope I covered all the verses from Paul that were mentioned, and I didn't miss anything. I also hope that the translations from the two fathers I gave show that they had nothing to do with the explanations put forth today for those verses.

Barnabas, what do you say? Those verses have been mentioned. You have explained how you understand them, I have explained how I understand them. Now we see how two Saints understood them. Is it clear that they did not understood the verses the way you propose, but the way I proposed? It would be a big step if we got that clarified...



[ 25. February 2008, 11:51: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
OK, I read the text Barnabas quoted from earlier.

quote:
If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude?
This passage says NOTHING of a substitution! On the contrary, it says everything about Atonement.

God gives His Son so that we get saved. We sinned and perished following our ways, but God sends His Son to get us back, to save us, to give us dignity. He is not slain "in our place" or "on our behalf", but he is slain "for us and for our salvation".

Nobody denies the importance of the Cross. Nobody denies that Jesus Christ has been slain. What we debate here is why this happened, and I don't see John Chrysostom saying he died to substitute us. After all, we still die... And sin... but through Jesus Christ we have the power to trample death in the Resurrection, not to be afraid of death in this life, and to change our lives so that we become righteous to the glory of God. Many have changed their lives. It is possible. Wickedness is not inevitable, Righteousness is available and many have grabbed it.

Now that I re-read the passage, to see why Barnabas thought it suggests substitution, I think here's why:

The Saint says "transferred the death and the guilt as well". What he means here is that while through Adam's sin all die, God is Life Itself, so he is not supposed to die. Yet, God, to save man, He becomes mortal and subject to death, and dies for us, as if he was guilty himself, so that we can be reconciled with God. Not because God demanded anything from our part to forgive us, but because we were blind to His forgiveness and love, which is manifested on the Cross, thus drawing some men towards Him, and those men and women get to experience God's salvation after they responded to Jesus Christ by turning to Him and leaving their old ways back and for good.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas

I think your post might have benefitted from an editor - or possibly a calmer mind. "All over the place" strikes me as a not unreasonable description. All I did was quote a story from St John and a commentator from the website. The commentator says St John demonstrates belief in vicarious atonement and I agree with him.

Would you like to address the story and the commentator first, before going all over the shop? I don't much fancy having a go at your post as it stands, its so messy.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Well, many verses have ALREADY been mentioned, and I think I need to address them FIRST. I did that, and then I replied on the quote from St. John you made.

I hope this does not end up like the discussion the early Reformers had with the Patriarch... They were taking all sort of verses out of context from the fathers to support their claims (from the filioque to iconoclasm and forensic justification) and it just didn't work out...

Let's take as an example what St. John said on people being righteous before Christ. You say the Saint sounds like speaking of substitution on that part. Substitution, of course, presupposes original sin. Yet that Saint says people were righteous before Christ and that they have not died the death of sin. So, under the light of that comment we can see more clearly why he is not speaking of a substitution in the other quote...

It's about context, and the context here is a consistent exegesis of the wholeness of Scripture.

I'm off, but I hope in the end my posts will be more helpful than a pain to read...

P.S. I thought that by breaking it in parts using the quote code would make it easier to read, cause one could just read the part/verse he wanted without having to read the whole thing...

[ 25. February 2008, 12:15: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
OK, I read the text Barnabas quoted from earlier.

quote:
If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude?
This passage says NOTHING of a substitution! On the contrary, it says everything about Atonement.
Leave it until you come back, my young friend. How you can see this part as not vicarious is quite beyond me, but you have studies to do. It can wait.


quote:
...and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was himself of no such character,) ..

 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear JohnnyS

It's interesting to see that you think I mean that the struggle is graceless just because it's a struggle. Overcoming sin may be effortless for you but it certainly isn't for me .... nor is it a victory that can be won without grace. It's still a struggle though for all that.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
As I was taught it Barnabas, the victory of the Cross was because God had become Man, a unique event in time which bridged the uncreated/created difference(bearing in mind Genesis I and John - 'to become one with us'). The victory then for us is God coming fully into the human condition, inextricably part of the created.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I agree Myrrh but what was it specifically about the cross that, with the resurrection, made Pascha so important for us?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear JohnnyS

It's interesting to see that you think I mean that the struggle is graceless just because it's a struggle. Overcoming sin may be effortless for you but it certainly isn't for me .... nor is it a victory that can be won without grace. It's still a struggle though for all that.

After all the time you have spent on this board I'm surprised that you haven't come across the classic Protestant distinction between justification and sanctification.

It is an attempt to reconcile the tension within the NT (esp. in Paul, e.g. Romans 6) between what has already happened to us in Christ and the on going struggle of following Christ.

So Paul can speak (in the aorist) of our dying with Christ, and then also say that we need to 'consider ourselves dead to sin'.

Therefore any understanding of the gospel needs to hold these two concepts in tension - we have died to sin and we 'count' ourselves dead to sin.

The classic Protestant line is to see justification as something that has already happened in Christ and sanctification as the on-going work of applying Christ's work to our lives.

So that is how we reconcile it in Protestant thought...

... I return to my original question (which you have not answered) - how do you understand the frequent passages where Paul says that the gospel is 'all of Him and nothing of us'?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
OK, I read the text Barnabas quoted from earlier.

quote:
If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude?
This passage says NOTHING of a substitution! On the contrary, it says everything about Atonement.

<snip>
Now that I re-read the passage, to see why Barnabas thought it suggests substitution, I think here's why:

The Saint says "transferred the death and the guilt as well". What he means here is that while through Adam's sin all die, God is Life Itself, so he is not supposed to die. Yet, God, to save man, He becomes mortal and subject to death, and dies for us, as if he was guilty himself, so that we can be reconciled with God. Not because God demanded anything from our part to forgive us, but because we were blind to His forgiveness and love, which is manifested on the Cross, thus drawing some men towards Him, and those men and women get to experience God's salvation after they responded to Jesus Christ by turning to Him and leaving their old ways back and for good.

That is a circular argument of course. What andreas does here is to look at the story through a particular set of theological spectacles and say, in effect "he must mean this". Whereas what St John Chrysostom actually says is that the transfer of the death and the guilt is to save a malefactor under punishment, that the condemned might be saved. The plain meaning of this is what andreas is desperately trying to avoid it meaning, that the transfer is necessary to avoid the punishment of the condemned. Someone gets punished in place of someone else. A vicarious suffering by the innocent, an atoning act.

No wonder the commentator on this homily from St John adds this comment (as I quoted earlier)

quote:
But Chrysostom shows by his comments his acceptance not only of the vicarious atonement, but also of the gratuitous justification, as set forth concisely yet distinctly in this pregnant utterance. There are passages in these and other Homilies which look as if the author held to justification by works, but here he is outspoken to the contrary. Justification comes by grace, not merit, and the righteousness required is the free gift of God.
If that story does not illustrate a vicarious act of atonement, then I'm a monkey's uncle and so is the scholarly commentator on the Homily. This is not a matter of theology at all, just of the plain meaning of the text. Of course it has theological implications. Maybe on this issue St John is not completely Orthodox? Maybe other Orthodox voices express better the general view within Orthodoxy? That's fine by me. But please don't try to convince me that black is white, that up is down. For good or ill, that text from St John says what it says, quite unambiguously. And it does not say what andreas says it says.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I am aware of the Protestant position JimmyS .... I was hoping for a reciprocation on the Orthodox position but you merely analysed that with your own hermeneutical key .... which I don't share so your post was bound not to make sense from my point of view.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I am aware of the Protestant position JimmyS .... I was hoping for a reciprocation on the Orthodox position but you merely analysed that with your own hermeneutical key .... which I don't share so your post was bound not to make sense from my point of view.

Okay then, I take it that you can't answer my question. [Roll Eyes]

I didn't ask you to accept my view, all I did (three times now) is ask you to explain how you interpret the Apostle Paul on this particular matter.

BTW I may not be a 'Saint', but it is 'Johnny S'. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I think St. Paul expressed it beautifully when he said ...

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:12)

There you have it ... struggle AND grace.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

I hope this does not end up like the discussion the early Reformers had with the Patriarch... They were taking all sort of verses out of context from the fathers to support their claims (from the filioque to iconoclasm and forensic justification) and it just didn't work out...


Me, too.

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

Substitution, of course, presupposes original sin.

No it doesn't. More precisely, it does not presuppose an Augustinian view of original sin. On that matter, you are simply wrong. And if it is what you have been taught, then your teachers were wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

It's about context, and the context here is a consistent exegesis of the wholeness of Scripture.

Of course context matters, but it is secondary to a clear understanding of the meaning of the words first. You cannot even begin to consider context until you have considered the meaning per se. Hence my critical view of your interpretation of St John Chrystostom's story. To quote C S Lewis, you claim to see fern seed and cannot spot an elephant a hundred yards away.

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984 (earlier post):
God gives His Son so that we get saved. We sinned and perished following our ways, but God sends His Son to get us back, to save us, to give us dignity. He is not slain "in our place" or "on our behalf", but he is slain "for us and for our salvation".

I mentioned earlier that I had been reading St Cyril on St Luke. I discovered that his two volume commentary was available as a scanned book here. I found his commentary on the Passion of our Lord both moving and profound. Here is an extract from p 719.

quote:
But this act of His did away with the curse that was upon us; for we with Him and because of Him are blessed. And knowing this, the blessed David says "Blessed are we of the Lord who made heaven and earth;" for by His sufferings, blessings descend to us. He in our stead paid our debts. He bore our sins and as it is written (Isa 53:6) "in our stead He was stricken". "He took them up in his body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24)
I hope that is sufficient context, and simply want to point to the emphasised sentence (my emphasis) "He in our stead paid our debts". Here is my question. How is "in our stead" different from "on our behalf" or "in our place"? "In our stead" surely means "instead of us"? Vicarious? It certainly looks that way to me.

Of course I accept this is not the "be-all" and "end-all" of St Cyril's theology and of course I accept that for him, the Incarnation holds very great importance. But you seem in your above quote to be denying to me the same meaning St Cyril uses.

So let me remind you how I got into this; here is the quote from the Wikipedia article re the Orthodox position on substitutionary atonement.

quote:
All branches of the Christian faith embrace substitutionary atonement as the central meaning of Jesus' death on the cross, while some differ in their larger atonement theories. The Eastern Orthodox Church incorporates substitutionary atonement as one (relatively minor) element of a single doctrine of the Cross and Resurrection, the Catholic church incorporates it into Aquinas' Satisfaction doctrine rooted in the idea of penance, and Evangelical Protestants interpret it largely in terms of penal substitution
My reading of the Fathers so far and my review of Father Gregory's very helpful post and sermon lead me to believe that that emphasised sentence in the Wikipedia aricle is correct and precise. On the other hand, you seem to me to be arguing that even the phrase "relatively minor element" must be wrong. Your basis for this appears to me to be the belief that substitution is tied inextricably to original sin (Augustinian view). Well, I've worked pretty hard to enter the world view of Orthodoxy on this matter in order to understand better, and my considered view is that it is you who are wrong.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I think we didn't avoid a repetition of the Early Reformers - Patriarch Jeremiah discussion after all [Frown]

Oh well. It didn't work then, it's not going to work here.

My questions remain though. Who substituted whom? Why the substitution needed to take place? Couldn't God just give without a substitution what He gave through that substitution? To whom was given what for our substitution? Were we expected to give it in the first place so that a substitution to be meaningful?

I will end with something St. Cyril wrote in his commentary on the Gospel according to Luke.

"He who was by nature Son, took the form of a servant, so that us, who were bound in servitude, because what is created is servant, be set free ,winning what is His; because we are called sons for him and through him, who became poor with us being rich, so that the human nature take up where he is, in his own riches, he tasted death through wood and cross, so that he would remove from the foreground the transgression that was of wood, and the results of that transgression to abolish, and remove the tyranny of death from us."

Being created, that's what was dealt with in Jesus Christ. Glory to God.

P.S. Couldn't find the text you quoted in the Greek version of St. Cyril's commentary on Luke. Strange. Even stranger, I couldn't find the reference to Isaiah 53.6 where Jesus is supposed to be stricken "in our place". [Confused]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:

There you have it ... struggle AND grace.

We don't seem to be getting very far do we!?

I started this by quoting examples from Paul which were both struggle AND grace (Romans 6 as it happens).

We are / have been / probably always will be agreed that the Christian life is both struggle AND grace.

I'll ask my question for the last time and then give up...

Having agreed that the Christian life is both struggle AND grace how does Orthodox theology cope with the fact that Paul also frequently (not just in some one off passage) stresses that faith is 'nothing of ourselves' etc. ?

Protestant theology reconciles that tension by the classic justification / sanctification model. How does Orthodox theology do it?

(There, if that is not clear enough then I'll just get my coat.)
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Johnny S

We are not disagreed on the justification / sanctification distinction, nor on God justifying us in Christ and Him alone ... what we MAY disagree on is the role played by sanctification in salvation. We would say that our salvation is not complete until we have been wholly sanctified ... or deified as we would say. Moreover that is both struggle and grace in a way that justification is not. (There are differences between sanctification as understood in the west, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, and ourselves but these need not detain us here for the sake of this argument).
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Thanks Father G - that is helpful.

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:


We are not disagreed ... on God justifying us in Christ and Him alone ... what we MAY disagree on is the role played by sanctification in salvation.

Okay.

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
We would say that our salvation is not complete until we have been wholly sanctified ... or deified as we would say.

I don't see what the big problem is then?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:


P.S. Couldn't find the text you quoted in the Greek version of St. Cyril's commentary on Luke. Strange. Even stranger, I couldn't find the reference to Isaiah 53.6 where Jesus is supposed to be stricken "in our place". [Confused]

It is certainly there in the English translation on the website to which I provided a link. I'm looking at a printed out copy now.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Johnny S

OK, let's go back to where this started ...

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
We lose sin and gain righteousness not in legal transactional terms but in a personal inward manner that involves a titanic struggle against the evil forces that enslave humanity.

How do you square that with passages like Romans 4 and Ephesians 2 where very strong language is repeatedly used to stress that 'grace is a gift' and that 'this is nothing of ourselves'?

In the original quote I was talking about sanctification, not justification. Our sins are forgiven at the cross but we don't lose sin until we have fought the good fight WITH AND BY GRACE right unto the End. Grace is a bit of misnomer here though. It is grace, but more specifically the power of His death-destroying resurrection.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It is grace, but more specifically the power of His death-destroying resurrection.

...which power is nothing else than the transforming presence of God. Which is why Grace is Free and Totally 'nothing of ourselves'. It's 'nothing of ourselves' NOT BECAUSE God does something to save us, but because salvation is God's presence. Monergism is a grave heresy. God comes to meet you, but unless you love God back you cannot be saved no matter how much God wants you to be saved.

There is a limit to what God can "do", not because God is not all powerful, but because salvation is not something that "gets done". It doesn't work like that...

In my view, Johny S, the difference is this: Some seem to think that God can do something and by that work one can be saved. The Orthodox disagree with that strongly, because we see salvation as active participation in God's Presence, not a deed God achieves for man...
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It is certainly there in the English translation on the website to which I provided a link. I'm looking at a printed out copy now.

Perhaps it's because the translation is said to be made of a Syrian manuscript, while I'm looking at Migne's PG... I don't know. Still, the reference to Isaiah is very strange. That passage is not in my bible! [Ultra confused] Am I doing something wrong???

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Johnny S

We are not disagreed on the justification / sanctification distinction, nor on God justifying us in Christ and Him alone ... what we MAY disagree on is the role played by sanctification in salvation

While we don't disagree on God justifying us in Christ alone, I think there is a disagreement in what justification means in the first place! I have read that for the Greek speaking fathers justification is God giving us our "justice" back. There is an expression in Greek... Let's say that you have been harmed, you have become poor, you are clothed in rugs, and others wrong you. And the King comes and puts an end to that injustice, by giving back to you what is yours, by giving you clothes and food and money and titles and a place near him. He justifies you, not in the sense that he declares you just, but in the sense that he gives you back your "justice" when you were being wronged!

Of course, this Orthodox mentality cannot fit in a framework when you think that people are so dreadful sinners they are worthy of the worst punishment and that God has to punish someone for justice to be done...

The two views are totally incompatible.

And it has to do with our view of mankind. If you see mankind deprived and wicked worthy of condemnation you follow another route than those that see mankind deprived of its justice and glory, in rugs, suffering and being in pain, lost, in need of healing. The fathers were always friends of mankind, like God is a Friend to mankind. When they saw sin, they saw suffering and rugs and poverty, not wickedness that dishonors God and needs to get punished.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I agree Myrrh but what was it specifically about the cross that, with the resurrection, made Pascha so important for us?

..God put his money where his mouth was...


Myrrh
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Myrrh ... why are you being so coy? Say more.

Andreas .... I agree with you but let us remember that God-with-us is not inert. He transfigures, glorifies us ... with HIMSELF ... that much is certainly true but I speak here of the EFFECTS of his Presence with us.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I understand what you are saying, but I think this discussion is doomed to fail unless we get as clear as possible and spell everything out for our Protestant brothers to understand our view.

For example, it is said that God will indeed restore all creation in the eschata. Yet, even though everybody will be restored, God's presence will be experienced as Heaven by some and as Hell by others. This one presence being experienced differently depending on who gets to experience God, is not something that goes along with a God that punishes people in Hell and justifies people in Christ in a forensic way...

So, yes, God's presence has quite an effect, but our response towards God defines whether we partake in salvation or not... And this needs to get stressed out when we discuss here... Because non-Orthodox Shipmates may understand what we are saying in different terms!

To put it differently: It is very true that God on the Cross gave me my justice back... But a) that justice has nothing to do with what people think when they hear of justice and b) if I continue living in rugs then boasting that God gave my justice back is pointless...

[ 26. February 2008, 13:43: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It is certainly there in the English translation on the website to which I provided a link. I'm looking at a printed out copy now.

Perhaps it's because the translation is said to be made of a Syrian manuscript, while I'm looking at Migne's PG... I don't know. Still, the reference to Isaiah is very strange. That passage is not in my bible! [Ultra confused] Am I doing something wrong???


I don't think so, andreas. There looks to me to be a problem of detail with the bible references attached to the English translation. I am not sure whether those references were in the original St Cyril text or added by a translator. What does appear clear is that the translator, working from whatever manuscript, associates the sentence "He in our stead paid our debt" directly with St Cyril. It is not in quotes to indicate a scripture reference. And it was on that phrase that I based my argument, not any scriptural support.

Of course, if not all available versions of the St Luke commentaries bear that translation, we have a different issue to consider. I'll happily concede that point.

I promise to do two further things.

1. Give some thought to your direct questions on the meaning of substitution.

2. Look again at your earlier post containing comments on lots of other scripture references.

Do you have anything to add re the St John Chrysostom story?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I think St. Paul expressed it beautifully when he said ...

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:12)

There you have it ... struggle AND grace.

Add Phil 2:13 and you have my own touchstone. "For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good purpose".

The "blessed" C S Lewis observed, IIRC, that v 12 makes it appear to be down to us, v 13 makes it appear up to God! A nice pair of opposites. But the Christian life is struggle and grace for sure. It would seem at least to me to be very silly for us not to be able to agree on that.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Could I have an Orthodox opinion or three on this?

Liberal Protestant - well, Anglican at least - opinion is that Christ's Passion sanctifies those of us who contemplate it, or to be more precise I should perhaps say those of us to whom the gift of contemplation has been given, because we are seeing the true nature of God on the sharp end. Christ's victory on the Cross, as opposed to I suppose his victory over death that immediately followed either sequentially or as a consequence, was that he did not respond to his unjust treatment by cursing his killers, calling down legions of angels to obliterate the Roman empire or snapping his fingers and undoing the Universe.

As sanctification is either an outworking of salvation or an inherent component of it, it follows that Christ's suffering saves us. Not that his suffering is exclusively the mechanism of salvation, but that his suffering saves us nevertheless.

Is this Orthodox?

The question has a sting in its tail because if so, I'm going to ask if it's not the case that anything Christ did which contributes to our sanctification saves us, and then I'll be asking whether several apparently competing atonement theories are not in fact complementary.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Could I have an Orthodox opinion or three on this?

Liberal Protestant - well, Anglican at least - opinion is that Christ's Passion sanctifies those of us who contemplate it, or to be more precise I should perhaps say those of us to whom the gift of contemplation has been given, because we are seeing the true nature of God on the sharp end.

Would you explain to me why this notion is any less offensive than the notion of limited atonement?
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Would you explain to me why this notion is any less offensive than the notion of limited atonement?

Because at no point did I say or imply that because it is salvific for some of us in this way, everyone else is denied salvation.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
100% in agreement there Barnabas. [Yipee]

Dear Andreas

Have you read "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis?

Audio Book

This was precisely his account of salvation. In the allegory a busload of people get a once in an eternity chance to make good and get to heaven from the lower regions. They get out in the foothills of heaven, alighting onto an expanse of beautiful wet meadow grass. The loving and hopeful place their bare feet on the turf and walk off towards the heavenly city. The unloving grumblers do the same but the blades of grass are experienced as sharp as razor blades. They shriek with horror and retreat.

If Orthodoxy in English had been around in Lewis's day he certainly would have been Orthodox.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Greyface

I hear echoes of Abelard here ... am I right? But why wouldn't the death of any sainted person have the same effect?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
re: contemplation

I have never heard that word being used in Orthodoxy. I have heard that the Catholics give an emphasis to contemplation, especially contemplation on the events that were near the end of Jesus life, but that's not what we Orthodox do.

re: God doing something

As far as I can see, there is no "deed" Christ did that saves us. His presence is our salvation, and therefore our salvation has no connection whatsoever with deeds. So, no, Christ did not come to do some things to get us saved.

Dear father Gregory,

I haven't read Lewis work. I find his personal life too strange so I'm not keen on putting his works on top of my reading list.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Andreas

quote:
I haven't read Lewis work. I find his personal life too strange so I'm not keen on putting his works on top of my reading list.

That's a great shame. I can't think what you mean but surely the fact that he was a sinner doesn't surprise you. You shouldn't read what I say if that's the case. SOME Protestant writers are not at all Protestant you know. Relax! You will be genuinely amazed by the Great Divorce, (provided that you take it for what it is).
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Would you explain to me why this notion is any less offensive than the notion of limited atonement?

Because at no point did I say or imply that because it is salvific for some of us in this way, everyone else is denied salvation.
So this 'contemplation' of which you speak is a universal gift universally given?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
That's a great shame.

Of course it is. I'm far from perfect, and I have no problem admitting my flaws. I will be more positive towards him from now on, but he is still not on top of my reading list.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I'll nag you incessantly Andreas until he creeps up to the top! [Two face]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
You will be genuinely amazed by the Great Divorce, (provided that you take it for what it is).

I love The Great Divorce! (I suppose that is hardly likely to encourage andreas ..)
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Would you explain to me why this notion is any less offensive than the notion of limited atonement?

Because at no point did I say or imply that because it is salvific for some of us in this way, everyone else is denied salvation.
So this 'contemplation' of which you speak is a universal gift universally given?
No. You're missing the point completely. And I'm not being technical with the use of the word contemplation, you can substitute it with thinking about the Passion or considering it or your knowledge of it having some kind of sanctifying effect in your life, if you like.

Let me try again. Some people hear that God became human and though he committed no sin, he was tortured and crucified - and rose again. This tells some people something about the nature of God, and their response is an element in their sanctification. Other elements exist, and for other people other mechanisms may be operating. This is not limited atonement.

No Father Gregory, the death of a sainted person will not do, because that tells us about the nature of sainted people and not (directly) about God. What the Incarnate God does tells us what God is really like. Does knowing what God is really like have an effect on our theosis then, or not? If it does not, why do we care what heretics teach? If it does, wasn't Abelard right - as long as we don't make the mistake of thinking this aspect of Christ's work is all there is to it?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
OK I understand Greyface.

Certain aspects of what was happening at Calvary and at the Empty Tomb do appeal to some more than others. Spiritual growth it seems to me does involve trying existentially to incorporate more and more elements. This is what the catholicity of faith is all about. (The dross needs to be leached out though; hence the vigorous debates here about PSA and the like).
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas

Scriptures first. I wont repeat your arguments from your post, which can be examined easily enough by any others interested but I will give a brief summary of my view after reading the Fathers

2 Cor. 5.21: God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

I am happy with St John Chrysostom's view on 2 Cor 5 v 21 as expressed in Homily XI. My settled view is that it demonstrates, at least in this place in his writings, an acceptance of vicarious atonement. None of your arguments have refuted in any way the evidence of the condemned malefactor story. I have no direct access to any views of St Cyril on this particular verse, but my view that there is at least a hint of vicarious atonement in St Cyril's commentary on St Luke still stands. "He in our stead paid our debts". That provides some indirect corroboration that in the 4th century these Fathers were not at all uncomfortable with this kind of language and its vicarious implications. In an earlier post you described such use by Orthodox, if it did occur, as "rhetoric". Well, it doesn't look that way to me, but one man's rhetoric is another man's logical argument, I suppose.

Romans 5.12: Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, in which all sinned

Here is a link to St John Chrysostom's Homily. I think the summaries given in footnotes 1339 (v 12) and 1341 (v13) are accurate and a very reasonable interpretation of St John's meaning. Here is a key quote from the latter footnote

quote:
We know well on what principle the apostle justifies his position that there is sin even where no written commandment is transgressed. The principle has been already developed viz.: there is a moral law implanted in the human heart (Romans i. 19, 21; ii. 15). To offend against this is sin (though not transgression, which implies positive law) and induces death as its consequence.
My own view overall has been refined a little but has not been changed in essentials from this view expressed in previous discussions a couple of pages back.

quote:
A number of Byzantine authors, including Photius ... saw nothing in the Pauline text beyond a moral similarity between Adam and other sinners in death being the normal retribution for sin.
I said then that this summary represented my present opinion. I appreciate it is not the general Orthodox view, but it still strikes me as a very reasonable summary.

I think that leaves us disagreeing both about the meaning of these scriptures and the meaning of the interpretations expressed by the Fathers. In one case (2 Cor 5 v 21), I think a Father's view is very close to mine, much closer than you are prepared to admit despite evidence. In the other,(Romans 5 v 12) I think my understanding might be described as a minority Byzantine view!

Much of that was clear from previous exchanges, but I'm happy to reiterate my understanding. Our differences prove nothing, one way or another, other than the undeniable fact that, as a declared protestant nonconformist, it would be pretty surprising if I was very Orthodox (at least in your understanding of that term, which I am by no means convinced is the last word on Orthodoxy).

I'll look finally, as promised, at your questions re Substitutionary Atonement in a separate post tomorrow or Thursday. I am primarily, as I have said, influenced by the CV model, but I also find truth in SA and know enough about it to make some hopefully sensible summaries - or point to some good sources.

I think I may also point you to some links which show that the issue of the meaning of atonement is quite controversial within protestantism both historically and currently, and there is a range of opinion out there.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Fatigue set in! I omitted to comment re

1 Cor. 15.22: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Here the argument is more complex so I will repeat your quotes from the Fathers re this verse.

quote:
Saint Cyril explains it thus: "Just like in Adam all were condemned, since the human nature "suffered" death, so after we get justified in Christ when we will put aside sin we will also put aside the death that came from it. The "condemnation" for the Saint has always been death. Again, no mention of Original Sin, just Ancestral Sin which brought death..."
This I take it is your paraphrase of what St Cyril said. What did he say? What were his exact words? I've wrapped quotes marks round what you've posted because I am quite unable to distinguish the words of St Cyril from the words of andreas. You seem to me to have mixed up quote and interpretation. (I said I thought the post this came from was messy)

quote:

Saint John is even more revealing (which is natural, since we have fragments from Saint Cyril while we have whole books from Saint John):

What then? Tell me, have we all died the death of sin? How then was Noah righteous in his generation? How was Abraham? How was Job? How were the all rest? And what does it mean that we will all find life in Christ (if you interpret the death to mean a death of sin)? Where are then those that will go to Gehenna? If this word (verse) have been said on the body, then it stands. If it has been said on righteousness, it does not stand.

Well, here is a view. Righteous in these OT contexts does not mean completely sinless. Just to give two examples; after the flood, Noah got drunk (Gen 9) which is a form of gluttony. After the revelation (Job 38 ff) Job repented of His ignorance and attitude (pride). I think we see in these righteous men and women of the OT a righteouness conferred by faith in God, not a righteousness conferred by sinlessness.

Paul also says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (I looked at St John's Homily on Romans and could not find any comment on Romans 3 v 23).

From the footnote to 1 Cor 15 v 22-23, I found this to me very helpful comment,

quote:
Men are connected with Adam by nature, but with Christ by faith and this is the work of grace.
That is what I believe and if it is in contradiction to St John that does not bother me. It seems a very reasonable harmonising of a great deal Paul writes in these great Epistles. No doubt there is a great deal to discuss in all of that, but perhaps best transferred to another thread?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
(Apologies for the triple post!)

I rechecked and noted that although the verse is not highlighted, St John does comment re Romans 3 v 23 that "all are in the same plight!". Yes indeed!
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Don't have enough time to engage with this properly.

So my only comments is this - are both Andreas and FG representative of the Orthodox view? Just when I'm beginning to understand FG, Andreas seems to 're-open old wounds'!
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
In answering you Johnny S I will speak to Andreas direct because I don't want to talk about him in the third person.

Dear Andreas

I think you will agree that when You and I talk together here and elsewhere, we mostly agree. However, when we speak separately here to those who are not Orthodox you seem to write quite differently. It seems as if you have a fixed idea that a non-Orthodox western Christian MUST support substitutionary atonement, MUST think that grace if created etc. etc. I think that this makes you a bit too keen to jump on anything you suspect might be contaminated rather than first to seek for common ground. I think that this can only be the explanation for the fact that I often seem to play the role of mediator. I know this is a bit tangential but is this how you see the dynamic of this and other exchanges? I'm not being contentious or rude ... or at least I certainly don't intend to be, but I do end up being a bit puzzled sometimes.

[ 27. February 2008, 22:36: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Father Gregory

I think you are right. Generally speaking, I read all sort of threads with great interest where common ground exists, but because much of what I have to say is already said by others I'm not that vocal. Threads where differences are discussed catch my eye. Maybe it's because I usually see the glass half empty...

Was I wrong in the things I said concerning Johny's discussion with you?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Andreas

Would you please quote the comment? I don't know where to find it.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
The way I read JohnyS's last post is that he was starting to understand what you were saying, or at least think he did, and then I popped in, and I said something much different than what you seemed to be saying. Which is why he asked if we are both representative of Orthodox theology.

For my part, I don't think I said something different than what you are saying, but I do think I was more blunt about it because I was afraid JohnyS might understand you the wrong way.

Here, here, and here are my three posts, to which, I think, JohnyS refers.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I understand what you are saying, but I think this discussion is doomed to fail unless we get as clear as possible and spell everything out for our Protestant brothers to understand our view.


(Posted in the light of recent exchanges)

Why do you believe that? "Doomed to fail" is a pretty strong term. Folks misunderstand each other all the time. Sometimes a full understanding of someone else's view can take a very long time to establish. What's wrong with degrees of clarification and closing gaps? Effective discussions require confidence that we are not being demeaned or dismissed for present ignorance.

(I've come down with a virus before finishing a post on substitutionary atonement as promised - probably Friday now. But I could at least manage this.)
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Gute Besserung, Barnabas!

We have been apart for a thousand years. That's a Big Thing. The alienation that took place needs to be undone somehow, and the best way, the way I see it, is to spell everything out, to be as clear as possible. And father Gregory has been seen by some in the past as being somewhat hard to understand. Now, I don't share this view, and I find his posts as clear as the water that comes from a stream on a mountain, but I live within the same framework he does, so that's not that big a surprise!

Take father Gregory's post on justification for example. Now, read father Stephen's recent post on salvation. From my point of view, the two priests are in perfect harmony with each other. However, I suspect Johny S might be given the wrong impression that for the Orthodox there is something, a deed, Jesus Christ must have done to justify us, and that our justification is forensic, when justification has to do with God giving us back our dignity, giving clothes and food and money and titles to the ones that has been stripped off his clothes and property and dignity and had been wronged...

And if we continue discussing, but father Gregory has an Orthodox view on justification, while Johny S thinks the Orthodox view on justification father Gregory expressed is something else, then it will be like talking past each other.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Gute Besserung, Barnabas!

We have been apart for a thousand years. That's a Big Thing. The alienation that took place needs to be undone somehow, and the best way, the way I see it, is to spell everything out, to be as clear as possible.

Thanks andreas. I'm coughing and sneezing a lot, and am just going back up to bed after lunch.

I agree entirely with this, up to the point I italicised. I tend to think much more in terms of making friendships, finding common ground, not looking for complete solutions. To some extent all of us are the "prisoners" of the understandings we have inherited. Some of them represent real differences, others different ways of expressing the same thing. Clarity undoubtedly has a part to play, but I don't think it is nearly as important as charity. We seek to speak the truth with love.

And so to bed ....
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
About bluntness Andreas ... I think there are problems involved in shooting from the hip and keeping it simple.

Take your "God doesn't do anything to justify us ... " In plain English that means God is inert ... NOT what you mean at all because you also use verbs .... "God GIVES us our justice back" etc.

By being inexact about "not doing" to make a point about forensic atonement you fail to establish the connection. Indeed you undermine it by using verbs in a different sense later on. So, in the interests of clarity you have unintentionally confused our position by making a statement that cannot bear its own weight and is palpably false ... namely that God doesn't DO ... ANYTHING!

Many Protestants think that a Hellenised faith (itself a contentious idea I know) leads to an inert static God. Inadvertently you have just confirmed their suspicions.

I think what I am saying is that you don't need to be blunt to make your point understood ... you just need to be exact .... which, of course, is not the same thing.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Ah, this is very revealing. Thanks!

However, I do have one question. It seems to me that some of the non-Orthodox Shipmates here are saying that Jesus Christ did a certain deed to save us, which is VERY different from the Orthodox God being active in his uncreated energies...

And it was this that I tried to address. There is no deed, no specific act that needed to get done for us to be saved. How can we address that issue with clarity?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I still don't think that you are saying it very clearly .... in English. A "deed" here is simply an act. God acts. He Incarnates. He heals. He dies and rises again.

What I suspect you mean to say is that it is not the deed IN ITSELF that saves us but Him (or rather the Trinity) doing it. Now to many this will still appear as pedantry but what we need to emphasise is that God IS the salvation he imparts. He imparts HIMSELF .... and in so doing we acquire Him deifying us.

Maybe you also need to consider whether saying that there is no deed that saves us might lead those who hear you to think that Jesus could simply be born and everything would be over and done with. What he actually did, (taught, healed, died, rose again), are the EFFECTS of God-with-us. That I think makes matters clearer.

[ 28. February 2008, 14:13: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
May I add my reflections concerning St John Chrysostom's Homily on the Corinthian Epistles. This sentence from his commentary on verse 21 intrigues me.
quote:
“Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you.” For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him.
I take it that Chrysostom is here referring to an act of God the Father, it is something that the Father 'achieved'. But what interests me most about this portion of commentary is the word 'outraged'. Pray, how might the Father be 'outraged'? What does St Chrysostom mean by the use of this word. He uses it quite a lot. Here for example:
quote:
‘I say nothing of what has gone before, that ye have outraged Him, Him that had done you no wrong, Him that had done you good, that He exacted not justice, that He is first to beseech, though first outraged; let none of these things be set down at present.
How is God outraged? In what sense is God's outrage linked with Christ becoming sin?

[ 28. February 2008, 19:16: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

And it was this that I tried to address. There is no deed, no specific act that needed to get done for us to be saved. How can we address that issue with clarity?

To add to FG and Numpty,

This is the bit where I get confused. The NT frequently speaks of the act of Christ's death bringing salvation.

Now, that does not mean that we reduce God's saving work exclusively to the cross but at the same time your statement above just does not square with scripture.

There is an historical particularity in scripture - God saves his people through his acts of intervention in human history.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Johnny S

Andreas must speak for himself but there is something I can say here.

We Orthodox emphasise that is the very Presence of God Himself in the flesh ... that is Jesus Christ WHO is our salvation. We have, therefore a WHO Christology, not a WHAT Christology.

Now Jesus said and did many things and pre-eminently he died and rose again to save us and all these are the actions of God. However, THESE VERY SAME ACTIONS would be utterly meaningless and inert for our salvation if it were not Christ who was the subject of them and Him, the Incarnate Lord.

Notwithstanding Anselm's "Cur Deus Homo" the tendency of forensic atonement is to weaken the indivisible unions of the death and the life, the Person and the work. Legal categories alone tend to become transactional rather than personal. We have to be in communion with Christ to be glorified ... not just assent (even existentially) to a formulaic presentation to what he has done.

Now all this is a matter of emphasis rather than presence and absence. As Andreas has himself admitted sometimes he is blunt to make that emphasis clear. I have been opining that such bluntness can overcompensate and fail to recognise what we truly share as being true .... which is not to say that there aren't crucial differences that touch (from our point of view) on error and even heresy ... there are.

[ 28. February 2008, 22:44: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Father Gregory, I agree with what you wrote.

Johny S, my view is that the Cross did not have an effect on some cosmic game which somehow made available justification for us while there could not have existed justification for us, but that the Cross becomes the climax of our religion in the sense that God shows the extent of his humble love, which is infinite, and opens a way for us to get transformed by that love.

Letting go of one's self becomes the way to salvation. Salvation is quite literally the person of Jesus Christ and therefore the act of the crucifixion did not bring salvation... On the contrary Salvation shone forth despite the crucifixion because Humble Love could not have been overcome by our wickedness. God;s true face was seen on the Cross, and upon seeing we can believe and upon believing we can get transformed by His Face.

My main problem is with what I see as a Major Move in a Cosmic Game.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
We Orthodox emphasise that is the very Presence of God Himself in the flesh ... that is Jesus Christ WHO is our salvation. We have, therefore a WHO Christology, not a WHAT Christology.

I appreciate that - hence the Eastern emphasis on ontology over a more Western functional definition of reality.

Nevertheless both extremes are heresy. The NT is clear - who we are is also revealed by what we do.

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
...
but that the Cross becomes the climax of our religion in the sense that God shows the extent of his humble love, which is infinite, and opens a way for us to get transformed by that love.

Oops!

Andreas try re-writing that without the obvious reference to an historic event that changes things ('opens a way for us' - implies it was closed and now it is open.)
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:


quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
...
but that the Cross becomes the climax of our religion in the sense that God shows the extent of his humble love, which is infinite, and opens a way for us to get transformed by that love.

Oops!

Andreas try re-writing that without the obvious reference to an historic event that changes things ('opens a way for us' - implies it was closed and now it is open.)

I'm not Andreas, but I don't see the issue in what he wrote. To me, the door was closed on our side, not God's--before Christ's revelation to humanity about the depth, extent, and character of the love of God, we simply didn't know the transforming love of God in the way that we can now.

Fundamentally, and I'm sure there's a name for the heresy I'm committing, I get peeved at understandings of the Cross which see it as the moment where God's attitude towards humanity changes, rather than the most supreme example of why it needs to be the other way round.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:


Fundamentally, and I'm sure there's a name for the heresy I'm committing, I get peeved at understandings of the Cross which see it as the moment where God's attitude towards humanity changes, rather than the most supreme example of why it needs to be the other way round.

I think it is common ground that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not the other way round. In general, a reconciling act does not indicate a change of attitude. Rather it is "love to the loveless shown, that they might lovely be".

I think the Orthodox see the whole Word-made-flesh Event (incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension) as a "One Act Drama" and do not wish to unbundle that drama when speaking of salvation. The fact that he is our salvation overwhelms the subordinate questions, for example, of how that might be so.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Precisely so Barnabas, precisely so.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Maybe I should quite while I'm ahead, Father Gregory, but here as promised to andreas are my comments on the nature of Substitutionary Atonement.

Some quotations first. Here is an extract from the Evangelical Alliance statement of faith.

quote:

4. The incarnation of God’s eternal Son, the Lord Jesus Christ—born of the virgin Mary; truly divine and truly human, yet without sin.
5. The atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross: dying in our place, paying the price of sin and defeating evil, so reconciling us with God.
6. The bodily resurrection of Christ, the first fruits of our resurrection; his ascension to the Father, and his reign and mediation as the only Saviour of the world.
7. The justification of sinners solely by the grace of God through faith in Christ.

And here is an extract from St John Chrysostum’s Homily (2 Cor 5:21)

quote:

If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation ….

And finally, here is a short extract from the English translation of the Syriac record of St Cyril’s commentary on the Gospel of St Luke (from Luke 23)

quote:

But this act of His did away with the curse that was upon us; for we with Him and because of Him are blessed. And knowing this, the blessed David says "Blessed are we of the Lord who made heaven and earth;" for by His sufferings, blessings descend to us. He in our stead paid our debts.

Now I see Article 5 in the Evangelical Alliance statement of faith and these two quotes from the 4th century as saying very much the same thing, namely that the death of Jesus was in some sense a vicarious sacrifice on our behalf. In the light of recent posts, it is also interesting to see St Cyril talking about "this act of his".

Some of the puzzle in this for me is I see what you may not see (and I think this is reciprocated in andreas' case at least). So I have italicised the words which seem to me to illustrate the broadly common meaning to be found in these three quotations.

Now to andreas' questions.

Who substituted whom?

According to St John Chrysostom, the King substituted his well beloved Son for the condemned malefactors. I agree with him.

Why the substitution needed to take place?

According to St Cyril, to pay "our" debts. I agree with him. According to St John Chrysostom, these debts are the debts of the malefactors, for which they have been condemned already. I agree with him as well.

Couldn't God just give without a substitution what He gave through that substitution?

Apparently not, but the reason for this seems to be on our side, not God’s. Jesus tells the travellers on the Emmaeus road that his suffering was necessary and had been foretold.

To whom was given what for our substitution?

I don’t really understand the question.

Were we expected to give it in the first place so that a substitution to be meaningful?

I think this is a supplementary question to the one immediately above, so I don't understand it either!

All I really know is that the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all. I have already said that I'm quite reluctant to press these "law court" analogies too far. Anyway, I don't think I can do much better than that. But I can and do embrace the above understanding with "Christus Victor". Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Anyway, having done some quite hard work in response to an earlier request, I thought I might return the compliment. I'm going to link to two articles by N T Wright.
The Cross and the Caricatures provides a very interesting insight into present controversies within protestantism, as well as a comprehensive guide to the way Bishop Tom sees these things.
An early essay of his on justification which may help us to understand better the differences and common ground on that issue (which is of course closely related to the main theme of this thread).

[ 29. February 2008, 09:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
"Maybe I should quit"?. Quite!
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I will read the linked documents.

The most important questions, as far as I am concerned, are left unanswered [Biased] And it is because of them that substitution is meaningless.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To whom was given what for our substitution?

I don’t really understand the question.

Were we expected to give it in the first place so that a substitution to be meaningful?

I think this is a supplementary question to the one immediately above, so I don't understand it either!

If we say that God substituted us with Christ, that he gave Christ in our place, I ask to whom did he give Christ? And then, for Christ to substitute us, it means that what Christ did we were to do. Were we indeed to do what Christ did? What kind of substitution is this? Because Christ died? We die as well. Because he suffered? We suffer as well. So that we don't get tormented in Hell? But he wasn't tormented in Hell so no substitution there either. What did this substitution consist of?

I will quote from Gregory the Theologian:

quote:
Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To Whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether. But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things? So much we have said of Christ; the greater part of what we might say shall be reverenced with silence. But that brazen serpent Numbers 21:9 was hung up as a remedy for the biting serpents, not as a type of Him that suffered for us, but as a contrast; and it saved those that looked upon it, not because they believed it to live, but because it was killed, and killed with it the powers that were subject to it, being destroyed as it deserved. And what is the fitting epitaph for it from us?"O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?" You are overthrown by the Cross; you are slain by Him who is the Giver of life; you are without breath, dead, without motion, even though you keep the form of a serpent lifted up on high on a pole.
How do you guys that support substitutionary atonement reply to that paragraph?

I hope this clarifies a bit the two questions that were not easy to understand.

It seems that things did not go as I expected them to go (with schoolwork), and I had some free time (unexpectedly, but still) after all... Hope I made wise use of it!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Father Gregory, help! I need an interpreter!
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
"To Whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed?"

"If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage!"

"But if to the Father, I ask first, how?"

"On what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim?"

[Razz]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
My puzzlement still remains, andreas. I know you think you are being clear. Maybe I am just being obtuse this morning? At the heart of this seems to be some obsession with the word substitute, which I do not share. I've already suggested the word "vicarious" if that helps.

I think, in so far as I understand them, your questions are best addressed by Hebrews Chapter 9. Here is the verses I am thinking about.

"27. Just as man is destined to die once and after that to face judgment 28. so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people ..."

And earlier, there is this powerful passage about the role of Jesus as the great high priest.

"11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!"

Under the old covenant, the high priest always made offerings "on behalf of the people" to God. Such offering of a sacrifice were always vicarious. But when Jesus, the great high priest, makes an offering of his own blood to God "on our behalf", he makes the one perfect sacrifice to God for sin. A sacrifice made by the one high priest who was able to make such a perfect sacrifice. Now how is that offering not vicarious? And Jesus tells us it was necessary.

You can sort out to what extent the Father your quoted agrees with the author of Hebrews. I agree with the author of Hebrews.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Barnabas

This would be almost funny if it was not for the schism...

Basically, when I say something you get to reply you agree with the Scriptures. The problem is that you agree with your interpretation of the Scriptures, and I agree with my interpretation of the Scriptures, and saying that you agree with Hebrews, but how Gregory squares with Hebrews needs to be examined, is too funny.

OF COURSE I agree with the Scriptures, and Gregory agrees with the Scriptures...

But you don't find me quoting the Scriptures against you... I try to broaden the discussion, to use Scriptures, post-first century fathers, reason and all that.

I could just use the same approach, because I happen to see my approach as perfectly Scriptural as well!

For sacrifice you have not desired. A true sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit.

Here. One very scriptural verse that deals satisfactory with "in our stead" and "on our behalf".

To what extent you agree with the Scriptures, since you say that a sacrifice other than our own contrite spirits was needed, it's for you to sort out [Razz]

"A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise."

Yet you say a crucifixion was necessary... However the Scriptures say that man can repent and God forgives those that repent, that he will not despise a broken and contrite heart...

But that's no discussion, is it?

Anyway, we are not getting anywhere...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas, I am going to remind you of Father Gregory's advice, and some earlier advice from Trisagion on a different thread. In your search for what you see as clarity, you have a capacity for pursuing disagreement to the nth degree which is, frankly, just disagreeable and annoying to deal with.

Is there anything I have said in this dialogue with which you agree? And if so, what? I feel the need of some kind of a stock take before making any further efforts.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Got to go to bed. So this will be quick.

Gregory the Theologian - wasn't much of one.

1. According to Paul in Galatians 3 Christ died to free us from the 'curse'. The devil did not curse us, the OT clearly lists the curses God pronounced on the Israelites if they disobeyed the law.

2. The serpent was not dead in Numbers 21 it was made (by Moses) out of bronze.

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

"A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise."

Yet you say a crucifixion was necessary... However the Scriptures say that man can repent and God forgives those that repent, that he will not despise a broken and contrite heart...


Anyway, we are not getting anywhere...

Try reading to end of the Psalm Andreas [Roll Eyes] - Psalm 51 finishes with the the hope of a man with a truly repentant heart ... "then there will be righteous sacrifices ..."

You need to integrate your biblical theology with your systematic theology. All I ever hear from you is your theological system. Both are necessary.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
"Substitution" is the problem, NOT sacrifice.

When Moses offered the sacrifices on behalf of the people he was doing that as a prophet-priest. As such he did not do that instead of them nor were the sacrifices themselves offered instead of the people, he offered them as God's anointed representative of the people. That is what a priest does. He gathers up the sacrifice of the people to God and God receives them in the peoples' name from him. The only substitution that is going on in Hebrews (or anywhere else for that matter) is the substitution of Christ for the animal sacrifices. It is Christ Himself both Priest and Victim who purifies us.

In the Eucharist this self offering of God is redirected from Himself TO US. He sheds his blood FOR the life of the world. He dos not placate the devil, or, God-forbid! ... his own sacrifice demanding wrath.

In the death of Christ we see a complete subversion and inversion of the whole notion of OT sacrifice ... a complete reconstruction. Even more radically the curses of God in the OT (Johnny S) are seen for what they truly are .... OUR OWN self-imposed curses and the associated corruption of death that we inherit from our primal willed break in communion with God, (ancestral sin).

In the resurrection God steps into that breach. He heals it and us ... he brings us back into communion with Himself. That is the reconciliation of His sacrifice but it is no substitution for any alleged punishment of ours.

Why oh why does St. John say that Perfect Love casts out fear as fear has to do with punishment? Because these things have no place in the Christian gospel. The non-Orthodox have still not exorcised themselves from these nightmarish phantoms of divine blood lust. Once this is truly appreciated then everything St. John Chrysostom and others wrote about sacrifice is seen in a completely different light.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Myrrh ... why are you being so coy? Say more.

Andreas .... I agree with you but let us remember that God-with-us is not inert. He transfigures, glorifies us ... with HIMSELF ... that much is certainly true but I speak here of the EFFECTS of his Presence with us.

What I'm trying to avoid is specifics which 'create doctrine' much as Protestants (I include RCC here) argue about what could be called 'aspects' of the Eucharist and by doing so utterly distort the 'mystery' which includes for us, for example, the cosmic Christ in the matter of creation. It's enough, for me, to know this is how we understand the victory of the Cross - that God involved himself completely in the human condition, and in the matter of creation itself, at this specific time. This, for example, could as easily be seen to be God's solution to the problem which Job raised which caused God to lose his cool and in demanding how we dare question such power of creation intrinsically admitting responsibility for the lot -
as much as it could be seen as an explanation of 'man becoming God' in the return from the created to the uncreated.

What I'm finding difficulty with here with some 'Orthodox' explanations is the tendency for them to 'go-Gnostic' by stressing one aspect to the detriment of the whole mystery as if this, because it's so different from the Protestant doctrines, is the whole of Orthodox teaching and the Orthodox doctrine on the subject. It should be remembered that we don't have 'a catechism' as a set of doctrines which we have to believe, which is a very un-orthodox method of theology, categorising beliefs like putting God into category.

We rather good at saying what God isn't, however..

Myrrh
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Myrrh

Probably for the very first time here on this board I 100% agree with you (rather than say 90% or 80% etc).

My only plea would be though that an entire lack of elucidation is taken by some to mean agnosticism ... which, of course it is not ... but we do need to explain why it is not ... which you have admirably done.

There ... I never thought I would say it! [Biased]

[ 29. February 2008, 17:18: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I will read the linked documents.

The most important questions, as far as I am concerned, are left unanswered [Biased] And it is because of them that substitution is meaningless.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To whom was given what for our substitution?

I don’t really understand the question.

Were we expected to give it in the first place so that a substitution to be meaningful?

I think this is a supplementary question to the one immediately above, so I don't understand it either!

If we say that God substituted us with Christ, that he gave Christ in our place, I ask to whom did he give Christ? And then, for Christ to substitute us, it means that what Christ did we were to do. Were we indeed to do what Christ did? What kind of substitution is this? Because Christ died? We die as well. Because he suffered? We suffer as well. So that we don't get tormented in Hell? But he wasn't tormented in Hell so no substitution there either. What did this substitution consist of?

I will quote from Gregory the Theologian:

quote:
Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To Whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether. But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things? So much we have said of Christ; the greater part of what we might say shall be reverenced with silence. But that brazen serpent Numbers 21:9 was hung up as a remedy for the biting serpents, not as a type of Him that suffered for us, but as a contrast; and it saved those that looked upon it, not because they believed it to live, but because it was killed, and killed with it the powers that were subject to it, being destroyed as it deserved. And what is the fitting epitaph for it from us?"O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?" You are overthrown by the Cross; you are slain by Him who is the Giver of life; you are without breath, dead, without motion, even though you keep the form of a serpent lifted up on high on a pole.
How do you guys that support substitutionary atonement reply to that paragraph?

I would say that Gregory is struggling to understand a concept that Mark the Evangelist clearly understood and affirmed. Mark 10.45 is one of the earliest New Testament statements concerning the Christ's death and it comes from the lips of the Lord himself:
quote:
whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Gregory seems to be taking issue with the concept of ransom not substitution. I would also say Gregory is at odds with the Apostle Peter who says, in Acts 2.23, that the Father planned the death of the Son from eternity:
quote:
This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
I would however say that Gregory is right to perceive the death of death in the death of Christ.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I have no problem with ransom at all Numpty. St. Gregory the Theologian merely pointed out that "ransom" is itself a metaphor that cannot be pushed too far. The ransom was not paid either to the devil or God. The death of Christ sets us free ... redeems us from the power of death through death. Anselm launched into satisfaction on the basis that ransom was compromised by such questions. It wasn't and isn't. Had he really read the Cappadocian fathers? If he had he wouldn't have rubbished ransom. Neither do I. The important thing is to recognise that these are metaphors. Myrrh is right to remind us that for the gospel it is enough to affirm the fact of our redemption without absolutising any one way of characterising that. Indeed, the death and resurrection of Christ is one thing that the Church has never dogmatised ... with good reason. It's a shame that the scholastics and all other rationalisers since haven't realised that.

[ 29. February 2008, 18:52: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Father Gregory

I think you are right to point to the dangers of "nightmarish phantoms of divine blood lust" (in your "Substitution") post but I don't think things are as simple as you say. Here's a quote from N T Wright's "The Cross and the Caricature" to which I provided a link.

quote:
I was put in mind of a characteristically gentle remark of Henry Chadwick, in his introductory lectures on doctrine which I attended my first year in Oxford. 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.' For myself, I prefer to go with Henry Chadwick, and James Denney - and Wesley and Watts, and Cranmer and Hooker, and Athanasius and Augustine and Aquinas - and Paul, Peter, Mark, Luke, John - and, I believe Jesus himself. To throw away the reality because you don't like the caricature is like cutting out the patient's heart to stop a nosebleed. Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and all because of the unstoppable love of the one creator God. There is 'no condemnation' for those who are in Christ, because on the cross God condemned sin in the flesh of the Son who, as the expression of his own self-giving love, had been sent for that very purpose. 'He did not spare his very own Son, but gave him up for us all.' That's what Good Friday was, and is, all about.
I think the whole essay is worth reading. And I do not think you can "purify" vicarious atonement out of the gospels, or the letters or e.g. Chrysostom purely by assertion.

On the other hand, I'm quite happy to accept that within Orthodoxy, atonement is not a major part of the "One Act Drama". Seeing the need to understand the word pictures of vicarious atonement as a feature of the Big Picture is fine. Denying the evidence that they are there in the early documents strikes me as not so good.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Barnabas

Regarding the word "atonement" ... it was of course invented by Tyndale in the 16th century and it was inevitable that the word accrued to itself particularly understandings of sacrifice that made sense to Christians at the time. I don't object per se to the use of the word but we need to be clear about what it could mean and what it does not mean patristically and biblically. Moving on ...

It simply isn't true that in Orthodoxy atonement does not play a major part in the "one act drama." It does; it's just that SUBSTITUTION allied to PROPITIATION is not part of that. I don't understand why substitution and propitiation have become so wedded to sacrifice that now, even when they are prized apart by me and others, they still seem to be joined at the hip. This only makes SOME Orthodox tempted to jettison the whole idea as fatally compromised. I have tried (unsuccessfully) to show why it is not.

[ 29. February 2008, 20:25: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
It feels like we get very close to shaking hands on this, Father G, then we start counting each others fingers! Thanks for trying. I'll reflect some more ...
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I have no problem with ransom at all Numpty.

Of course Orthodoxy does not have a problem with ransom. Neither do we have a problem with every other scriptural dogma. The problem arises when some Protestants who have never ever imagined that those verses could refer to something other than what they have taken for granted, come and say oh no what you Orthodox are saying is contrary to what the Scriptures say because it is written that...

I see that they have a completely different take of some verses they take for granted, so I don't just reply with verses that support what I am saying, and I don't do that for two reasons. First, because it's not verse fighting verse. All verses are Orthodox period. And secondly, because if I do the same thing, then no way out of talking past each other can ever be found.

Which brings me to...

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On the other hand, I'm quite happy to accept that within Orthodoxy, atonement is not a major part of the "One Act Drama".

Huh? Of course Atonement is the most important thing of our religion! How on earth did you come from Orthodoxy rejecting substitution entirely to that is beyond me. But, wait a minute....

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Barnabas

Regarding the word "atonement" ... it was of course invented by Tyndale in the 16th century and it was inevitable that the word accrued to itself particularly understandings of sacrifice that made sense to Christians at the time.

It's all clear now. Yet another word that has a certain meaning within Protestantism which is taken for granted...

Oh dear. All the things you guys are fighting for, from the Scriptures, are all 100% true and accepted by Orthodoxy, the meaning however you think they have, which you take for granted, is not the meaning we have in mind when we read the Scriptures.

It's not an issue about the Protestants putting Scriptures above everything else. It never was. The Scriptures are at the heart of Orthodoxy and Orthodox theology manages that while keeping the original intent of the scriptural writers.

I don't know if this will sound like polemic, it really is intended to be an explanation of all the frustration... Of course, I understand that this goes both ways!
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
"Substitution" is the problem, NOT sacrifice.

I know. I was merely replying to Andreas.


quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
That is what a priest does. He gathers up the sacrifice of the people to God and God receives them in the peoples' name from him. The only substitution that is going on in Hebrews (or anywhere else for that matter) is the substitution of Christ for the animal sacrifices. It is Christ Himself both Priest and Victim who purifies us.

[Confused] I don't see how this view of substitution is significantly less bloody and wrathful than PSA. ISTM that you are merely sweeping sacrifice under the carpet of dumb animals?



quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Even more radically the curses of God in the OT (Johnny S) are seen for what they truly are .... OUR OWN self-imposed curses and the associated corruption of death that we inherit from our primal willed break in communion with God, (ancestral sin).

But where do you get this from? I'm up for a more nuanced understanding of 'the curses' but I'd like even a hint from the scriptures that we should move in that direction. (Indeed Hebrews 12 pushes the other way.)



quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Why oh why does St. John say that Perfect Love casts out fear as fear has to do with punishment? Because these things have no place in the Christian gospel.

[Confused] That would be the same 1 John 4 that defines love like this, just a few verses earlier: "... and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."

An explanation of v 18 which is entirely consistent with the context of 1 John 4 is that we do not need to fear punishment because of Christ's atoning sacrifice.

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
St. Gregory the Theologian merely pointed out that "ransom" is itself a metaphor that cannot be pushed too far. The ransom was not paid either to the devil or God. The death of Christ sets us free ... redeems us from the power of death through death.

I'm with you all the way here... don't push the ransom metaphor too far ... the death of death in Christ's sacrifice.

[ 29. February 2008, 22:17: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Gregory the Theologian:

"O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?" You are overthrown by the Cross; you are slain by Him who is the Giver of life; you are without breath, dead, without motion, even though you keep the form of a serpent lifted up on high on a pole.

I totally agree with this as well. The brazen serpent is a picture of what was in Christ being killed on the Cross; namely sin and death. However, it was through the power of an indestructible life that Christ was able to endure the cross and scorn its shame:
quote:
15And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. Hebrews 7:15-16
The question remains is this; 'When Christ became sin and death - and bore those things in his body on the tree - in what sense was he doing the Father's will? I think, following the Apostle Peter, that Gregory is wrong to suggest that the Father is merely passive and receptive in this regard. Christ willingly became the locus of those things in order than the Father might exact a just sentence against them in proportion to the outrage that those things cause him.

[ 01. March 2008, 06:55: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas

From your above post

quote:
quote:
Originally quoted by Barnabas62
On the other hand, I'm quite happy to accept that within Orthodoxy, atonement is not a major part of the "One Act Drama".

Huh? Of course Atonement is the most important thing of our religion! How on earth did you come from Orthodoxy rejecting substitution entirely to that is beyond me
I think you must have forgotten this earlier Wikipedia quote, the point at which I came into discussing substitution and on which I asked for Orthodox opinion

quote:
All branches of the Christian faith embrace substitutionary atonement as the central meaning of Jesus' death on the cross, while some differ in their larger atonement theories. The Eastern Orthodox Church incorporates substitutionary atonement as one (relatively minor) element of a single doctrine of the Cross and Resurrection, the Catholic church incorporates it into Aquinas' Satisfaction doctrine rooted in the idea of penance, and Evangelical Protestants interpret it largely in terms of penal substitution
Since I asked for that opinion, all of your replies have been emphasising the wrongness of "substitution". Your opinion that that "relatively minor" is also wrong is actually very welcome to me, but you have just said it. My misapprehension, therefore, has nothing to do with protestant definitions, simply to do with the responses from you and Father Gregory.

You have read in my thinking a prior assumption which was not there. Go back and look. At any time, either you or Father Gregory could have said, "Wikipedia is wrong both on 'substitution' and 'relatively minor'" and I would have accepted what you say. After all, you live within Orthodoxy. I do not see either of you saying that before your most recent posts.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Sorry, I missed that Barnabas. Wikipedia is incorrect in this regard. The probkem arises because western authors by not being able to separate sacrifice and substitution just assume that if you have the one (sacrifice) you have the other (substitution). This tendency is quite prevalent here as well.

Dear Call Me Numpty

Of course he was doing the Father's will ... how else can you read Gethsemane?! However, we put the emphasis on his VOLUNTARY ascent on the Cross and in no way suggest that the Father HIMSELF sacrificed the Son. WE sacrificed the Son but in that Sacrifice the Trinity acted - despite us - by pouring out his Blood for all and for the Cosmos. He makes things right because he does not hold our sins against us but rather in the resurrection heals us and sets us free.

Dear Johnny S

the sacrifice of animals wasn't to avert God's anger it was to impart life on the people (the sprinking of the blood). The only place where aversion comes close is the marking of the lintel at Passover BUT that was hardly to do with the sins of Israel but simply as a marker for busy angels.

Finally not only do we have no need to fear punishment the death of Christ isn't actually about punishment. WE killed Jesus. He VOLUNTARILY offered himself on the cross. How is that the punishment of anyone ... I just don't see it. The Father isn't passive ... the whole Trinity acts in the death and resurrection of Christ.

[ 01. March 2008, 07:42: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Sorry, I missed that Barnabas. Wikipedia is incorrect in this regard. The probkem arises because western authors by not being able to separate sacrifice and substitution just assume that if you have the one (sacrifice) you have the other (substitution). This tendency is quite prevalent here as well.


Thanks for your confirmation, Father Gregory. I know you haven't changed your mind!

Italicised portion of your quote; I think you are right on the money here. My reflections this morning have brought me to that point precisely. I do think the whole OT sacrificial practice is both propitiatory and substitutional, and I do think the sacrifice of Jesus brought an end to any need (perceived or real) for that practice. That for me is the abiding significance of the veil of the temple being torn from top to bottom - I've even heard a meditation on the significance of "top to bottom". Carry out the Old and bring in the New? That is certainly true of Old and New Covenant.

The sacrifice of Jesus is pivotal in so many ways, but it seems particularly pivotal on the whole issue of the nature of sacrifice itself. I'll have another look ....
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
That's fine Barnabas provided that the sacrifice of Jesus REPLACED putative propitiation in the OT rather than fulfilled it by carrying it forward under a different guise. That's certainly how we understand ilasterion.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
That is precisely the argument I wanted to look at. Is this replacement? Or is this completion?

And I do, seriously, want to avoid "counting each others' fingers". Basically, I'm a trusting soul. But, to borrow from andreas, a thousand years of schism is no small thing. I think it might benefit from a bit of "one-to-one" repair work here and there.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Indeed ... there are things that badly need repairing on our side as well. We are beginning to see now a long overdue rejuvenation in the publication of biblical commentaries, based on the fathers but also incorporating consistent contemporary insights.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
FG - the reason why we are not getting anywhere is that you are not bringing any arguments to back up your position. You are merely asserting that you are correct.

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:

Of course he was doing the Father's will ... how else can you read Gethsemane?! However, we put the emphasis on his VOLUNTARY ascent on the Cross and in no way suggest that the Father HIMSELF sacrificed the Son.

Christ's voluntary acceptance of the cross is precisely why 'child abuse' is such an obvious mis-reading of PSA. Jesus struggled with 'the cup of wrath' but he accepted it willingly. PSA has never been about the Father 'sacrificing his Son' in that sense.

Nevertheless you still haven't answered Numpty's question. Gethsemane shows us that there was no other way, calvary HAD to happen. If the cross was only (instead of partly) just an expression of our rebellion then way was it necessary?


quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
the sacrifice of animals wasn't to avert God's anger it was to impart life on the people (the sprinking of the blood). The only place where aversion comes close is the marking of the lintel at Passover BUT that was hardly to do with the sins of Israel but simply as a marker for busy angels.

But how does the sprinkling of blood impart life? Why is death (of another being) necessary for life? How, if the 'cost' of life is the death of an animal, is this different to PSA?


quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Finally not only do we have no need to fear punishment the death of Christ isn't actually about punishment. WE killed Jesus. He VOLUNTARILY offered himself on the cross. How is that the punishment of anyone ... I just don't see it. The Father isn't passive ... the whole Trinity acts in the death and resurrection of Christ.

[Confused] Peter seems to find it a lot easier to accept the apparent contradiction between 'us killing Jesus' AND 'it all being God's plan' than you do (Acts 2: 23). Perhaps you should listen to him. [Big Grin]

'I just don't see it' - that gives the game away, doesn't it?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
At any time, either you or Father Gregory could have said, "Wikipedia is wrong both on 'substitution' and 'relatively minor'" and I would have accepted what you say.

[brick wall]

But I have said that in my first post after you made that quotation!

You asked, is this a misrepresentation? And I replied, yes, we do not have a substitutionary view of atonement. In fact, our view of atonement has such a specific meaning that it cannot, by its very meaning, be substitutionary.

/end of my reply to Barnabas

/beginning of a more general post

It's unbelievable. Such a brutal and wicked act becomes the focus for some people's religion... Not the fact that Jesus Christ was utterly humble and stood utterly powerless in front of the criminals. But that the crime itself is seen as bringing salvation...

Father Gregory's use of despite is revealing. Our salvation takes place despite the crucifixion, because even the greatest wickedness of man cannot defeat the humble love of God... And because this is the kind of God we believe in, the kind of God that was revealed to us, this is why in the Crucifixion man's salvation is seen. Not because the crime was necessary. But because despite the crime God manifested himself and his plan for mankind. What Jesus Christ is we are to become. Which is why we need to take up our own cross and follow him.

[ 01. March 2008, 09:34: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
There was indeed no other way ... of dealing with death as well as sin. Of course we mean by that the death of Jesus .... his crucifixion as the means could have been different .... but in effect (contra JW's) wasn't.

The death was necessary in order to destroy death and undo sin. You can't defeat anything unless you engage it on its own turf, so to speak.

I am also not denying that this was God's plan or as I would prefer, his willed response to our situation. However, the will of God is not a brute force in history but rather a response in line with our condition and choices. We have dealt with the issue of gnomic will in relation to Christ on another thread fairly recently. I don't think I want to go through all that again!

As to how the blood of animals could deal with our sin and death, the writer of Hebrews of course challenged that as well! (Hebrews 9:9-10) ... but it remains the actual practice of animal sacrifices in the OT (there are other sacrifices of course with apparently different intents).

We see Hebrews acknowledging that in 9:13 and then moving on to compare that with the totally efficacious sacrifice of Christ. He doesn't explain how the OT sprinkling could purify but there have been plenty of folk in the history of religions school who have speculated that since the life of the animal was seen to reside in the blood, the sprinkling with this blood of something really precious to herdsmen served symbolically to confer new life on the people.

The crucial difference with Christ of course is that the washing with the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 7:13-17) is ACTUAL in the person of God Himself, not symbolic with respect to an animal. Therein lies the power of Christ's death to overthrow death and bring life (which includes all the "goodies" of salvation ... forgiveness, sanctification, healing, theosis, a New Creation).

[ 01. March 2008, 09:39: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:

The death was necessary in order to destroy death and undo sin. You can't defeat anything unless you engage it on its own turf, so to speak.

Stop waving your hands and explain what you mean. Lazarus died and came back to life again. Why does the resurrection mean that Jesus defeated death for good and (more importantly) why does his death apply to us?

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I am also not denying that this was God's plan or as I would prefer, his willed response to our situation. However, the will of God is not a brute force in history but rather a response in line with our condition and choices. We have dealt with the issue of gnomic will in relation to Christ on another thread fairly recently. I don't think I want to go through all that again!

Okay, as long as we agree that our choices can nver make his will contingent... or at least note that I don't entirely accept your view of God's will.



quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
We see Hebrews acknowledging that in 9:13 and then moving on to compare that with the totally efficacious sacrifice of Christ. He doesn't explain how the OT sprinkling could purify but there have been plenty of folk in the history of religions school who have speculated that since the life of the animal was seen to reside in the blood, the sprinkling with this blood of something really precious to herdsmen served symbolically to confer new life on the people.

Let's get this straight - please put me right if I'm mis-hearing you. You don't actually have any biblical warrant for interpreting it your way but because plenty of people have 'speculated' you are going for that? Please tell me you base it on something a bit 'firmer' than that.

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The crucial difference with Christ of course is that the washing with the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 7:13-17) is ACTUAL in the person of God Himself, not symbolic with respect to an animal. Therein lies the power of Christ's death to overthrow death and bring life (which includes all the "goodies" of salvation ... forgiveness, sanctification, healing, theosis, a New Creation).

Do you think that Christ's death worked in a similar way to the OT sacrifice or not? (There seems to be direct typology here.) If yes, then explain how this is not substitution? (It doesn't have to be penal, but it surely has to be substitution?)

Your quote above does not indicate 'replacement' but substitution!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
At any time, either you or Father Gregory could have said, "Wikipedia is wrong both on 'substitution' and 'relatively minor'" and I would have accepted what you say.

[brick wall]

But I have said that in my first post after you made that quotation!

You asked, is this a misrepresentation? And I replied, yes, we do not have a substitutionary view of atonement. In fact, our view of atonement has such a specific meaning that it cannot, by its very meaning, be substitutionary.


I think your head-banging must be based on a failure to understand simple English. You said nothing about "relatively minor" - that was my sole point. I am not claiming that you or Father G deliberately misled you, simply that neither of you said anything "relatively minor". You jump to conclusions again.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Apologies - flood control stopped the edit "deliberately misled me" and "re relatively minor"

[ 01. March 2008, 10:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Barnabas, you gave the quote, which quote includes the relatively minor clause, and I rejected the quote in its entirety. It didn't occur to me that I had to mention the relatively minor part by name. The quote says just that, that the Orthodox incorporate substitution as a relatively minor element in theology, and I rejected that suggestion. What else did I reject if not that? Hope it's clearer now...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
It's fine andreas, but don't overlook that I only made the point because you presupposed a different reason for my confusion on that matter i.e a protestant definition of words. Here is your quote

quote:
It's all clear now. Yet another word that has a certain meaning within Protestantism which is taken for granted...
That opinion may have some justification on this issue, certainly from your point of view. But it can in no way be linked to my temporary and now corrected "relatively minor" misunderstanding. Given your penchant for clarity, I hope you appreciate this clarification.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I don't understand what you mean.

Let me be even clearer:

You wrote: On the other hand, I'm quite happy to accept that within Orthodoxy, atonement is not a major part of the "One Act Drama".

Where did you get that from? Was it from anything an Orthodox poster wrote? What was it?

Because, as far as I can see, we Orthodox only spoke against substitution. So, to go from that to atonement not being a major part is a non-sequitor. Which is why I said you mean something different than what we mean by atonement. We reject something else (not atonement) something you view intimately connected with atonement, so you think that our criticism to that is also criticism to atonement itself! And if father Gregory is right, in what he said about the use of the word atonement, then this explains much.

Is father Gregory right in what he said about the word atonement, that it was invented by Tyndale in the 16th century and it was inevitable that the word accrued to itself particularly understandings of sacrifice that made sense to Christians at the time?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Try harder, andreas. Or PM Father Gregory. I am not trying to justify myself or mislead anyone.

Whatever you may have intended, and however you may read your own words, I did not understand your first post as a rejection of both "substitution" and "relatively minor". I accepted it as a rejection of "substitution". I accept your assurance that you meant a total rejection of the Wikipedia quote - I just didn't read it that way.

And Father Gregory endorsed this post with this approval.

So my use of the One Act Drama phrase has his approval and my use of "relatively minor" is based on a misunderstanding whose roots I have explained. I don't claim infallibility for my own view and there is no need for us to fall out over something as minor as this. You are pursuing differences to the nth degree again.

Can we get back to more substantial issues, please?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Johnny S

quote:
Why does the resurrection mean that Jesus defeated death for good and (more importantly) why does his death apply to us?

Why do you say more importantly? God save us from theological utilitarianism! Without the vanquishing of death "we are still in our sins." (1 Corinthians 15:17-19).

Note that just as surely as the Scriptures do NOT explain precisely how the blood of animals in the OT served for purification (and therefore I am entitled to speculate based on biblical data ... the life being in the blood) so also the New testament does not precisely explain what "death is swallowed up in victory" means (1 Corinthians 15:54). To a rationalising "let's pin it down" scholastic (ever since Anselm, both Protestant and Catholic) I am hand waving. From an Orthodox point of view and the fathers I am simply preaching the gospel. As Myrrh has shown the reluctance to define to the nth degree both preserves the depth of the mystery in Christ and allows people existentially to embrace and be embraced by that.

When I became a CONSCIOUSLY believing Christian in 1975 I knew that Jesus out of his great love had died for all and for me. I knew that he was a living Saviour having destroyed death in his own Person by the resurrection. My conversion and sanctification didn't depend on precise formulae, sinners' prayers or atonement "theories." I had come into communion with the living God. That is enough.

Later on of course I learned more about these atonement "theories" and the differences between different Christian traditions. I learned to keep a sense of priority and proportion however. As years went by it became clear to me that some Christians really preferred tidy little statements and logically sequenced arguments. It seemed to me then (and now) that this was a road leading nowhere. The whole point about Christianity is to know Christ ... not simply to know things about Him (although that has its own place).

That's why I must continue to wave my hands and refuse to answer your question.

[ 01. March 2008, 11:13: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:

When I became a CONSCIOUSLY believing Christian in 1975 I knew that Jesus out of his great love had died for all and for me. I knew that he was a living Saviour having destroyed death in his own Person by the resurrection. My conversion and sanctification didn't depend on precise formulae, sinners' prayers or atonement "theories." I had come into communion with the living God. That is enough.

Agreed. That shouldn't prevent us from wanting to learn more though. As a teacher in the church you would surely want to do so?

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Later on of course I learned more about these atonement "theories" and the differences between different Christian traditions. I learned to keep a sense of priority and proportion however. As years went by it became clear to me that some Christians really preferred tidy little statements and logically sequenced arguments. It seemed to me then (and now) that this was a road leading nowhere. The whole point about Christianity is to know Christ ... not simply to know things about Him (although that has its own place).

That's why I must continue to wave my hands and refuse to answer your question.

Two points:

1. All this 'we can't really explain it stuff' might have been a teeny-weeny bit more credible if you had said it before umpteen-million posts.

2. If you want to take that position then fine. But you cannot then critique any other atonement models... precisely because it is a 'mystery'.


I'm thinking of changing my sig. to "Father Gregory has no logically sequenced arguments about the atonement" or "Father Gregory is quite happy with PSA" - which do you prefer? [Big Grin]

[ 01. March 2008, 11:57: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Barnabas

Have a look at this:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
2. If you want to take that position then fine. But you cannot then critique any other atonement models... precisely because it is a 'mystery'.

Now, I know father Gregory, and this is very opposite to what he has been saying in this thread. That's what I was afraid of. The perpetuation of misunderstandings. And the way I see it, that's not me pursuing differences to the nth degree... Oh well. Impasse.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas, what has Johnny S's post got to do with our recent exchanges?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
You say I am pursuing differences to the nth degree. I am saying that the differences are major and that I am trying to help so that we can understand the Orthodox position better and put an end to misunderstandings about what the Orthodox are saying.

The discussion between father Gregory and Johny S is revealing. Father Gregory says something (which is very Orthodox, by the way) and then Jonhy S replies "Ah, I understand what you are saying now, you are saying this and that" when that's quite against what father Gregory has been saying...

To put it differently, we are not saying we do know not which model is right... We are saying something much different (the thing about Who Jesus Christ Is, I mentioned earlier) which is completely incompatible with the models on substitutions and penal substitutions and whatever has been proposed here...

It's not that we don't give an answer. It's that the answer we give is completely outside the framework from within those non-Orthodox views on atonement come in the first place...

I'm not trying to explain the Orthodox view on atonement with this post. What I am trying to explain is why this discussion hasn't gone anywhere and why still misunderstandings take place all over the thread...

[ 01. March 2008, 14:25: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Oh I see. When Johnny S pursues an argument on the grounds of his understanding, he perpetuates and multiplies confusion. When you do the same, your aim is to clarify. Looks like an irregular verb to me. "I clarify, you obfuscate, he confuses."

So let me tell you what I see. Johnny S, based on Father Gregory's responses, may believe that the good FG is taking refuge in obscurity i.e. refusing to clarify either because he cannot or refuses to do so. And I see Father Gregory doing something different, which is refusing to take the argument further than he believes it is useful, safe or helpful to do so. On this issue, I am actually closer to Father Gregory's position than Johnny S's. I do not see Father G taking refuge in obscurity or refusing to argue, rather (as he says)

quote:
I learned to keep a sense of priority and proportion however. As years went by it became clear to me that some Christians really preferred tidy little statements and logically sequenced arguments. It seemed to me then (and now) that this was a road leading nowhere. The whole point about Christianity is to know Christ ... not simply to know things about Him (although that has its own place).
I relate to that observation.

But of course I am quite happy for either Father G or Johnny S to come along and tell me that my above observations are a load of bollocks, and I would have done much better to wait for each to explain things in their own terms. Rather than make the assumption that each was multiplying confusion. That is my normal approach; to observe, or ask a question about something which puzzles me.

I am not sure this helps a lot, but who knows?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:


Is father Gregory right in what he said about the word atonement, that it was invented by Tyndale in the 16th century and it was inevitable that the word accrued to itself particularly understandings of sacrifice that made sense to Christians at the time?

In an attempt to move the discussion on, I think Father Gregory may be right. I can't provide the link (you have to be a subscriber) but here is a short excerpt from an Online Encyclopedia Britannica article on atonement

quote:
Atonement: the process by which a person removes obstacles to his reconciliation with God. It is a recurring theme in the history of religion and theology. Rituals of expiation and satisfaction appear in most religions, whether primitive or developed, as the means by which the religious person reestablishes or strengthens his relation to the holy or divine. Atonement is often attached to sacrifice, both of which often connect ritual cleanness with moral purity and religious acceptability.

The term atonement developed in the English language in the 16th century by the combination of “at onement,” meaning to “set at one,” or “to reconcile.” It was used in the various English translations of the Bible, including the King James Version (1611), to convey the idea of reconciliation and expiation, and it has been a favourite way for Christians to speak about the saving significance attributed to the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Various theories of the meaning of the Atonement of Christ have arisen: satisfaction for the sins of the world; redemption from the devil or from the wrath of God; a saving example of true, suffering love; the prime illustration of divine mercy; a divine victory over the forces of evil. In Christian orthodoxy there is no remission of sin without “the shedding of [Christ's] blood” (Hebrews 9:26).

No attribution to Tyndale there. And also, by contrast, I find this comment in Vine's Expository Greek-English dictionary.

"The explanation of this English word as being at-one-ment is entirely fanciful".

Take your pick!

I suspect it has already been done to death in this thread, but the real issues are not so much to be found in arguments re the English words but the Greek and Hebrew (hilasterion, hilasmos, hilaskomai, kippr, etc). I don't think the word atonement was deliberately invented or used by protestants to put any particular emphasis on the meaning of the original texts - the sort of fundamentalism which thought inerrancy was to be found in the text of the KJV came in much later than the Reformation.

A fair deal has been made recently over confusion caused by English translations, whether of the scriptures or the fathers. I really don't think that is a major issue in coming to terms with, or understanding, our differences, (though confusion over language may sometimes be a factor.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
May I add my reflections concerning St John Chrysostom's Homily on the Corinthian Epistles. This sentence from his commentary on verse 21 intrigues me.
quote:
“Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you.” For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him.
I take it that Chrysostom is here referring to an act of God the Father, it is something that the Father 'achieved'. But what interests me most about this portion of commentary is the word 'outraged'. Pray, how might the Father be 'outraged'? What does St Chrysostom mean by the use of this word. He uses it quite a lot. Here for example:
quote:
‘I say nothing of what has gone before, that ye have outraged Him, Him that had done you no wrong, Him that had done you good, that He exacted not justice, that He is first to beseech, though first outraged; let none of these things be set down at present.
How is God outraged? In what sense is God's outrage linked with Christ becoming sin?

I've called this back from a previous page because it intrigued me at the time and I'm not sure I've seen any response. I don't know what the original word (translated as "outrage") really was. "orge"? "thuma"? Simply to say that God's disapproval of sin is expressed in very strong terms. I bring it back not to stake out territory but because, like Numpty, I am intrigued to see St John using such language in his consideration of the meaning of "made sin". To these ears, he sounds rather like an 18th or 19th century protestant revivalist preacher! (Ancient though I am, I only know this from reading sermons!).

Father Gregory, it may be of some encouragement to you that I accept a very great deal of what you have to say about sacrifice, not just here but in this sermon of yours. I also accept the need to do away with primitive fears and bloodlusts.

And I also accept that the sacrificial death of Christ, considered on its own and apart from the resurrection, can distort the "One Act Drama". As I said to andreas, I do not see you being at all obscurantist in your response to Johnny S - in fact I find an analogous thought to yours in the mind of N T Wright, expressed in this essay. Here is the quote which sticks out for me.

quote:
In any case, I am one of those who think it good that the church has never formally defined 'the atonement', partly because I firmly believe that when Jesus himself wanted to explain to his disciples what his forthcoming death was all about, he didn't give them a theory, he gave them a meal. Of course, the earliest exponent of that meal (Paul, in 1 Corinthians) insists that it matters quite a lot that you understand what you are about as you come to share in it; but still it is the meal, not the understanding, that is the primary vehicle of meaning. What is more, I happen to believe, as a reader of the New Testament, that all the great 'theories' about atonement do indeed have roots there, and that the better we understand the apostolic testimony the better we see how they fit together.
You will note that he includes 'the atonement' in quotes, which in itself is a recognition that the word (whatever its origins) is no more than a label for underlying truth. Also, the rest of what he says in the essay needs to be read in the light of the above very humble - and humbling - view.

BUT (and I am sure you could sense the "but" coming) I am sure you also agree that God's very strong disapproval of human sin cannot be set aside. It is an eternal feature of his nature. May we also set aside for the moment our differences and concerns about "substitution" and consider, calmly, Numpty's question? There might be something there on which we can all agree.
 
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The term atonement developed in the English language in the 16th century by the combination of “at onement,” meaning to “set at one,” or “to reconcile.”

"The explanation of this English word as being at-one-ment is entirely fanciful".

Take your pick!

The Shorter Oxford (or SOD to its friends) seems to imply that the word atonement is a "calque" of the Medieval Latin word "adunamentum" (found from the 8th century onwards), itself from "adunare", meaning "to unite".

In other words, to explain what a "calque" is: "at-one-ment" copies the parts and the order of the Latin compound word "ad-una-ment-um". However, I have no idea how widely that word and its relatives may have been used in medieval theological writings.

In any event, I would sooner trust the scholars of the SOD and its OED big brother than the compilers of Vine's Expository Greek-English dictionary.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Very helpful, MSHB, and your final para is fair comment.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
The following from St John Chrysostom:

quote:
What then is this? “Him that knew no sin,” he says, Him that was righteousness itself αὐτοδικαιοσύνην., “He made sin,” that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. “For cursed is he that hangeth on a tree.” (Gal. iii. 13.)
This suggests to me that Chrysostom is suggesting penal substitution and vicarious accursedness! No?

quote:
For to die thus was far greater than to die; and this he also elsewhere implying, saith, “Becoming obedient unto death, yea the death of the cross.” (Philip. ii. 8.) For this thing carried with it not only punishment, but also disgrace.
The crucifixion carried with it punishment and disgrace!? Chrysostom says that "to die thus (by crucifixion) was far greater than to die". In other words that there is something unique and great about the cross as the means of Christ's death as opposed to other possible deaths. Furthermore, Chrysostom - using the word "thing" for the cross event - overtly uses penal categories of thought with talk of punishment and disgrace, does he not?

quote:
Reflect therefore how great things He bestowed on thee. For a great thing indeed it were for even a sinner to die for any one whatever; but when He who undergoes this both is righteous and dieth for sinners; and not dieth only, but even as one cursed; and not as cursed [dieth] only, but thereby freely bestoweth upon us those great goods which we never looked for; (for he says, that “we might become the righteousness of God in Him;”) what words, what thought shall be adequate to realize these things?
Chrysostom seems here to be talking about bestowed, dare I say imputed, righteousness. Christ's righteousness is bestowed upon us and our sin is bestowed upon him. There is a divine exchange. No?

quote:
For he said not “made” [Him] a sinner, but “sin;” not, ‘Him that had not sinned’ only, but “that had not even known sin; that we” also “might become,” he did not say ‘righteous,’ but, “righteousness,” and, “the righteousness of God.” For this is [the righteousness] “of God” when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is “the righteousness of God.”
I'm sorry, but this is classic "protestantism"! This is the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone. It could not be clearer that the protestant innovations of Justification by faith and penal substitutionary atonement were being preached by St John Chrysostom. How interesting!

[ 02. March 2008, 16:09: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
NOTE to Call Me Numpty .... your post has just crossed with mine. I will deal with it presently. [Smile]

You know, the more I think about this the more I think it has to do with punishment.

Non-Orthodox version: All have actually sinned in Adam incurring God's wrath and his punishment (hell) is entirely justified for the holy can neither have communion with the wicked nor let vice go unrecompensed. Christ's death satisfies God's righteous judgement in the matter by offering a sacrifice for sin that sinful humans could never make. God receives this sacrifice, is propitiated by it and vindicates it by raising Christ from the dead, imparting new life to the believers. The believers now live in Christ and learn through repentance and cross-bearing to achieve resurrection in the last day.

Orthodox version: All experience the temptation to sin from Adam and if we actually sin this separates us from God-who-is-Love. Such separation from God-who-is-Love is hell. Christ offers himself in sacrifice by his death and descends into this hell to liberate the human race from sin and death by the power of his resurrection. The believers now live in Christ and learn through repentance and cross-bearing to achieve their newly given potential of theosis.

These summaries are grossly inadequate I know but they may be useful to highlight an important difference. In the first non-Orthodox version God punishes sin and the cross has to deal with that for their to be communion with God. In the Second Orthodox version sin leads to its own punishment (separation) and Christ himself by his death and resurrection heals the breach.

[ 02. March 2008, 16:15: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Call Me Numpty

Yes, the cross was both a disgrace and a punishment ... let's not forget the context here ... because it was such as an instrument of Roman penal retribution and deterrent. This also reflects a similar idea in Judaism about the curse of those who hang on a tree. The Orthodox faith completely concurs with St. John Chrysostom that Christ voluntarily submitted himself to the undeserved punishment, torture and disgrace of public execution by cross-hanging. He did this to become the scum of the earth so that forgiveness could proceed from the lowest point of human evil ... but what on earth or heaven has this to do with DIVINE punishment?

On imputed righteousness Christ bestows lots of things on us ... but it is a heck of a big step from divine gift to divine replacement.

Your last comment about justification by grace through faith is perfectly in accord with us. We have no disagreement. What we MAY disagree about is the degree to which sanctification plays a role in salvation. This is not to confuse sanctification with justification but to ask how both contribute in their own respective domains. God takes the initiative with justification (albeit that repentance is necessary which is on our side) but sanctification in Orthodox terms has to be synergistic between grace and freewill leading to a state (theosis) where the fruit of justification is fully appropriated in and by the indwelling Spirit.

Interestingly your quotes are selective in that exhibit a usual Reformed Christo-centricity rather eclipsing the Holy Trinity.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I agree fully with what father Gregory wrote... And I couldn't have put it any clearer than that [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
BUT (and I am sure you could sense the "but" coming) I am sure you also agree that God's very strong disapproval of human sin cannot be set aside. It is an eternal feature of his nature.

I think this is most revealing. In my view, God is love, and this is the nature of God that does not change. There is no place for disapproval in God. The entire problem is from our part. Our poverty, God does not despise. God gives us back our dignity, and delivers us from our poverty, which is the death of sin, but he does not justify us because he despises sin. Sin is not on the focus. We are, our poverty is.

Exactly because his eternal nature is love, there can be no change, no disapproval in God for his creatures.

[ 02. March 2008, 17:39: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas

It's pretty clear from my post that I'm just reflecting St John Chrysostom's "God's outrage" observations - as Numpty is. Love of people and hatred of sin are not incompatible - in fact one might go so far as to say that indifference to sin demonstrates a failure to love people enough.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
The equation is all in the New Covenant guys.

God is HOLY. Terrifyingly, otherly, pure. Just. We are impure, inadequate, fallen and not redeemable by fiat, by "It's OK.". OK doesn't cut it. Holy Blood cuts it.

I agree with everything every one says on the other side of the SCALES to PSA, with PSA.

You unorthodox Orthodox eh? : ) Do the dialectic guys, or get off the pot. The Father laid ALL due punishment on the Son. Not in a Roman-Jewish kangaroo court.

RIGHTEOUSLY in the court of heaven.

At our filthy hands at our darkest hour.

Any thing else ALONE is a bloody insult. Isn't REAL.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
John Chrysostom was a father to many people. I'm not in his shoes. And since we are talking about God in absolute terms, and I am not trying to guide you gradually to God, I can say clearly that in God there is no disapproval of any thing. God's nature is eternal, like you said, and there can be no change in God.

If we see sin in terms of poverty, and sickness, we can't see God disapproving or despising it. Rather, he cares for the afflicted and gives them back their justice. Which is why no substitution and no punishment is needed in the first place.

ETA: X-posted with Martin

[ 02. March 2008, 18:02: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Barnabas

If we were talking public penal policy I might agree with you. A society that didn't punish "sin" would soon find itself in social meltdown. I have put "sin" in inverted commas because although all law breaking is sin, all sin is not law breaking.

When the scene moves to human-divine relations this distinction becomes important. Sin is not just "doing wrong things" ... breaking a moral code. It is a disordered state of humanity characterised by self imposed alienation from God.

If sin were just law-breaking then something approaching penal substitution might be appropriate. If sin is primarily being "off target" then punishment does not register or indeed correct its seriousness and its outcomes.

I suppose this is emphasised in Orthodoxy because we do not accept that we bear Adam's guilt. If sin is not dealt with sins will continue to abound. Sin is dealt with NOT by punishment but by regeneration ... hence the resurrection component that a "rewards and punishments" approach cannot accommodate.

[ 02. March 2008, 18:14: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
That's your undialectical and therefore utterly inadequate, unorthodox Orthodoxy Andreas.

Do the WORK Andreas. Don't preach another gospel and say it is equal to the gospel let alone superior to it, on your post-canonical ipse-dixit.

You are 1000% RIGHT to add to full PSA, but not to take away.

DEAL with the cosmic child abuse allegation, don't pretend with your newspeak that the allegation can't be made, that it doesn't look like that.

Deal with the Holy, world drowning God the KILLER.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Martin

Don't talk in riddles posing as your own shorthand. Please rephrase that so we can all understand what the heck you are going on about.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
God HATES sin.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
The experience of hatred in God, of his wrath is on the record. It is quite logical to attribute that to some attitude on his part toward us and what we do. What if though that "hatred" is an experience issuing from the state of our own alienation. Depressives often believe that the world hates them. Religious depressives often believe that God hates them as well. What is actually the problem of course is the illness.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The experience of hatred in God, of his wrath is on the record. It is quite logical to attribute that to some attitude on his part toward us and what we do. What if though that "hatred" is an experience issuing from the state of our own alienation. Depressives often believe that the world hates them. Religious depressives often believe that God hates them as well. What is actually the problem of course is the illness.

St John Chrysostom exhorts the reader - in the light of his theology of the cross - in the following way Father Gregory.
quote:
Reflecting then on these things, let us fear these words more than hell; let us reverence the things [they express] more than the kingdom, and let us not deem it grievous to be punished, but to sin. For were He not to punish us, we ought to take vengeance on ourselves, who have been so ungrateful towards our Benefactor.
How do you answer him?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
... as I said to Martin, the experience of punishment in life is no guarantee of its true origin. I have known many people in my ministry who have interpreted their own sorrows as a visitation of a punishing God. That's either been an illness generating a false image of God or an over sensitive conscience attributing all ills to "my sin." Proof texting is just as misleading in the fathers as it is in the Scriptures.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
And then this which immediately precedes the original comment, raised by Barnabas, that started this entire exchange.
quote:
Let us therefore not fear hell, but offending God; for it is more grievous than that when He turns away in wrath: this is worse than all, this heavier than all. And that thou mayest learn what a thing it is, consider this which I say...

 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
But no one has addressed yet the issue of where this "wrath" comes from.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
The implication of the quote seems to be that it comes from God.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Father Gregory, as usual BOTH are right, but you won't have it. You just won't have it. You won't have the blatant, biblical record. God the KILLER. The punisher of HIMSELF on our behalf. The New Covenant. You won't have that synthesis because you cannot do the work, the reformation against it. You pretend that the record cannot possibly mean what it says prior to entering an inadequate, short-circuited dialectic.

Do the WORK as on all else. Materialism. Post-canonical Marianism. Whatever you are UNorthodox on. I love and respect you as you know, which is why I will always address you as you require. You are brilliant, but undialectical and eventually dismiss the dialectic in favour of Jungian esotericism. Tradition.

Post-canonical tradition. Fed back on the canon AT BEST.

You are a brilliant man and I felt bad last time for feeling I had hurt you on Marianism. Then IngoB as I recall (if not he, one of my favourite minds, then who?) beat me up with his heartfelt 'behold your mother'. She is NOT my mother. And of course she is. But not the way your axis means, runs amock with.

This is ALL about disposition, culture, history, NOTHING to do with biblical authority, orthodoxy.

On YOUR part.

And of course my God is as He is BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ALIENS. Feedback. Get it?

And I'll unpack it ALL, but I'm ignorant and weak and semi-literate.

But I know what the Spirit says in the Bible and it isn't safe.

This is the living God and He's absolutely terrifyingly good.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I don't think I have ever been as blunt as this Martin.

You are describing the devil, not God. The God I worship is a Life-Giver, no killer he.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
About time Father Gregory. About time. So the God of record does not exist. Yours does.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
And I'm therefore a devil worshipper.

You see, I don't have to wait for some non-Christian force to come and cut my throat to do God a favour do I?

Eh? :0)
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Looks like the Jedi are fighting... It all begins with God despising, or God hating, or God disapproving. And it leads right into the Empire...
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Skywalker! Slllluuuhhhh The Force is strong in this one! Huuurrrrrrrhhhhh

You disarming, clever, NICE young blighter.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Father Gregory, He's THE life giving killer.

Get REAL.

Zzzzzhwab-WOB, fSRKK!
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
But no one has addressed yet the issue of where this "wrath" comes from.

Perhaps you could answer the question yourself? The word was in the quote...
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Oh yes I know that.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I'll take that as a "no thanks" then. But I do find it perplexing - if St J C said it presumably he was referring to something that came from somewhere...

[ 02. March 2008, 20:44: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Jesus Himself in the New Testament says he hates the Nicolaitans. Not the sin, but the sinners. Does this mean that he actually hates them? John wrote it. Does this make a literal meaning right?
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Good question Andreas.

The same Jesus who says to fear denying Him, He who can destroy, annihilate, KILL, body and soul in Hell.

Does that mean denying that about Him?

I don't think so.

But.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Martin, the Scriptures are not self-evident. How Great is the One that inspired them, how Great is the One they talk about, how Great is the One that teaches us what they mean. Treating them like ordinary books, and reaching one's own conclusions from them is self-centered and deeply flawed.

Only the one that locks, can unlock.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Not to you. Fine. To me and Sam Clements they are. Especially where they are.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Father Gregory - I'm still confused by your approach in all this.

I repeat, for someone who thinks it unwise to speculate on how the atonement works you seem very certain about how it doesn't!?

Now, I appreciate that there is some room between a positive and negative definition but nowhere near as much as you are claiming.

As B62 says the 'mystery' position is entirely consistent. But if you are going to play that card then you need to 'stick'.

You are trying to have it both ways by refusing to answer the questions raised by the scriptures and the church fathers but quite happy to continue pushing your position.

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Jesus Himself in the New Testament says he hates the Nicolaitans. Not the sin, but the sinners. Does this mean that he actually hates them? John wrote it. Does this make a literal meaning right?

[Roll Eyes] Have you read the book of Revelation Andreas? As it happens it does NOT say he hates them, it says he hates their practices.

Nevertheless, what does Jesus say about the followers of the Nicolatians a few verses later? (Rev. 2: 16) Or what he will do to 'Jezebel' and her followers in Thyatira? (Rev. 2: 22-23)

How anyone can read Revelation (chapter 19 anyone?) and not get a glimpse of God's wrath is beyond me.

Now, of course the language used in these passages is figurative. The question is - what is the truth behind them? However you interpret the imagery you are left with a God who shows his wrath against sinners.

So, no, Jesus does not 'hate' anyone. However, scripture and John Chrysostom both clearly agree that our view of the atonement must include God's wrath.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Barnabas

If we were talking public penal policy I might agree with you. A society that didn't punish "sin" would soon find itself in social meltdown. I have put "sin" in inverted commas because although all law breaking is sin, all sin is not law breaking.

When the scene moves to human-divine relations this distinction becomes important. Sin is not just "doing wrong things" ... breaking a moral code. It is a disordered state of humanity characterised by self imposed alienation from God.

If sin were just law-breaking then something approaching penal substitution might be appropriate. If sin is primarily being "off target" then punishment does not register or indeed correct its seriousness and its outcomes.

I suppose this is emphasised in Orthodoxy because we do not accept that we bear Adam's guilt. If sin is not dealt with sins will continue to abound. Sin is dealt with NOT by punishment but by regeneration ... hence the resurrection component that a "rewards and punishments" approach cannot accommodate.

It's well argued, Father G. As you know I do not personally accept the notion of the transmission of sin, from Adam down, rather like a sexually transmitted disease. I'm an Ezekiel man; the soul that sins is the one that will die. (A sort of "semi-Pelagian" view, I reckon. Or "struggle and grace", as we agreed earlier.)

But I think I can see divine penal policy there as well. I cannot complete the reasoning but I know there are the afflicted and the afflictors, and often we are both. God has a "bias" towards the afflicted - and we see that everywhere, particularly in the Magnificat. Where we also see the proud scattered, the rich sent away empty. Why? Because they are identified with the afflictors or the indifferent - or so it seems to me.

There is a sorting at the end of time - we're talking sheep and goats, Revelation 21 etc. The afflicted, and those who help them, go one way - the afflictors and those indifferent to affliction go another way. Their sins exclude them - they end up in a lake of fire.

This doesn't look like public penal policy to me, rather divine penal policy. Dives and Lazarus? Mind you I am not averse to your saying "sin cannot live with God" as an alternative to "God cannot live with sin". God did live with sin - that's the whole point of the Incarnation. Doesn't mean he doesn't hate it, of course; rather that he chose to deal with it in a way no human reasoning could ever have foreseen.

Looking back at your Orthodox/Non-Orthodox summaries as expressed to Numpty, you will probably not be surprised to hear that I don't really feel comfortable with either of them! I haven't done the sums yet but I'm "somewhere" in between. Like Tom Wright, I'm rather glad Jesus left us a meal, rather than a clearly articulated theology of "the atonement" - or whatever we want to call it. We take this stuff too far sometimes - a reverent recognition of the limits to our full understanding and a bowing down in wonder seem to work more change in our lives.

I'm tired and this may need an edit, but I'm going to send it anyway. I'm right at the edge of what I understand - so I apologise for any incoherence.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As it happens it does NOT say he hates them, it says he hates their practices.

My mistake.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I have referred to 1 John 4 before. I now want to quote the section in full and I want to put it in context. (NKJV used).

quote:
7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

12 No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us. 13 By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Saviour of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.

17 Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgement; because as He is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. 19 We love Him because He first loved us.

20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? 21 And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.

The context here is St. John towards the end of his life. Tradition has it that he dying words were: "God is Love." This is why this passage from the New Testament has always been very important for me. It reaches the pinnacle of wisdom concerning God but its truths are by no means woolly, liberal or facile.

It's this section that says it all for me ...

quote:
17 Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgement; because as He is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. 19 We love Him because He first loved us.
From it I conclude that:-

(1) Fear and love are antithetical.
(2) Fear is driven by torment (punishment).
(3) Perfect Love (God) casts out fear.
(4) God and torment (punishment) are incompatible.
(5) Fear is only dispelled with the perfecting of Love.
(6) Theosis means no-fear / no-punishment / perfect-Love (God).
(7) Perfection in love takes time.
(8) Beginners in love still experience fear driven by the prospect of punishment and suppose the necessity of punishment driven by the landscape of fear.
(9) The only thing that should be feared is the absence of Love (God) .... commonly described by the aphorism "the only thing to fear is fear itself."
(10) The absence of God (Love) is Hell.

This is basically why I was drawn to Orthodoxy's teaching on salvation. When I encounter talk of punishment (and therefore, fear) I always make a mental note ... foothills, not the Celestial City.

Now I know that this is going to be too much for many here to take ... but it is genuinely where I am with the God business right now.

Not all truths are equivalent.

Some truths are designed to give way to higher truths.

[ 02. March 2008, 22:39: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I have referred to 1 John 4 before. I now want to quote the section in full and I want to put it in context.

A good place to start. Thank you.


I'd glady accept most of your conclusions except for the following two:

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
(4) God and torment (punishment) are incompatible.
(8) Beginners in love still experience fear driven by the prospect of punishment and suppose the necessity of punishment driven by the landscape of fear.

It is not that I have any problems with the concepts philosophically, I just don't see how either can be justified from 1 John 4.

Your steps have the 'feel' of a magician who gets his audience to look away when the key issue is smuggled through.

The key issue is whether or not a God of love is compatible with a God of wrath. You say it isn't - where do you get that from in 1 John 4? Perfect love drives out fear - we are all agreed - but do we no longer fear God (and his punishment) because there is no need to fear punishment or because Christ has dealt with that punishment ... so that we need no longer fear?

As I said earlier, John's reference to propitiation suggests the latter.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Perhaps outcomes ought to form some basis of agreement.

Here are the last two verses of "And can it be ..." by Wesley ....

quote:
Still the small inward voice I hear,
That whispers all my sins forgiven;
Still the atoning blood is near,
That quenched the wrath of hostile Heaven.
I feel the life His wounds impart;
I feel the Savior in my heart.
I feel the life His wounds impart;
I feel the Savior in my heart.

No condemnation now I dread;
Jesus, and all in Him, is mine;
Alive in Him, my living Head,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.

Here "the atoning blood quenches the wrath of hostile heaven," (this stanza is often left out in modern editions).

When St. Gregory of Nazianzen spoke of the blood of Christ, however, he said this ... (2nd Oration on Easter)

quote:
XXIX. Many indeed are the miracles of that time: God crucified; the sun darkened and again rekindled; for it was fitting that the creatures should suffer with their Creator; the veil rent; the Blood and Water shed from His Side; the one as from a man, the other as above man; the rocks rent for the Rock's sake; the dead raised for a pledge of the final Resurrection of all men; the Signs at the Sepulchre and after the Sepulchre, which none can worthily celebrate; and yet none of these equal to the Miracle of my salvation. A few drops of Blood recreate the whole world, and become to all men what rennet is to milk, drawing us together and compressing us into unity.
Perhaps we should all look at this "on the other side of the blood" .... there is no condemnation ... (Romans 8:1). I just don't think that God EVER condemns. We condemn ourselves when we walk away from God. I suppose we may just have to agree to disagree on that aspect.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I have a feeling we may all eventually be able to agree that evil and sin are "nothing", but to quote C S Lewis, a "nothing" which is very powerful indeed! "Sin is naught" is a powerful quotation from St Augustine, who obviously got some things right.

I think I see evil as an absence of good, darkness as an absence of light. They exist parasitically and produce baleful and very real fruits via rebellion. (That may even apply to the "brokenness" of the natural world, I suppose, depending on the seriousness with which we view the reality of fallen angels, prior to our creation. But that is a mystery about which we have very few clues - maybe the "hostile hosts of heaven" is a powerful phrase to consider?).

This is not just a word game here. I believe God hates nothing, apart from that nothing which is very powerful indeed! But I am inclined to the view that He does hate that. But I also believe God has great sorrow for the plight of humans trapped in this "nothing", this absence, this perversion of what is good. I hear Jesus mourning "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem".

There is definitely something odd going on between us, because I went to bed singing from "And can it be ..", the verse before the two you quote, Father Gregory.

"Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature's night
Thine eye diffused a quick'ning ray
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light
My chains fell off, my heart was free
I rose, went forth and followed Thee"

BTW I agree with you about the "lost" verse. By the grace of God we are helped to cast aside the deluded love of darkness rather than Light, the love of nothing rather than Someone. I think that is the essence of the fear which perfect Love casts out.

[ 03. March 2008, 06:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Dear Father Gregory

St John Chrysostom says:
quote:
This then let us also now consider with ourselves, and groan bitterly for the provocations we have offered our Benefactor; nor let us therefore presume, because though outraged He bears it with long-suffering; but rather for this very reason be full of remorse δακνώμεθα..
by which I take it to mean that we should not mistake God's forebearance towards us as believers as evidence that he cannot be provoked to outrage by sin. On the contrary, we should take God's long-suffering as evidence of his great mercy but most emphatically not the absence of 'outrage' (there's that word again!). However, Chrysostom identities sin itself as the punishment, indeed as hell. This, to my mind, sounds more Orthodox. And I agree with it. Sin outworked in creation is an icon of an inner horror; the horror of our abiding hostility toward the God who loves us with an undying and infinitely patient love. Here's what he says:
quote:
For, even for evil unto their own heads is the unspeakable punishment treasured up for them. These things then bearing in mind, let us above all things be afraid of sin; for this is punishment, this is hell, this is ten thousand ills.
St John Chrysostom is saying that it is God's outrage - what the Reformed would describe as God passive wrath - that has subjected creation to the futility of sin. Sin and the consequences of sinful action is described as a punishment inasmuch as God has permitted us to defy his desire for his people to exist under his rule and blessing. But St John Chrysostom, unlike you and other Orthodox posters, is not afraid to address what might be described as God's active wrath; the wrath which 'makes Christ sin'; the wrath which makes Christ the very object of the Father's provocation and outrage so that Christ - through the power of an indestructible life - might destroy it thereby reconciling God to humanity.

[ 03. March 2008, 06:34: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Call me Numpty

The issue indeed is the wrath of God and from whence it proceeds. The answer for you is essentially simple and consistent, God. For me the answer can neither be that simple nor that consistent. I think that we have reached the true impasse here.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
You may be right Father G. I think, like me, you see a good deal of our human interpretation of the wrath of God as a projection of our own fear and anger onto the divine. I'm in favour of refining that away - that sort of fear does need casting out by perfect love. I've met some of the victims of that sort of projection. Some are afraid of their own shadows; some are very angry indeed.

But as I've just posted, I'm not convinced that "God's wrath" is all human projection. I can see Him being wrathful about the "nothing which is very powerful indeed" without that in any way being inconsistent with His perfect love. God's wrath may be a category we have over-filled with our own stuff. But because of this fault, this tendency, I don't see that we should then declare it to be an empty category. I'm hoping there might be some scope for common ground there.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:

The issue indeed is the wrath of God and from whence it proceeds. The answer for you is essentially simple and consistent, God. For me the answer can neither be that simple nor that consistent. I think that we have reached the true impasse here.

Why?

You seem to be doing it again FG. [Disappointed]

Part of Christian debate must be the willingness to 'agree to disagree' from time to time. For example, I can see how the tired Arminian vs. Calvinism debates all fall down to one side trying to trump God's sovereignty with human free will or vice-versa. That 'agree to disagree' I can see.

But I don't think that is what is going on on this thread. You seem to be willing to reject PSA as an atonement model without being prepared to allow your own model the same degree of scrutiny.

If you responded to Numpty's question then we may well reach a 'well we see it differently stage' but we're not there yet.

Numpty has clearly shown how John Chrysostom held to a view of God's wrath. That is a historic detail, it is not an interpretation. How do you deal with that? Was Chrysostom just badly mistaken on this matter?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Numpty has clearly shown how John Chrysostom held to a view of God's wrath.

Numpty did nothing of the sort. He might have thought he did, but he actually didn't. You are doing to the fathers what you do to the bible, and you end up understanding none of them.

Like I said, Saint John Chrysostom was guiding others, by the hand, towards God. And this means that he was giving road signs, towards God, not God himself. You are thinking that St. John Chrysostom, like Apostle Paul, did something different, that what he said is actually true in absolute terms about God himself. Ask yourself the question, did Saint John speak to beginners or to perfects? Did Saint Paul write to beginners or to perfects in the faith? I am giving you spiritual milk, comes to mind. Over and over again you are treating with milk as if it was solid food. It's not.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:

The issue indeed is the wrath of God and from whence it proceeds. The answer for you is essentially simple and consistent, God. For me the answer can neither be that simple nor that consistent. I think that we have reached the true impasse here.

Why?

You seem to be doing it again FG. [Disappointed]

Part of Christian debate must be the willingness to 'agree to disagree' from time to time. For example, I can see how the tired Arminian vs. Calvinism debates all fall down to one side trying to trump God's sovereignty with human free will or vice-versa. That 'agree to disagree' I can see.

But I don't think that is what is going on on this thread. You seem to be willing to reject PSA as an atonement model without being prepared to allow your own model the same degree of scrutiny.

If you responded to Numpty's question then we may well reach a 'well we see it differently stage' but we're not there yet.

Numpty has clearly shown how John Chrysostom held to a view of God's wrath. That is a historic detail, it is not an interpretation. How do you deal with that? Was Chrysostom just badly mistaken on this matter?

I'm hesitant about re-entering the 'fray here, but surely the issue isn't whether God objectively exhibits "wrath" as we see it but what the subject of that wrath is. To use my beloved medical metaphor, an oncologist hating cancer is not at all the same thing as hating his patient, nor can his hatred of cancer be personified, and therefore culpable, since "cancer" is not a moral agent. My reading of the Wright article is he is deliberately steering clear of the idea that His wrath is manifest against humankind, but rather that it is towards sin itself. If we accept this (and many do not) and if sin is not an moral entity as such, then, whilst it can and will be destroyed, it cannot be "punished" in any meaningful sense of the word, any more than can cancer. Therefore to talk about a penal aspect of the atonement misses the mark (to use a biblical metaphor).
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Numpty has clearly shown how John Chrysostom held to a view of God's wrath.

Numpty did nothing of the sort. He might have thought he did, but he actually didn't. You are doing to the fathers what you do to the bible, and you end up understanding none of them.
To be fair to you both it has to be said that my primary aim was show how St John Chrysostom reads to a protestant. Andreas has suggested that St John Chrysostom reads as if he acknowledges God's "outrage" because, as a protestant, I have mistakenly assumed that Chrysostom is trying to say something true about God. And I concur with that assessment. Andreas, on the other hand, says that an Orthodox reading of Chrysostom takes the view that he isn't actually saying what he says and doesn't actually mean what it looks like he's saying. If that's the case I prefer the Reformed way of reading him and the bible for that matter.

However, that having been said, I must restate what my intentions really are. They are to make specific reference to commentary by St John Chrysostom that seem to speak very clearly of substitution, wrath, and imputed righteousness. I am then asking for an Orthodox reading of those same passages so that I can see where our conceptual differences arise. Sadly, no Orthodox has furnished me with a single direct engagement with any of the texts from Chrysostom that I've cited. This leads me to conclude that the Orthodox way of dealing with hard texts , both scriptural and non-scriptural, is to cover their ears and chant the Jesus prayer.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

My reading of the Wright article is he is deliberately steering clear of the idea that His wrath is manifest against humankind, but rather that it is towards sin itself. If we accept this (and many do not) and if sin is not an moral entity as such, then, whilst it can and will be destroyed, it cannot be "punished" in any meaningful sense of the word, any more than can cancer. Therefore to talk about a penal aspect of the atonement misses the mark (to use a biblical metaphor).

Good point (as always) JJ. One that has puzzled me a lot and tended to push me away from P (but not S).

I think us protestant kids can share thoughts about that, in between our milk and cookies. I'd be interested in hearing both Numpty and Johnny S on your point - for kids they talk a lot of sense about many things, don't you think?

(No doubt andreas will be along shortly to advise when we have said something worthy of correcting as an error. Ah, such responsibility!)
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Numpty found a tentative form of words on about page 13 of this leviathon of threads. Not sure what he really describes is PSA, but it may be an understanding of the Atonement that satisfies both P and non-P SAers.

quote:
The problem here is that you accuse God of requiring the death of his Son; he doesn't require the death of his Son. Salvation from sin requires the death of death and God achieves the death of death in the death of his Son. Sin needed to die because death is the wages for sin. In the presence of sin, death is alive; in the absence of sin death is dead. Death needed to die; Christ volunteered for the mission: the mission to kill death in and through his death. Christ became sin for us and, in dying on the cross, he accepted the wages earned by the sin that he had become.
Don't know how much it would satisfy (sic) our Orthodox bretheren, though. I rather suspect they might find any such account a rather pointless exercise, a pov even hinted at by the good bishop Tom.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Numpty is no kid with milk and cookies is he? That is pretty remarkable. I remember spotting it on my skim read through the thread (which I joined about p38!) but I'll have a read back now. Thanks JJ. I appreciate it.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
This leads me to conclude that the Orthodox way of dealing with hard texts , both scriptural and non-scriptural, is to cover their ears and chant the Jesus prayer.

I must admit, I'm feeling slightly frustrated as well. I'd very much like to hear a response to what St J C actually meant - all I've got so far is an "I'm aware of that" from FG - and a fairly patronising response from Andreas, neither of which give an answer.

Nevertheless, I'd be cautious of concluding that this is the Orthodox approach - it may not generalise.

If we are children with milk asking the wrong questions, please treat us as such and calmly and patiently, using simple words, explain why.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I knew that he was a living Saviour having destroyed death in his own Person by the resurrection.

I've gone back to this because I think the thread might benefit from looking at this from another angle. I tried a few days back to articulate this question but didn't really make any headway.

Is the Passion and Crucifixion essentially not really relevant to atonement in Orthodox thought? I'm no expert on the ECFs but it seems to me that Saints Paul and Peter, and those ECFs I have read do not dismiss this part of Christ's mission as a kind of optional lead-up to the main event of Resurrection.

Now, I'm aware I could be accused of playing the Protestant game of interpreting Holy Scripture against the mind of the Church and mistaking milk for roast beef here but it seemeth to me that the Gospels, in particular that of St John are keen to emphasise that it was the Father's will, to which Christ gave his assent, that the Crucifixion took place. It was (cough) crucial. Why, in Orthodox thought? I know why in satisfaction theory. I know why in exemplarist theory. I know why in PSA. I know why in ransom theory as far as it goes. I've come to realise that I don't know why in CV without bringing in one of the other models as either a secondary redemptive action or as a pre-condition of Resurrection.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Originally posted by Numpty:

quote:
the Orthodox way of dealing with hard texts , both scriptural and non-scriptural, is to cover their ears and chant the Jesus prayer.
If that's what their spiritual fathers tell them to do.... [Big Grin]

Mary
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Now, I'm aware I could be accused of playing the Protestant game of interpreting Holy Scripture against the mind of the Church and mistaking milk for roast beef here but it seemeth to me that the Gospels, in particular that of St John are keen to emphasise that it was the Father's will, to which Christ gave his assent, that the Crucifixion took place. It was (cough) crucial. Why, in Orthodox thought?

I could tell you why, but I would need to get *cough* crucified *cough* first.

The will of God is not the crucifixion, but the openness Jesus Christ shows at the Crucifixion. This is Who God is. And this is the original plan of God for mankind as well. On the Cross is manifested God as is, and man as is to become.

This openness of God, which is very obvious to my spiritual eyes, but I cannot explain in dialectical terms, is the great mystery of which father Gregory spoke, if I'm allowed the boldness to expand on what the faithful father said.

Which is why those drops of blood recreate the entire world. Because they open a new dimension to the whole cosmos, which we can experience if we become authentic disciples of Christ and the Apostles.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Is the Passion and Crucifixion essentially not really relevant to atonement in Orthodox thought?

I thought that was the question, Greyface, and I don't think andreas answered it. It puzzles me as well. After reading a fair bit, I think I understand better now the significance of the Incarnation in Orthodox salvific thought, and although a protestant babe (a thought which has my wife killing herself with laughter) I leave my milk and cookies behind to pass on the following thoughts.

Bishop Kallistos says, for example, that "Christ's incarnation is already an act of salvation. By taking up our broken humanity into himself, Christ restores it and "lifts up the fallen image" (The Orthodox Way - God as Man chapter). He then goes on to ask the key question. "But in that case, why was a death on the Cross necessary?". A question which he answers in the affirmative, in these words. "Because of the tragic presence of sin and evil, the work of man's restoration was to prove infinitely costly. A sacrificial act of healing was required, a sacrifice such as only a suffering and crucified God could offer."

Bishop Kallistos characterises this as an act of identification, of sharing in the human experience. A genuine at-one-ness, an entering in. He also uses this language.

"'Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows' (Isaiah 53). All our griefs, all our sorrows. 'The unassumed is unhealed', but Christ our healer has assumed into himself everything, even death."

I think this is sacrificial and salvific language, but it is definitely not substitutionary. (Kallistos says so). Personally, I find it a compelling reason for the necessity of the Crucifixion, and I also find it illuminates the atonement. But it does so very much in the context of both the Incarnation and the Resurrection and is perfectly on all fours, for example, with the view that there is a single doctrine at work here, connecting Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension. It is a "One Act Drama".

Although he is a secondary source, I hope Kallistos is the true voice of Orthodoxy on this. I find much in his understanding with which I agree. You could throw a blanket over Numpty's summary (which JJ quoted) and Kallistos' statements and see considerable commonality. I really loved this later comment in the same chapter.

"The Crucifixion is itself a victory, but on Great Friday the victory is hidden, whereas on Easter morning it is made manifest.... God himself has died and risen from the dead, and so there is no more death; even death is filled with God"

Back to my milk and cookies.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Perhaps you can share some SMA Gold and a Farley's rusk with me, then, and ponder whether that interpretation still fits with language like "yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him and afflicted" and "it pleased the Lord to bruise him".

I do note the first is qualified by "yet we considered" - apparently leaving open the possibility that we might consider wrongly. However, the second quote isn't.

I'm sure it can't really mean pleased in the sense of happy - but nevertheless, it does carry the idea of God doing it.

[ 03. March 2008, 21:45: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My reading of the Wright article is he is deliberately steering clear of the idea that His wrath is manifest against humankind, but rather that it is towards sin itself. If we accept this (and many do not) and if sin is not an moral entity as such, then, whilst it can and will be destroyed, it cannot be "punished" in any meaningful sense of the word, any more than can cancer. Therefore to talk about a penal aspect of the atonement misses the mark (to use a biblical metaphor).

That's a helpful clarification JJ. And I think it is here that there is a large degree of convergence.

However, as I have said before, I can't quite go all the way with this 'medical' metaphor ... I think there is mileage there, but it is a classic case of 'good in what it affirms but bad in what it denies' - such a view of sin, IMHO, diminishes human responsibility. Sin is not what God intended for me (so it is alien in that sense) but it is my sin - no one made me do it and that includes a disease too!?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:

Is the Passion and Crucifixion essentially not really relevant to atonement in Orthodox thought?

I was thinking exactly that last night! (Sorry if that scares you GreyFace.)

Undoubtedly certain parts of Protestantism have ignored the incarnation and even downplayed the resurrection.

And yet there is something in the fact that the Paul makes the cross central to his theology. What does Paul mean when he says things like, "I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." (1 Cor. 2: 2)

It's not that I expect the Orthodox to agree with my POV - I'd just be interested to see how they fit these aspects into their theology.

The Same with John Chrysostom (despite what Andreas thinks). My point was not to treat him like some kind of scripture but simply to ask the Orthodox, how do you wrestle with that?

These are the questions that are not being answered.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Perhaps you can share some SMA Gold and a Farley's rusk with me, then, and ponder whether that interpretation still fits with language like "yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him and afflicted" and "it pleased the Lord to bruise him".

I do note the first is qualified by "yet we considered" - apparently leaving open the possibility that we might consider wrongly. However, the second quote isn't.

I'm sure it can't really mean pleased in the sense of happy - but nevertheless, it does carry the idea of God doing it.

This is why child Numpty keeps banging on about the nature of God's wrath and is IMO right to do so. If you remember the Tom Wright quote from the earlier link, the story seems to him (and me) to be incomplete without substitution.

I guess I am saying that Kallistos' view is wonderful but does not reveal all there may be for us to see. Necessary - but not yet sufficient? Personally, I'd be glad just to get agreement on "necessary".

I'm on semi-skimmed by the way.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Sometimes I wonder if being mindful of such categorizations of the various theologies ruins reading the bible.

Is it better to read, inwardly digest, meditate on and try to experience in church the passage in Isaiah without wondering whether the wording allows a CV or a PSA interpretation?

It does stike me as amazing that something written in Isaiah seems to communicate the cross more vividly than anything concurrent or since.

[BTW, you'll never grow big and strong on semi-skimmed. Ask mummy to puree something for you.]

[ 03. March 2008, 23:01: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Sometimes I wonder if being mindful of such categorizations of the various theologies ruins reading the bible.

Is it better to read, inwardly digest, meditate on and try to experience in church the passage in Isaiah without wondering whether the wording allows a CV or a PSA interpretation?


I think one can look at scripture and the writings of tradition devotionally and theologically - and personally I'm trying to make my theological reflections more imbued with devotion. For me it has got something to do with loving God with heart, mind, soul and strength.

There is another reason is that I don't think the often painful search for unity is optional - personally, I am impelled by Jesus' long prayer in John 17, that we might all be one with the Father in him.

So, given our divisions, a part of wrestling with the truth seems to involve some inevitable wrestling with each other. We become entranced by our explanations, often failing to see how fragile and incomplete they are. It is an old old story of our various tellings of the Old, Old Story.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is another reason is that I don't think the often painful search for unity is optional - personally, I am impelled by Jesus' long prayer in John 17, that we might all be one with the Father in him.

Bearing in mind that the aim of this unity is not to eat quiche and drink tea but for the purpose of evangelism, according to verse 23.

Although, in order to do the evangelism of which Jesus speaks we must first work out specifically why the Father sent him in the first place ... and leads us back to 'what is the gospel?' ... and arguments over the atonement. [Biased]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is another reason is that I don't think the often painful search for unity is optional - personally, I am impelled by Jesus' long prayer in John 17, that we might all be one with the Father in him.

Bearing in mind that the aim of this unity is not to eat quiche and drink tea but for the purpose of evangelism, according to verse 23.


Oh sure. I just reckon our divisions are a crap sign to those outside the church and can get in the way.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Numpty

I thought I might dig out for your interest and others, some further and pretty uninhibited comments from St John Chrysostom on God's wrath.

Here is Homily III on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:18 ff

Here is Homily V on Romans 1:28 ff
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Bearing in mind that the aim of this unity is not to eat quiche and drink tea but for the purpose of evangelism, according to verse 23.

I'm not sure that's the only aim. Eating quiche and drinking tea is probably "good and pleasant" in it's own right, and I think unity is part of Christ's vision for the church aside from evangelism.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Barnabas, I have a copy of The Orthodox Way and it's in my "Have read more than once and will read again" section, a small subset of my theology library [Biased]

However, on this matter I still don't get it. Most likely this is because I still have my baby teeth but I don't understand why Christ's suffering assumes and heals anything in the Orthodox view. Because God has suffered, our suffering is redeemed? That doesn't seem to mean anything to my brain as it stands. I grasp to some extent the incarnational soteriology that says God became human so that humans can become divine but I don't see the extension of that to the idea that Christ must experience everything humans experience for the incarnation to be complete. Every human dies but not every human is crucified.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
It heals you in so far you go and receive healing. Not in a magical way. Not in a major act in a cosmic game that changes the status of things way.

I already gave an answer, you guys just were not expecting for that kind of an answer because you were working from a different framework.

Salvation is given not because the crucifixion, but through the crucifixion and despite the crucifixion. This abominable act is not the cause for salvation. However, despite this abomination, Jesus Christ shone on the Cross, manifesting authentic divinity and authentic humanity, which is love. So, through the crucifixion, but not because of the crucifixion, rather despite of the crucifixion and because of who God is and who man is to become.

Salvation lies in who Jesus Christ is, because we are called to become what he is. It's neither the example of Jesus that saves us, not the substitution that didn't take place, nor the punishment he didn't get from God, nor the sufferings of the divine flesh. It's the openness, the humility and the love he is, and to realize that one needs to get crucified himself. Unless we get crucified ourselves, there is no resurrection for us, at least none in this life...
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Greyface

The key word here is "recapitulation" as used by St. Irenaeus of Lyons. It is the characteristic understanding of the Greek fathers (and this bishop in Gaul was Greek) that the Incarnation gathers to itself (Himself) ALL that is human .... has been, is and ever will be ... through the medium of an assumed human nature and by "engodding" (enhypostasis) that (St. Leontius of Byzantium) heals it all, ("that which has not been assumed has not been healed" - St. Gregory of Nazianzen). If I give something to Christ I expect to receive it back as from God transformed. I don't see what the problem is with this.

Barnabas62 .... I am not suggesting that MY wrath is PROJECTED onto God ... far from it. I am saying that the unregenerate part of me experiences God's love AS wrath. When that unregenerate part of me gets transformed what was formerly experienced as wrath by demonic deception is now revealed in its true nature as the bliss of God's love.

Every time God's loves me when I sin, if I do not repent, I experience that sweetest love as searing spiritual pain. It is a foretaste of that hell that I will taste for all eternity unless I repent before I die.

There is nothing woolly or cozy in this at all. When Christ dies my unregenerate part sees a punished man, the wrath of God .... in truth though it is my denial of what HE IS IN RELATION TO HIS DEATH that distorts my understanding.

When, however, I repent and come to the foot of the cross I see not punishment but healing and love. I punish myself by my sins. I lay that punishment on Christ ... I crucify him afresh ... but God punishes nobody ... he is waiting for me to repent, for me to walk free from my self incarceration. The cage door is open by the resurrection. Some prefer to stay where they are and moan about the bars when all that has to be done is get up and walk out. "Do you WANT to be healed?" Jesus so often said.

Everybody here keeps saying: "why won't you answer, why won't you answer?" Andreas and I keep saying ... "we have answered! we have answered!"

Of course there is wrath, of course there is punishment, of course there is acquittal .... but the key questions are:-

(1) Whose is it?
(2) How does it work?

That's where we differ Big Time.

[ 04. March 2008, 10:45: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Salvation is given not because the crucifixion, but through the crucifixion and despite the crucifixion. This abominable act is not the cause for salvation. However, despite this abomination, Jesus Christ shone on the Cross, manifesting authentic divinity and authentic humanity, which is love. So, through the crucifixion, but not because of the crucifixion, rather despite of the crucifixion and because of who God is and who man is to become.

All this Greek stuff is just meant to throw us off the scent.

In RL you live in Slough and work for the Inland Revenue.

So I have a question. Since I filled in a P85 form a month ago, why, oh why, have you just sent me another one to fill in? [Frown]
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It heals you in so far you go and receive healing.

So you are saying that it's because I see Christ's love on the Cross and respond to it that I can be saved? That's what Abelard said, isn't it?

quote:
Not in a magical way. Not in a major act in a cosmic game that changes the status of things way.
Okay then. Either it's what I said above, in which case Orthodoxy seems to agree with Liberal Protestant thought, or I still misunderstand you.

quote:
I already gave an answer, you guys just were not expecting for that kind of an answer because you were working from a different framework.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that. It's thoroughly irritating. I and doubtless most others on this thread are trying honestly to be open to your framework in order to understand you. I for one was not expecting any particular answer, I'm looking for the truth as you see it and ultimately I'm looking for what is true.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
So you are saying that it's because I see Christ's love on the Cross and respond to it that I can be saved? That's what Abelard said, isn't it?

Not because he gave an example, but because of who he is, because of the ontology.

Abelard, as far as I can see, worked from within a philosophical framework. This is deeply problematic (kind term for having nothing to do with the Apostolic Theology). I don't know why, but today I see Joseph Farrell's God, History, and Dialectic everywhere!

It's our becoming what Jesus Christ is, not our conforming to an example he set. His being saves, not his example. Of course you are to be evangelized first before you can become what he is, but evangelism does not have to do with setting an example for us to follow.

quote:
I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that.
People have been saying how we Orthodox are not replying, when he have. And the framework - expected answers explanation is the best I can come up with as to why those posts were made...

[ 04. March 2008, 11:07: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The key word here is "recapitulation" as used by St. Irenaeus of Lyons. It is the characteristic understanding of the Greek fathers (and this bishop in Gaul was Greek) that the Incarnation gathers to itself (Himself) ALL that is human .... has been, is and ever will be ... through the medium of an assumed human nature and by "engodding" (enhypostasis) that (St. Leontius of Byzantium) heals it all, ("that which has not been assumed has not been healed" - St. Gregory of Nazianzen). If I give something to Christ I expect to receive it back as from God transformed. I don't see what the problem is with this.

Most likely there is no problem with it in itself, but it's a problem for me if I don't understand.

I have no difficulty with the doctrine as you've summarised it there. However, I have seen the line from St Gregory used to imply that if Christ had not experienced suffering and crucifixion then part of our humanity would have remained unassumed and unhealed, the incarnation would have been incomplete and our salvation would be compromised. Bishop Kallistos as quoted by Barnabas seems to me to be doing that.

I don't see why. As I've said before, I can see (and in fact experience) that God's love displayed on the Cross calls us to him and it's in turning to him and following him that our healing begins and that ultimately our healing is theosis is salvation - I hope this is what Andreas is saying. But to get back on topic, that means that we cannot isolate one aspect of Christ's work as the key and it turns out that the incarnational assumption of humanity into divinity and the destruction of death and the display of the true nature of God in his life and the manner of his death that calls us and changes us by our perception of it/him and so on are all part of our rescue.

Is this fair, to Orthodox eyes?
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It's our becoming what Jesus Christ is, not our conforming to an example he set. His being saves, not his example.

Sorry for my earlier grouchiness.

What value is the Cross in what you're saying? I agree - at least I agree as far as I understand you - that we are not saved by looking at Christ and trying to copy him although I have to say I think that may be a factor in working out our salvation in fear and trembling. But if we are saved by who Christ is, what role is there for what he has done?
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
On the question addressed to me Greyface ... yes, that is a fair summary. "Now't t'k'n out" as we say in the north.

On your question to Andreas ... we covered this a little earlier ... we are stressing that it is GOD doing this that saves ... not simply the doing of it.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
The crucifixion is something that was done to him, not something that he has done. Which is why we call it the Passion of Christ...

The value has to do not with the act of crucifixion, which shows the alienation mankind is capable of living, but with who is the one that got crucified... Because on the Cross, we see God as God is (humble beyond imagination, Love beyond imagination, openness beyond imagination) and man as man is called to become.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Personally, I'm very pleased to see the latest set of responses. I think we might be able to talk more constructively. Processing ... will post again.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
I probably shouldn't be wading into this debate again since I'm not certain I'll be able to shed anymore light but....

How much of this debate is wrapped up in differing conceptions of what constitutes the essential 'nature' of God? When we hear terms like 'wrath' or 'anger' do we think of these being personal traits essential to God's 'nature' or, instead, our experience of the activities/actions of God which, therefore, aren't what makes God essentially 'God'?

For example, remember the analogy of wax and clay. Take two human hearts, one of clay and one of wax. God is essentially 'heat'. The effect of this heat is to melt one heart and harden another. Each experiences the 'heat' in a different way but that experience is ontologically separate from God's being.

If humans are evil then they will experience God as 'wrath', but if 'pure' then as 'love'. But scripture tells us that 'God is Love', thus making some statement about God's ontological personality. It's the 'evil' which is the corruption and which forces us human to experience God (sometimes) as 'wrath'.

If we have decided that the wrath of God is an essential attribute (needing propitiating/abating) then Christ's sacrifice starts to fit into the satisfaction/penal-substitution model, but if we determine that God's wrath is merely an external human experience, as a result of an evil human nature (the heart of clay) then Christ's sacrifice takes on a transformative paradigm (swapping the heart of clay for one of wax - his 'own' heart) meaning that we no-longer experience God as 'wrath' but as 'Abba'.

That's my (somewhat complicated) tuppence worth.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Barnabas, I have a copy of The Orthodox Way and it's in my "Have read more than once and will read again" section, a small subset of my theology library [Biased]

I know exactly what you mean! I have found it to be a deep book; I think I have got it then some phrase or other pings away in my small brain and I return to it, asking, "what is he really saying here?".

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:

However, on this matter I still don't get it. Most likely this is because I still have my baby teeth but I don't understand why Christ's suffering assumes and heals anything in the Orthodox view. Because God has suffered, our suffering is redeemed? That doesn't seem to mean anything to my brain as it stands. I grasp to some extent the incarnational soteriology that says God became human so that humans can become divine but I don't see the extension of that to the idea that Christ must experience everything humans experience for the incarnation to be complete. Every human dies but not every human is crucified.

I think you're also spot on here. The word "wrath" is clearly provocative, but it does seem hard to me to understand the Passion and Crucifixion without bringing in, in some way, the judgment of God. Which is why I say, on the basis of my present understanding, that although I see CV in the Cross, I cannot escape some dimension of SA as well, without which the story does not seem complete.

So far as answering your specific question is concerned, I experience both "God with us" and "God for us" when I look at the Cross. But when I seek to look beyond that experience, it is very hard to put into words what is going on. I am moved by the suffering, incensed by the cruelty and injustice, identify with the cries of Christ from the cross. The explanations are all helpful, and all inadequate. As, I suspect, is this reply. (I am sure you and I are not alone here.)
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The crucifixion is something that was done to him, not something that he has done.

As far as I can see nobody is suggesting that Christ crucified himself. Nevertheless the Gospels are rather clear that Christ could have avoided crucifixion if he chose and that it was the Father's will that he undergo it. He could have refused to enter Jerusalem. He could have called down legions of angels in his defence. He could have refused the incarnation, knowing in his omnipotence what the outcome would be.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
He could, but then he would be neither authentic God nor authentic man.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I am saying that the unregenerate part of me experiences God's love AS wrath. When that unregenerate part of me gets transformed what was formerly experienced as wrath by demonic deception is now revealed in its true nature as the bliss of God's love.

Actually, I can spot the answer now - and yes, I can now see it in what was said before. But it really was't obvious to me before.

If it's not too offensive, I'd like to compare and contrast more protestant views;


"I can't see how a loving God could be angry with anyone"

"That's because you, unregenerate person that you are, don't understand God's love".

now becomes in Orthodoxy;

"I can't see how a loving God could be angry with anyone"

"That's because you, unregenerate person that you are, interpret God's love as anger".

To use a family metaphor, I suppose that if my son plays with the electric plugs, my love for him and concern for his safety might be manifest as anger - and that is similar to the Protestant understanding. However, I think you are saying something different - I think you are saying that a continued loving response, no different to the response without sin, is instead perceived as anger.

No?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Yes, we are saying something different...

I will add only one thing. Think of the parable of the prodigal son. What kind of a father would find his child in poverty, having lost his dignity and peace, and he would respond by beating him? The approach to poverty (sin) is not beatings (punishment) but giving back one's dignity (justification).

The self-centered man cannot partake in God's love, and is tortured by his own self-centeredness. The selfless man partakes in God's selfless love, and mourns for his self-centered brother who chooses poverty over openness.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Richard

Thank you for the clay and the wax ... that makes the distinction a lot clearer.

One and all ...

It does seem to me now that we have a better mutual understanding wherein we differ.

Thanks also to Andreas for his illumination from the parable of the Compassionate Father (as I prefer to call it). Note that in this parable all that is required from the son is that he return to his Father's house. What he says is neither here nor there .... the purity of his motivation irrelevant. JUST COME BACK! ..... and before he is even back his Father rushes out to embrace him. THAT'S justification. Not a substitution in sight. Not a murmuring of wrath in the Father's heart.

I sometimes wonder you know that what the New Testament is doing is taking ANY expectation of God (true or untrue) and seeing that fulfilled AND transcended in Christ. Propitiation deals with a dodgy idea and gets beyond it. In terms of pedagogy if a wrathful deity had simply been contradicted it would have resolved nothing. The wrath (although a phantom) has to go somewhere to be buried.

What I REALLY object to is digging up the stinking corpse and making that a permanent feature of the theology. It should go the way of the sacrificed animals ... into oblivion. (Now you didn't expect me to end all conciliatory 'n all did ya?! [Two face] )
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I can see that the prodigal son/compassionate father fits perfectly with your view of God - however, what I don't see is any need at all for the cross in that story. Agreed, there is no PSA, no penal, no wrath... but there's no crucifixion or resurrection either.

Furthermore, it's hard for me to see what son could possibly misinterpret the father's actions as wrath - I suppose a very twisted individual could interpret the father's actions as passive-aggressive. "You're just behaving like this to make me suffer. Why don't you let out what you really feel and beat me? But you won't, because this way I can't really achieve closure, and that's what you want, isn't it?"

But it seems to be stretching it...
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It does seem to me now that we have a better mutual understanding wherein we differ.

It does make me chuckle to see that at the end of a 44 page, 9 month thread. How long do you think it will take us to really see eye to eye?
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Father,

Yes, 'pedagogy' is a helpful aspect (St. Paul says as much re: Torah) and is why one needs to 'proof text' from the OT with caution...
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
mdijon

The son didn't see the love of his father as wrath because he was selfless when he returned to meet the father. The selfless partake in God's love, the self-centered don't, because they choose not to.

P.S. Undoing a status quo that lasts for centuries surely takes more than 44 pages!

[ 04. March 2008, 15:34: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I can see that the prodigal son/compassionate father fits perfectly with your view of God - however, what I don't see is any need at all for the cross in that story. Agreed, there is no PSA, no penal, no wrath... but there's no crucifixion or resurrection either.

Do you think that were Jerusalem to accept Jesus Christ, there would be any need of a crucifixion? On the contrary, this was God's true will. That they respond to his love. Some did, but for the most part they didn't.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear mdijon

Burning Coals. Love hurts sometimes. Some people prefer to be hated. It's the only language they understand. How many tyrants have stood atop a mound of slaughtered human flesh with the banner unfurled, "Fear Me!" Sometimes, love breaks through. That has to be our confidence and our prayer. That love is stronger than death and that all that opposes love is on OUR side but that it cannot stand forever.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
...which is why I am so strong against this whole substitution thing, because it makes a sacred dogma out of an awful mistake of our part. It's like blessing the poverty from which Jesus Christ liberates us!
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Which all makes sense.

However, I've been back to Numpty's St J C quote - and I can't quite read the view you're giving me into it.

I admit it doesn't contradict you in the way I thought it did at first, but nevertheless the emphasis seems quite different, and your explanation of the origin of wrath doesn't feature at all...
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Because he does not deal with the same issue we are dealing in this thread. His purpose is pastoral, to lead his flock by the hand towards God.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Wouldn't telling the flock that God wasn't actually exhibiting wrath toward them, but rather his love be pastoral?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I am afraid I can't read the text of Saint John right now. I'm reading other texts at the moment.

I will just say that this is perfectly in accord with the Scriptures, where all sort of things and images are used about God, but not as describing the divine reality per se, but so as to guide us by the hand so that we get to experience our own personal theophany!
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
You could read it well enough to post

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Because he does not deal with the same issue we are dealing in this thread. His purpose is pastoral, to lead his flock by the hand towards God.

and well enough to give Numpty a lecture about milk and infancy earlier, but not well enough to go further and explain how his treatment of the subject of wrath fits with yours.

I find that difficult.
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear mdijon

quote:
Wouldn't telling the flock that God wasn't actually exhibiting wrath toward them, but rather his love be pastoral?
Maybe he hadn't worked out the full implications of that yet. Although we Orthodox love the fathers we don't go to just one or think that any have had the FINAL word on anything. They just set the gold standard .... together.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Thanks - a very open answer.

Would it be fair to characterise this as a teaching that was worked out and developed over the centuries? I accept there's nothing contradictory in it, or wrong in that...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Barnabas62 .... I am not suggesting that MY wrath is PROJECTED onto God ... far from it. I am saying that the unregenerate part of me experiences God's love AS wrath. When that unregenerate part of me gets transformed what was formerly experienced as wrath by demonic deception is now revealed in its true nature as the bliss of God's love.

Every time God's loves me when I sin, if I do not repent, I experience that sweetest love as searing spiritual pain. It is a foretaste of that hell that I will taste for all eternity unless I repent before I die.


So God's love and God's wrath are, according to this view, essentially the same "energy"? (Is that the right word?)
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I don't understand why Christ's suffering assumes and heals anything in the Orthodox view.

Not the suffering of Christ, but Christ suffering.

It's all about the recapitulation father Gregory spoke about, or the openness-union of all that I spoke about.

Divisions are healed, and such a division is the one between life and death.

Not an easy read, but might be useful:

http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/the-cross-is-the-incarnation/
 
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Barnabas

This is not a = b = c. In God who is Love there is .... qua us ....

(1) Life-giving power, creative potential and actuality.
(2) Love ... the relational enhancement of the Cosmos through interactive freedom.

If and when any aspect of the Cosmos falls out of its natural state by volition or any other cause there is a severance in the Creator-creature relation. This degrades the creature's experience of God into evil and death. The subjective experience of God under those conditions is wrath but there can be no equivalence (moral or ontological) between the plenitude of love which is invariant and divine and wrath which is fallen contingent and emptying.

The energies of God are simply God active in creation ... in any manner, (see 1 & 2 above).
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Parables and analogies; smoke and mirrors. No Orthodox has engaged with the texts of St John Chrysostom that I've cited. Tell me why my reading of him is wrong. Show me why I misunderstand him. Basically, substantiate your assertions. I find your lack of engagement with my question to be both disrespectful and peculiarly satisfying at the same time.

At the moment what you are preaching amounts to nothing more than this:
quote:
"A God without wrath, brings people without sin, into a kingdom without judgment, through a Christ without a cross.
I'm sorry but that's not just a different take on the Christianity of scripture; that isn't the of Christianity of scripture. I honestly don't think it's the Christianity of St John Chrysostom either, and I believe the texts I've cited from him offer strong evidence for that assertion. Evidence with which you have yet to engage.

And don't even get me started on the Romans stuff from St J C! I'll tackle that after you've told if you're going to answer my reading of Chrysostom's commentary on 2 Corinthians or not.

[ 04. March 2008, 19:05: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Numpty, you are not being just here.

For two reasons.

The first part of your quotations have been explained by father Gregory.

And as for your second part:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
St John Chrysostom exhorts the reader - in the light of his theology of the cross - in the following way Father Gregory.
quote:
Reflecting then on these things, let us fear these words more than hell; let us reverence the things [they express] more than the kingdom, and let us not deem it grievous to be punished, but to sin. For were He not to punish us, we ought to take vengeance on ourselves, who have been so ungrateful towards our Benefactor.
How do you answer him?
You do not mention what follows those words, you don't place them in context.

This comes after the verse you quoted:

Now he that hath an object of affection, hath often even slain himself, when unsuccessful in his love; and though successful, if he hath been guilty of a fault towards her, counts it not fit that he should even live; and shall not we, when we outrage One so loving and gentle, cast ourselves into the fire of hell? Shall I say something strange, and marvelous, and to many perhaps incredible?

The Saint speaks about us punishing ourselves out of love for God. And what this punishment means, only those who love much and wronged the beloved can appreciate.

And if this last when angered doth not punish, he hath tortured his lover more; but if he exacts satisfaction, he hath comforted him rather.

Sin is the punishment of itself.

These things then bearing in mind, let us above all things be afraid of sin; for this is punishment, this is hell, this is ten thousand ills. And let us not only be afraid of, but also flee from it, and strive to please God continually; for this is the kingdom, this is life, this is ten thousand goods.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Well, andreas, I've reviewed the exchanges since Numpty's original post and I'm frankly amazed that you think your response is any kind of response at all. St John Chrysostom's total exposition on 2 Cor 5 v 21 is here in its entirety. Scroll down to the bottom.

The argument has been about the reality of God's outrage, his wrath. Leaving aside that not insignificant point that you have chosen to respond to a quote from the middle of the argument, the portions you quote do not set aside the reality of God's wrath at all. They say what our response to that reality should be.

I think you must have failed to understand the argument Numpty is making from St John Chrysostom. St John's words treat God's wrath as a reality within Him, not as a "subjective experience" of fallen sinners (See the quote from Father Gregory below). I could quote at length from this part of the Homily to demonstrate why I believe that, but rather I encourage folks to do the hard work of reading the whole thing and making up their own mind.

Father Gregory, I want to separate out from this response to the question of what St John Chrysostom says from your wider description of Orthodox understanding, expressed here.

quote:
If and when any aspect of the Cosmos falls out of its natural state by volition or any other cause there is a severance in the Creator-creature relation. This degrades the creature's experience of God into evil and death. The subjective experience of God under those conditions is wrath but there can be no equivalence (moral or ontological) between the plenitude of love which is invariant and divine and wrath which is fallen contingent and emptying.
That is a dogmatic statement - not in any way wrong for that reason - but it is not consistent with St John Chrysostom's words re 2 Cor 5 v 21. At any rate, I'm blowed if I can see it. It is "monkey's uncle" time for me, I'm afraid. I think you might reasonably argue that St John saw in part what later Orthodoxen saw more clearly. But I do not see how he can be prayed in aid for the above statement from his commentary on 2 Cor v v 21. It is much more justifiable from the text to see an acceptance by him of vicarious atonement - as the footnote says and as I observed about 150 posts ago.

[ 04. March 2008, 21:36: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I'm not sure I see a distinction at all. If what we perceive as wrath is in fact God's love... then to all intents and purposes it is wrath. To us, at any rate.

If I go to hell for eternity it matters not to me whether God calls it love and I call it wrath - the correct label is my least concern.

It strikes me as a sort of parrallel to Calvinism. We might find Calvinism unjust (I certainly do) because we are depraved beings unable to perceive God's infinite justice. Similarly we might perceive God's love as being wrath because we are unregenerate.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm not sure I see a distinction at all. If what we perceive as wrath is in fact God's love... then to all intents and purposes it is wrath. To us, at any rate.

If I go to hell for eternity it matters not to me whether God calls it love and I call it wrath - the correct label is my least concern.

I think the point is that if you go to Hell you were really there already.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think the point is that if you go to Hell you were really there already.

That's exactly the point. Hell is misery, not a place. God's love is real, but if a person is in a state of torment, then it appears like wrath.

The reason that it is important to know the objective quality, rather than settle for the subjective one, is because the question is about whether or not God is good.

Can a good God be angry or cause torment? I would say not.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Posted by Andreas1984:
quote:
This comes after the verse you quoted:

quote:
Now he that hath an object of affection, hath often even slain himself, when unsuccessful in his love; and though successful, if he hath been guilty of a fault towards her, counts it not fit that he should even live; and shall not we, when we outrage One so loving and gentle, cast ourselves into the fire of hell? Shall I say something strange, and marvelous, and to many perhaps incredible?
The Saint speaks about us punishing ourselves out of love for God. And what this punishment means, only those who love much and wronged the beloved can appreciate.

quote:
And if this last when angered doth not punish, he hath tortured his lover more; but if he exacts satisfaction, he hath comforted him rather.
Sin is the punishment of itself.

These things then bearing in mind, let us above all things be afraid of sin; for this is punishment, this is hell, this is ten thousand ills. And let us not only be afraid of, but also flee from it, and strive to please God continually; for this is the kingdom, this is life, this is ten thousand goods.

Firstly, I do not take issue with St Chrysostom's lover analogy - it describes perfectly the regenerate person's relationship with God. But if we're going to argue from context let's argue. St Chrysostom is talking the sin of the regenerate in the light of the cross event. It is a soteriological statement about the consequences of post-regenerate sin. The relationship with the lover exists; it is established in and through Christ's incarnation, life, death and resurrection. Nevertheless, as Chrysostom points out, it is specially wrough through the cross because the cross becomes the locus of God's wrath instead of us. We continue to outrage the Father, but he - despite his outrage - continues to love us. Why? Because of the crucifixion of Christ.

Saint Chrysostom speaks of the mercy of God being the incentive towards holiness for the believer not the unbeliever. A true saint recognises that God's wrath - God's outrage - has been propitiated in and through Christ's sin-bearing life and sin killing-death. In other words God's antipathy towards sin is eternally located in himself because he was in Christ reconciling himself to the world.

I do not take issue with the Chrysostom's view that sin is punishment in itself. But I would like you to tell me why you can't accept the idea that Christ was punished by being made sin? If sin is punishment in itself, is it not fair to say that Christ was punished? In fact would it not be fair to say that Christ became punishment itself?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I have been thinking about this in the context of justice. In the book of Amos, the old prophet enters the scene from the south and is shocked by the discrepancy between the the enthusiastic worship in the Northern State and the concurrent endemic injustice to the poor. In one of the most famous passages in the Old Testament, the prophet declares the word of the Lord in these absolutely fulminating terms.


quote:
18 Woe to you who long
for the day of the LORD!
Why do you long for the day of the LORD ?
That day will be darkness, not light.

19 It will be as though a man fled from a lion
only to meet a bear,
as though he entered his house
and rested his hand on the wall
only to have a snake bite him.

20 Will not the day of the LORD be darkness, not light—
pitch-dark, without a ray of brightness?

21 "I hate, I despise your religious feasts;
I cannot stand your assemblies.

22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.

23 Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.

24 But let justice roll on like a river,
righteousness like a never-failing stream!

These shocking words have the following affect on Amaziah the High Priest (Amos 7)

quote:
12 Then Amaziah said to Amos, "Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. 13 Don't prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is the king's sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom."
From this, and many similar examples from OT prophecy, comes at least in part our understanding of justice in the heart of God. In this particular example, the people of God are not in any way experiencing God as wrath, even in their worship. They practice the laid down ordinances correctly and with enthusiasm. It takes a prophet from outside to point out that such a combination of actions (enthusiastic worship and indifference to injustice) offend the heart of God. And the consequence is that for them the Day of the Lord will not be an occasion for rejoicing but a Day of darkness.

Freddy, I see this example as a clear declaration that God is good. Indeed, were He not to be offended, He would not be good. There is something objective about God in this passage. We confuse His justice, His goodness and His love at our peril.

And this confusion is precisely why Amaziah the high Priest wants Amos to go away; a symbol of the rejection of the rejection of the prophets of which Jesus spoke with such power in Matthew 23. I am very uncomfortable with any suggestion that the justice of God does not involve the ultimate judgment of God against injustice.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
In other words God's antipathy towards sin is eternally located in himself because he was in Christ reconciling himself to the world.


I agree the rest of your post, Numpty, but the italicised bit is the wrong way round. (Which may bring suggestions of Freudian error!)
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think the point is that if you go to Hell you were really there already.

That's exactly the point. Hell is misery, not a place. God's love is real, but if a person is in a state of torment, then it appears like wrath.
ISTM that we are just going in circles here. You are redefining words to such a point that sentences become meaningless.

If Hell is misery then why does so much of the NT promise 'misery' and suffering as part of the faithful Christian life and also promise judgment to those who are not experiencing misery (e.g. the Rich Fool in Luke 12)?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If Hell is misery then why does so much of the NT promise 'misery' and suffering as part of the faithful Christian life and also promise judgment to those who are not experiencing misery (e.g. the Rich Fool in Luke 12)?

Isn't the answer to this the whole point of the Scriptures? Isn't the whole point to forsake short-term apparent worldly and self-centered happiness in order to find the genuine treasure that is the eternal joy of heaven?

Jesus makes this point endlessly:
quote:
Luke 6:21 Blessed are you who weep now,
For you shall laugh...
25 Woe to you who laugh now,
For you shall mourn and weep.

It's not that there is anything inherently happy or good about suffering. Rather it is that a life of obedience to God instead of to our selfish and worldly desires can seem like suffering. The same is true of the effort that it takes to do anything well. It can seem like an impossible task to become physically fit, or go on a diet, or learn to play a musical instrument, or do well in school. But people who do these things almost always consider them worthwile. So Jesus says:
quote:
John 16:20 Most assuredly, I say to you that you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice; and you will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will be turned into joy. 21 A woman, when she is in labor, has sorrow because her hour has come; but as soon as she has given birth to the child, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world. 22 Therefore you now have sorrow; but I will see you again and your heart will rejoice, and your joy no one will take from you.
The sorrow that He is referring to here may just be about their future persecution, but it is also about the challenges that are inherent in trying to live as Jesus taught. These challenges, like so many challenges in life, are worth pursuing.

The whole point, though, is that Jesus is urging us to find the real treasure, to be led to true joy, and to avoid the unhappy and miserable life that is described as "hell" and "hellfire."
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
In other words God's antipathy towards sin is eternally located in himself because he was in Christ reconciling himself to the world.


I agree the rest of your post, Numpty, but the italicised bit is the wrong way round. (Which may bring suggestions of Freudian error!)
[Hot and Hormonal] You're right! And yes it was a Freudian error rather than theological dishonesty. However, the point still stands that reconciliation was necessary and in some way this reconciliation rests - at least in part - on Christ having been made sin. That is, Christ having been made the punishment, if sin is in fact the punishment rather than the state that precipitates punishment. My view is that sin is judgement inasmuch as God in his passive wrath has given us up to a depraved mind. The practical outworking of sin (i.e that to which God has given us up) is therefore something that requires punishment, and that punishment is death. The fact that sin is possible the ongoing the result of God's passive wrath; that that sin is punishable by death either in the cross - in which case there is nor more fear of punishment - or the hell of fire, in which case the unregenerate will bear the punishment themselves in hell.

[ 05. March 2008, 09:11: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
But Freddy, Dives "avoided the unhappy and miserable life". Lazarus got that as a result of the indifference of Dives and others. The consequence was "an unhappy and miserable eternity" for Dives, but eternal blessing for Lazarus.

Seeking false treasure may enable us to avoid unhappiness and misery now, but not later. And such avoidance may heap that unhappiness and misery onto others. Your equation of Hell with misery avoids some key questions about the consequences of seeking real treasure (i.e treasure of eternal value) or false treasure (i.e material well being, which moth and rust will consume). We don't just damage ourselves by pursuing the false goal, we damage others and cause them to endure misery.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Whether I am already in hell on earth and continue in hell in the afterlife as a result of perceiving God's love as wrath, or perceiving wrath as wrath, doesn't matter much to me. If as a result of being unregenerate I perceive love as wrath and am in hell already doesn't change things.

I'm still struggling to see how it's more than a labelling issue.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Barnabas, I agree with you. I'm not sure how your point is different than what I said.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If as a result of being unregenerate I perceive love as wrath and am in hell already doesn't change things.

The point is that we can change, so that love is perceived as love. The point is that there is such a thing as a genuinely happy existence, and that no one needs to be miserable in the long term.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I suppose I am struggling to work out how it might look in practice.

For instance, in the story of the prodigal son I can't see how the Father's actions could possibly be interpreted as wrath. I can't think of another parable in which God's actions (either sending people to hell or rewarding them or reconciling to them) might be subject to two interpretations - wrath or love.

And I'm wondering where the idea emerges in the Church's theology.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Barnabas, I agree with you. I'm not sure how your point is different than what I said.

It might be my ignorance of Swedenborg, Freddy! What I read you to be saying in your statement "Hell is misery, not a place" is that "the state of misery is Hell". Whereas I think the NT says that the state of misery may also be "test", "refinement". Such misery is not Hell at all. As the Apostle Peter says. "These trials have come so that your faith - of greater worth than gold which perishes even though refined by fire - may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honour when Jesus Christ is revealed." (1 Peter 1 v 7)

Part of the problem may be the reflexive nature of "is"! "Hell is misery" is exactly equivalent to "misery is Hell". But I don't think you meant that at all - it isn't like you. That is what I was seeking to clarify.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
For instance, in the story of the prodigal son I can't see how the Father's actions could possibly be interpreted as wrath. I can't think of another parable in which God's actions (either sending people to hell or rewarding them or reconciling to them) might be subject to two interpretations - wrath or love.

In the story of the prodigal son, the father's action is perceived as unfair by the older son. Not exactly wrath, though.

But how about the way that demons perceived Jesus?
quote:
Matthew 8:29 There met Jesus two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way. And suddenly they cried out, saying, “What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?”
Jesus hadn't done anything to them, yet the demons in the men couldn't bear His presence. They begged Him to allow them to leave the men and enter into some swine, which Jesus did.

In Revelation Jesus says:
quote:
Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.
I'm sure that this does not feel like love.

Similarly, in Malachi the promised Messiah's presence will be hard to endure, even though He comes with love:
quote:
Malachi 3:1 Behold, He is coming,”
Says the LORD of hosts.
2 “ But who can endure the day of His coming?
And who can stand when He appears?
For He is like a refiner’s fire
And like launderers’ soap.
3 He will sit as a refiner and a purifier of silver;
He will purify the sons of Levi,
And purge them as gold and silver,
That they may offer to the LORD
An offering in righteousness.
4 “ Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem
Will be pleasant to the LORD."

Maybe this is stated most clearly in Malachi 4:
quote:
Malachi 4:1 “For behold, the day is coming,
Burning like an oven,
And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble.
And the day which is coming shall burn them up,”
Says the LORD of hosts,
“ That will leave them neither root nor branch.
2 But to you who fear My name
The Sun of Righteousness shall arise
With healing in His wings."

I guess that this is typical of the way that this idea is expressed in Scripture. God is a friend to the righteous and a foe to the unrighteous. This can be seen as an anthropomorphism of the underlying reality, which is that God's love is unpleasant and hard to endure for those who don't love God.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Part of the problem may be the reflexive nature of "is"! "Hell is misery" is exactly equivalent to "misery is Hell". But I don't think you meant that at all - it isn't like you. That is what I was seeking to clarify.

Yes, that's right. All misery isn't hell, since discomfort and struggle often lead to great happiness. Still, all misery feels like hell, and the longer it continues the more hellish it seems.

The important distinction, I think, is between what happens in the short term compared with what happens over the long term. People often willingly endure considerable discomfort if they are convinced that something good will come of it.

Real misery, though, involves torment that appears to have no purpose, no end, no escape, and no hope of relief. Addictions and compulsions have this nature, so that the person knows that they aren't happy, but they can't escape their patterns and desires. This phenomenon is often described as a "living hell."
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Freddy, those descriptions all sound rather more like the example I gave earlier - of a parent whose love for a child is manifest by anger at them putting themselves at risk playing with electric plugs.

But my understanding is that that isn't what we're talking about (I think that's a very protestant notion, actually, and I'm sure that Numpty et al and other PSA proponents would have no problem with the idea).

What we're talking about is the same acts and attidues being interpreted differently. And that's what I find so difficult to imagine (which isn't to say it doesn't happen) and it might help me to trace the evolution of the idea.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
What we're talking about is the same acts and attidues being interpreted differently. And that's what I find so difficult to imagine (which isn't to say it doesn't happen) and it might help me to trace the evolution of the idea.

I agree that this is what we are talking about.

I think the real issue is that God does not act visibly in the world. What we find in Scripture are descriptions of God's actions seen through a heavily anthropomorphized lens. It is simply impossible that Moses and Abraham could have actually argued or bargained with God Himself and persuaded Him to change His mind. The God of Scripture is seen, especially in the Old Testament, as simply a very powerful Man who has all kinds of human characteristics. This can't be the reality.

Because of this, Scripture is unambiguous as to whether God is acting in a way that helps or harms people, regardless of whether they are good or bad. He helps good people, and He hinders bad ones. In the Scriptural context, the context of the history of an ancient people, it would make no sense for love to be harmful. Instead they perceived it, and described it, as anger.

The only trouble is that this point of view is not actually consistent with the larger concept of God as He is presented throughout Scripture, and especially by Jesus. Ancient people, children, and uneducated people, are untroubled by these kinds of inconsistencies. But we are. At least, I hope we are.

The evolution of the idea, as I see it, traces back to the need to resolve these inconsistencies. The Orthodox, it seems, got there first.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:


What we're talking about is the same acts and attidues being interpreted differently. And that's what I find so difficult to imagine (which isn't to say it doesn't happen) and it might help me to trace the evolution of the idea.

You and me both. Once you've got the dogma that Father Gregory described, I can see how you can read St John Chrysostom (at least the portions we've looked at so far) in the light of it. But I'm completely flummoxed by the idea that you can read the dogma in what he actually says. To quote Father Gregory, I just can't see it. For St John, God's wrath really does seem to be intrinsic to Him.

The total irony of this for me is that I wouldn't personally have gone down this road of looking at the Fathers' commentaries on key scriptures but for andreas' encouragement to do so! I really did not expect to see what I've seen.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
In the Scriptural context, the context of the history of an ancient people, it would make no sense for love to be harmful. Instead they perceived it, and described it, as anger.

In my secular context, as a modern person, it still makes no sense for love to be harmful.

That's my trouble with the idea. If I perceive it as anger, I'm afraid that I'm stuck with describing it as anger unless I can rationalize my understanding of it. Discipline I can do that for - that's clear - and that's my understanding of God's anger. But, as we keep saying, that's not what's being suggested in these last 2 pages.

[ 05. March 2008, 11:53: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

Scripture is unambiguous as to whether God is acting in a way that helps or harms people, regardless of whether they are good or bad. He helps good people, and He hinders bad ones. In the Scriptural context, the context of the history of an ancient people, it would make no sense for love to be harmful. Instead they perceived it, and described it, as anger.

The only trouble is that this point of view is not actually consistent with the larger concept of God as He is presented throughout Scripture, and especially by Jesus. Ancient people, children, and uneducated people, are untroubled by these kinds of inconsistencies. But we are. At least, I hope we are.

The evolution of the idea, as I see it, traces back to the need to resolve these inconsistencies. The Orthodox, it seems, got there first.

That is very clear, and I understand you. I suppose for both mdijon and me (certainly for me) there are two problems with "The Orthodox got there first".

1. At present we can't see how they got "there"

2. We're not altogether convinced that "there" is a good place to have got to anyway.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Quite. I'm still with the ancients and uneducated peoples. With milk and cookies.

[ 05. March 2008, 14:19: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
In my secular context, as a modern person, it still makes no sense for love to be harmful.

That's my trouble with the idea. If I perceive it as anger, I'm afraid that I'm stuck with describing it as anger unless I can rationalize my understanding of it. Discipline I can do that for - that's clear - and that's my understanding of God's anger. But, as we keep saying, that's not what's being suggested in these last 2 pages.

When a judge pronounces a sentence there are always two obvious ways of seeing it. The same words are painful for the one who loses the case, and pain-relieving for the one who wins.

For example, a loving judge who sets an innocent man free is seen as loving by the innocent man and his supporters, but as unsympathetic by those who believe the man is guilty or who believe themselves to have been hurt by him. Objectively it may be hard to determine with certainty whether the judge's actions are in fact loving or not.

Similarly, a loving judge who correctly understands that a criminal is a threat and has him placed where can't hurt people is doing something that is loving. The criminal, however, is likely to see it as angry.

Another example would be the actions of a political leader. One person may see G.W. Bush as a loving president who correctly interpreted the sad situation of the people of Iraq and moved effectively to ease their sorrows. Another person may interpret the very same actions as foolish and angry.

In fact in any war the "heroic" actions of soldiers who are seen as loving and protecting their country are typically seen as wicked and barbaric by the enemy.

All of these examples, though, would involve literal actions and words that would be obviously and unambiguously negative to someone. Bullets fired in love, and judgments pronounced from a loving motive, nevertheless do what they do.

So I understand that it is hard to understand how the divine love itself can be perceived as harsh and angry, unless you resort to metaphors about how creatures who love the darkness hate the light. This is how Jesus addressed it:
quote:
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
So maybe the easier comparison is to understand how light could be seen as harmful. Light and warmth are easy metaphors for truth and love. Just as evil needs figurative "darkness" to work in, it also needs the cold.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I'm sorry to sound like a broken record (again) - but any protestant sermon might contain those illustrations and interpretations of them. The judgement may have a loving basis, but be interpreted as wrath - but it is wrath. All that is being said is that wrath is not inconsistent with love. This is not too dissimilar to the illustration as the parent angry with his/her child for the sake of their safety. Judgement and punishment are argued to be consistent with love.

(Although a slight difference is that love for the child might be a direct motivator for punishment, but a sense of justice motivates judgement despite love - that's rather different).

The quote from John seems to me a simple statement of how evil hates scrutiny.

But it is deeply unfair to set up a dynamic where you serve up a series of well described, thoughtfull illustrations supported with scripture and I shrug and say "no, that's not it - let me try another" like a nervous teenager before a date in clothes shop.

Perhaps the problem is that I've read too much into the original description of perception of wrath - and I should go back a few pages and start again. But it did seem to me that what Fr G and Andreas were describing was quite different to simply finding an explanation for a loving motive with wrath.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Quite. I'm still with the ancients and uneducated peoples. With milk and cookies.

[Killing me] Well, you're clearly with me, I'm getting ancient, and I'm certainly theologically uneducated! Time for my afternoon cuppa and chocolate chip .....
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Like all good Calvinists I'm completely (lactose) intolerant.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

I think the real issue is that God does not act visibly in the world. What we find in Scripture are descriptions of God's actions seen through a heavily anthropomorphized lens. It is simply impossible that Moses and Abraham could have actually argued or bargained with God Himself and persuaded Him to change His mind. The God of Scripture is seen, especially in the Old Testament, as simply a very powerful Man who has all kinds of human characteristics. This can't be the reality.

But it's a history of man arguing with and relating to God on a personal, person to person, basis. Even way back Sarah is known for getting God to do her will. Isn't this a characteristic 'difference' between the God of Abraham and others? Abraham walked with God as friend; this is all about personal encounter and relationship rather than God who is worshipped at a remove.


quote:
Because of this, Scripture is unambiguous as to whether God is acting in a way that helps or harms people, regardless of whether they are good or bad. He helps good people, and He hinders bad ones. In the Scriptural context, the context of the history of an ancient people, it would make no sense for love to be harmful. Instead they perceived it, and described it, as anger.
How is this affected by Christ's teaching to view God, and to emulate, as the God who loves as he sends rain, on the good and evil both alike?


Myrrh

[ 05. March 2008, 23:02: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm sorry to sound like a broken record (again)

Welcome to the broken LP club. There is a special this week on Lattes.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Like all good Calvinists I'm completely (lactose) intolerant.

I had a good chuckle, Numpty, but you did cause me to reflect on what has happened on this thread in recent pages. Given Johnny S's response to Father Gregory's post re 1 John 4, so far as I can see, the only argument outstanding against our understanding that there is wrath in the heart of God re sin is this one from andreas.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Numpty has clearly shown how John Chrysostom held to a view of God's wrath.

Numpty did nothing of the sort. He might have thought he did, but he actually didn't. You are doing to the fathers what you do to the bible, and you end up understanding none of them.

Like I said, Saint John Chrysostom was guiding others, by the hand, towards God. And this means that he was giving road signs, towards God, not God himself. You are thinking that St. John Chrysostom, like Apostle Paul, did something different, that what he said is actually true in absolute terms about God himself. Ask yourself the question, did Saint John speak to beginners or to perfects? Did Saint Paul write to beginners or to perfects in the faith? I am giving you spiritual milk, comes to mind. Over and over again you are treating with milk as if it was solid food. It's not.

The more I have thought about, the more useful I think it is as an argument. Why, whenever you make a mistake in a sermon, Numpty, and receive a criticism, you can turn to the critic and say, with gracious condescension, "I was only trying to point you in the right direction; the truth is deeper than I said, but you may not be quite ready for it yet - we'll need to talk some more". Then you can reinterpret yourself with impunity! At a stroke, you can remove any possibility that anything you say can be described as erroneous.

This spiritual milk argument is powerful indeed. But it does have the unfortunate effect of placing the interpretation of the real meat in the hands of others. For example, one can say about two sayings from the same person.

"That one was spiritual milk"

"But this one is the real red meat!"

It is a neat trick, isn't it. So I thought, perhaps someone can explain to me how one distinguishes between red meat and milk? What is the exegetical standard.

And then I decided to have a look at its origins in scripture - and got a nice surprise. This is spiritual milk, not solid food, according to the author of Hebrews (5 v 11 ff).

quote:
11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
By this spiritual milk interpretation, St John is teaching "the elementary truths of God's word". That is spiritual milk. Elementary truth. Such as God's wrath against sin is intrinsic to His nature.

I'll drink to that.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
By this spiritual milk interpretation, St John is teaching "the elementary truths of God's word". That is spiritual milk. Elementary truth. Such as God's wrath against sin is intrinsic to His nature.
I'll drink to that.

Hmmn, not really sure it is all that simple, though, Barnabas. Taken as a literal statement, and properly understood, I would not demur at the above. Truely, God is "agin" sin! Not only agin it, but wrathful towards it, that is, willing to act in such a way as to end it, which is the way in which I understand wrath to be defined, not only anger, but determination to act on that anger. I suspect, in those terms, our Orthodox brethren would be happy enough with the concept, though they would probably find the way in which the concept is expressed deeply unsatisfactory.

However, it is, I suspect, the percieved identity between "bringing sin to an end" and "punishment" which is deeply problematic, probably for them, certainly for me. Because I just can't see any necessary link between the two. Indeed, if we are talking about sin, we cannot really talk about punishment at all - how do you punish a non-sentient concept. So punishment is only really meningful if we talk about sentient beings being punished. Hence we cannot talk, as some PSAers do, of our sin being punished in Christ. We could say that our sin is being judged in Christ, or that Christ is the locus of sin's destruction, but if we talk about sin being dealt with by punishment, then we have to say that Christ is punished for our sins, and that formula is usually rejected as a simplistic misunderstanding of "true" PSA.

However this might be, I still don't understand this obsession that in any way punishment is an effective way of dealing with sin, or even that punishment is in any way just. My thinking here is that the only truely just outcome of judgement is that the harm done by sin should be undone, if you like, the restoration of all things. It is not "just" (adj) that the perpetrator suffers in the same way as the victim, what would be just is that the effects of the offence be undone, for both the perpetrator and the victim. This is what I understand to have been enabled by the cross, actualised by the resurrection and consumated at the eschaton.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Just saying that St John C is teaching it, JJ. I'm not as PSA as Numpty, more your common or garden CV who sees value in SA. I think St J C teaches vicarious atonement and haven't yet seen any refutation of Numpty's claim to see elements of PSA in his teaching as well.

Don't forget the heart of the argument over the past two pages is whether it is correct to argue that God is wrathful in his heart re sin, rather than our sinfulness makes us experience Him this way.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Jolly Jape posted:So punishment is only really meaningful if we talk about sentient beings being punished.
I agree.
quote:
Hence we cannot talk, as some PSAers do, of our sin being punished in Christ.
Point taken. Although I think it would be fair to say that this depends on how far a sinner has identified with sinfulness as a state of being. In other words, it depends on how far they are prepared to accept that they are sinful, rather than just sinning.
quote:
We could say that our sin is being judged in Christ, or that Christ is the locus of sin's destruction, but if we talk about sin being dealt with by punishment, then we have to say that Christ is punished for our sins, and that formula is usually rejected as a simplistic misunderstanding of "true" PSA.
I'd take that further by saying that we ourselves are punished in Christ. Christ is the locus of sin's destruction because Christ is the locus of sinful people. We must take our sin into Christ and die with him as per Romans 6.6:
quote:
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.


[ 06. March 2008, 13:28: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
JJ your post raises thoughts in me concerning the distinction between 'nature' and 'person'. Where does Sin arise (and thus where does it need to be 'dealt with')?

If 'Sin' arises from our human 'nature' then, of course, this will work itself out in personhood (I, Richard Collins, committed THAT Sin etc...) but to tether Sin to personhood and, thinking it's origin is there, to seek to remove it by punishing personhood is too superficial an approach.

No, the nature itself needs transformation - but this doesn't fit into punitive language since we are only used to punishing 'people' not natures. Doesn't St Paul say, 'God condemned Sin in the flesh (=fallen nature) of Christ Jesus' or such like? Of course condemned means 'put to death' which is penal language but also quite literally graphic concerning the death of fallen Adam in Christ's crucifixion.

Thus, what God 'destroyed', wasn't a person, but corrupt human nature as it resides within a particular person (namely the hypostatic union between the logos and flesh-from-Mary).

Just a randomn thought...
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'd take that further by saying that we ourselves are punished in Christ. Christ is the locus of sin's destruction because Christ is the locus of sinful people. We must take our sin into Christ and die with him as per Romans 6.6:

Numpty, this is the distinction I'm trying to get under the skin of. If you say 'we take our sin into Christ' in terms of our 'nature' then I would agree with you, but if you mean our personhood then I struggle to see how that happens, since I remain I and Christ remains Christ (I do not become the Logos, nor does the Logos become Richard Collins). I think this is why I struggle with the idea of penal-substitution if it refers to some sort of 'culpability exchange' (since persons are culpable). However if we are refering to some sort of 'essential/natural exchange' then I couldn't agree more.

However, I feel like I'm operating on the limits of thought so will need to process this some more.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Hmmn, not really sure it is all that simple, though, Barnabas. Taken as a literal statement, and properly understood, I would not demur at the above. Truely, God is "agin" sin! Not only agin it, but wrathful towards it, that is, willing to act in such a way as to end it, which is the way in which I understand wrath to be defined, not only anger, but determination to act on that anger. I suspect, in those terms, our Orthodox brethren would be happy enough with the concept, though they would probably find the way in which the concept is expressed deeply unsatisfactory.

However, it is, I suspect, the percieved identity between "bringing sin to an end" and "punishment" which is deeply problematic, probably for them, certainly for me.

I decided to explain further after reading Numpty and in particular, comment on the italicised section of your quote.

Looking at the way this has gone, I feel it is all my fault! What seems like aeons ago, I posted, innocently, a Wikipedia article which offered the opinion that Substitutionary Atonement (PSA without the P, you note) was a common belief in all mainstream forms of Christianity. Father Gregory and andreas both said that Substitution was a problem to the Orthodox as well (which was contrary to the Wikipedia article). Following advice I looked at commentaries from St J C and St Cyril which to my relatively inexperienced eye looked like support for substitution (I substituted the word "vicarious" for "substitution" - although it means pretty much the same, it was the word used my a commentator on the St J C Homily who also stated that St J C affirmed vicarious atonement).

My interpretation was denied as valid and the exchanges drew attention to the issue of God's wrath. Father Gregory and andreas both argued, at least as far as I could see, that wrath was not intrinsic to God at all, it was the way sinners experienced Him. Well, I went back to the early Fathers who I had been encouraged to read and couldn't find even a hint of that view anywhere. The Numpty tossed in his view that not only could he see SA, he could see PSA plus a few other protestant goodies in the words of St J C. After further exchanges, andreas observed that we protestants were always mistaking real food for spiritual milk when we read the Fathers or Scripture!

So in its strange meandering way, the thread had ceased to focus on substitution or punishment, but on the nature of wrath! And of course, if one believes that wrath is not in God, then one must look at the atonement differently than if one believes wrath is in God.

I hope that potted summary helps a bit - it's also open to correction, but in in case it is the way I've seen the argument go.

So I'm not even sure that the Orthodox who have argued here would agree that God is intrinsically wrathful against sin. I'm sure they believe He is agin it, but His aginness seems to be expressed as sorrow, rather than anger (that is from reading Kallistos Ware, rather than Father G or andreas).

I rather hope that an Orthodox Shipmate will come along to let you know whether they see truth in your form of words. As things stand, and based on what has been said, I'm not sure they would even go that far.

[ 06. March 2008, 14:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So God's love and God's wrath are, according to this view, essentially the same "energy"? (Is that the right word?)

I don't think so. In the Second Coming, there will be a restoration of all... And God's love will be shown to all... But not all will partake in it... So, the wrath and the sorrow and the fire and the worm and whatever, does not have to do with God Himself, but with some people not partaking in God but remaining in themselves...

The abyss is our own, the poverty is our own... And when deny God's love, when we choose not to partake in God, we live in our own abyss, which is hell.

It's not that we will partake in God's love but we will misunderstand it as wrath... We will not partake at all even though our nature will be restored... and we will not partake because we won't want to, because we will prefer selfishness to selflessness.

Wrath has been connected with punishment in this thread, yet I explained how St. John's passage on punishment refers to the punishment that is sin itself and not some kind of punishment God is supposed to give... So, the link, the connection between God's wrath and God's punishing us (or Christ) is broken... by the very verses you pointed to from St. John!

God experiences neither wrath nor sorrow, He is Love, and change has no place in his nature.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Andreas said:[b]I explained how St. John's passage on punishment refers to the punishment that is sin itself and not some kind of punishment God is supposed to give... So, the link, the connection between God's wrath and God's punishing us (or Christ) is broken... by the very verses you pointed to from St. John!
No you didn't. You might think you did but that's because you're reading Saint John Chrysostom through the theological presupposition that he can't be saying that God is outraged. Sadly, you've given youself theological indigestion by trying to gorge yourself on rump steak when you haven't been properly weaned.

[ 06. March 2008, 15:14: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So God's love and God's wrath are, according to this view, essentially the same "energy"? (Is that the right word?)

I don't think so. In the Second Coming, there will be a restoration of all... And God's love will be shown to all... But not all will partake in it... So, the wrath and the sorrow and the fire and the worm and whatever, does not have to do with God Himself, but with some people not partaking in God but remaining in themselves...
Father G corrected my misunderstanding of what he was saying here. I'm happy with his correction.

andreas, I think you are still saying, and may be compelled to say, that there is no wrath in God. And of course one of the values of these exchanges is that it is clear to me, and I guess everyone else, that if you believe there is no wrath in God it will radically affect the way you see both atonement and the sacrifice of Christ.

Both mdijon and I (and I suspect several other regulars and onlookers) would appreciate some further guidance on the establishment of the belief within Orthodoxy that there is no wrath in God. For example, is this belief dealt with directly in any of the discussions and decisions of the ecumenical councils?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Well, we could begin with the Scriptures, since they are Orthodox documents...

But since we are speaking about Saint John Chrysostom, I will quote from a work of his, a letter actually to one of his friends, a work I love greatly.

quote:
And speak not to me of those who have committed small sins, but suppose the case of one who is filled full of all wickedness, and let him practice everything which excludes him from the kingdom, and let us suppose that this man is not one of those who were unbelievers from the beginning, but formerly belonged to the believers, and such as were well pleasing to God, but afterwards has become a fornicator, adulterer, effeminate, a thief, a drunkard, a sodomite, a reviler, and everything else of this kind; I will not approve even of this man despairing of himself, although he may have gone on to extreme old age in the practice of this great and unspeakable wickedness.

For if the wrath of God were a passion, one might well despair as being unable to quench the flame which he had kindled by so many evil doings; but since the Divine nature is passionless, even if He punishes, even if He takes vengeance, he does this not with wrath, but with tender care, and much loving-kindness; wherefore it behoves us to be of much good courage, and to trust in the power of repentance.

For even those who have sinned against Him He is not wont to visit with punishment for His own sake; for no harm can traverse that divine nature; but He acts with a view to our advantage, and to prevent our perverseness becoming worse by our making a practice of despising and neglecting Him. For even as one who places himself outside the light inflicts no loss on the light, but the greatest upon himself being shut up in darkness; even so he who has become accustomed to despise that almighty power, does no injury to the power, but inflicts the greatest possible injury upon himself.

And for this reason God threatens us with punishments, and often inflicts them, not as avenging Himself, but by way of attracting us to Himself. For a physician also is not distressed or vexed at the insults of those who are out of their minds, but yet does and contrives everything for the purpose of stopping those who do such unseemly acts, not looking to his own interests but to their profit; and if they manifest some small degree of self-control and sobriety he rejoices and is glad, and applies his remedies much more earnestly, not as revenging himself upon them for their former conduct, but as wishing to increase their advantage, and to bring them back to a purely sound state of health.

Even so God when we fall into the very extremity of madness, says and does everything, not by way of avenging Himself on account of our former deeds; but because He wishes to release us from our disorder; and by means of right reason it is quite possible to be convinced of this.

I broke the one paragraph down so that it could be easier to read. I took it from here (par 4)

I will also quote from another work I have in my heart, a discussion St. John Damascene had with a Manichean. In that work, Christianity opposes Manichaism, and it is very helpful to see what the Christian worldview is.

quote:
And this, you should also know [the Orthodox says to the Manichean] that God does not punish anybody in the world to be, but each makes himself recipient of God. And the participation of God is joy, but the non-participation is hell. And in this world, God does not bring upon men temptations to punish them, but to teach them and heal them of their wickedness, so that we get to know him, and return and receive his holiness, "because the teaching of the Lord opens my eyes".
(translation mine, paragraph 44)

[ 06. March 2008, 15:50: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
For if the wrath of God were a passion, one might well despair as being unable to quench the flame which he had kindled by so many evil doings; but since the Divine nature is passionless, even if He punishes, even if He takes vengeance, he does this not with wrath, but with tender care, and much loving-kindness; wherefore it behoves us to be of much good courage, and to trust in the power of repentance.
Now I think we may be making progress! The first clause (up to the semicolon) may actually be taken to confirm that wrath is intrinsic to God, but it must not be taken to be the same as human wrath. The second clause confirms that the way he acts on his wrath is not the same as human beings do. My summary and precis of this paragraph is that God is just and acts justly.

So andreas, I do not think St John is denying wrath in God, he is defining wrath in God and God's consequential actions in terms equivalent to the actions of the best of judges. And I think he does a good job.

quote:
And this, you should also know, the Orthodox says to the Manichean, that God does not punish anybody in the world to be, but each makes himself recipient of God. And the participation of God is joy, but the non-participation is hell. And in this world, God does not bring upon men temptations to punish them, but to teach them and heal them of their wickedness, so that we get to know him, and return and receive his holiness, "because the teaching of the Lord opens my eyes".
Or as C S Lewis put it in "The Great Divorce" (you really should try that book!) the world of human beings divides into two groups.

The first group say to God "Your will be done"

The second group hear from God "Your will be done". Apart from the grace and mercy of God, we will reap what we sow. And that also is God the Just at work.

I think it is possible to see the truth in both quotes and believe what I do, that there is wrath in God re sin. But wrath is not the language I normally use myself - justice is. See my recent post re Amos 5.

I'm not quite sure about impassibility; it strikes me as much more a Greek thought than a Judaistic one. But I see the truth in both of these quotes.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My summary and precis of this paragraph is that God is just and acts justly.

That's your thought, not St. John's! Where did he speak of justice in that paragraph I quoted? Nowhere. Why? Because God is not just...

Or, like Saint Isaac the Syrian wrote:

quote:
Do not call God just, for His justice is not manifest in the things concerning you. And if David calls Him just and upright, His Son revealed to us that He is good and kind. 'He is good,' He says, 'to the evil and to the impious'. How can you call God just when you come across the Scriptural passage on the wage given to the workers? 'Friend, I do thee no wrong: I will give unto this last even as unto thee. Is thine eye evil because I am good?'. How can a man call God just when he comes across the passage on the prodigal son who wasted his wealth with riotous living, how for the compunction alone which he showed, the father ran and fell upon his neck and gave him authority over all his wealth? None other but His very Son said these things concerning Him, lest we doubt it; and thus He bare witness concerning Him. Where, then, is God's justice, for whilst we are sinners Christ died for us! But if here He is merciful, we may believe that He will not change.

Far be it that we should ever think such an iniquity that God could become unmerciful! For the property of Divinity does not change as do mortals. God does not acquire something which He does not have, nor lose what He has, nor supplement what He does have, as do created beings. But what God has from the beginning, He will have and has until the [unending] end, as the blest Cyril wrote in his commentary on Genesis.

The problem could be that you think God is just, when he is not. Saint John did not speak of justice, but of healing. The wrath, Numpty insists on, according to St. John is not because of justice, but out of compassion. Which is why it's no wrath at all, but when we are broken we can't see that.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Well, that's a shame! You're right of course that it was my precis.

God not just? andreas, you amaze me! The Father you quote is making a quite reasonable antithesis between our human understandings of justice and the way in which God's actions are imbued with grace and mercy! God the Judge is infintely better in His application of justice than the standards of justice we might get from the best human lawcourts. In normal discourse, the opposite of just is not merciful, it is unjust! I am sure St Isaac is not saying that God is unjust. For an unjust God would not be a good God.

Let justice roll on like a river, and righteousness like a never failing stream. Get a concordance, look up all of the OT and NT references to justice and judging, and then tell me that God is an unjust Judge.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The Father you quote is making a quite reasonable antithesis between our human understandings of justice and the way in which God's actions are imbued with grace and mercy! God the Judge is infintely better in His application of justice than the standards of justice we might get from the best human lawcourts. In normal discourse, the opposite of just is not merciful, it is unjust! I am sure St Isaac is not saying that God is unjust. For an unjust God would not be a good God.

Thank you, Barnabas. Andreas seems to me to be confused by the protestant idea that a just God would give us all what we deserve, if not for Jesus. This seems to confuse a lot of people.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
One can only see a merciful God as unjust if one has a God who wields power over one as in a law court, as Barnabas' last post, and perhaps counts sins as crimes against himself. Orthodox don't have this relationship with or see God as this kind of entity. I think this has been said before here, but in such a discussion it's often difficult to remember exactly where the other's view comes from.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
I appreciate that this is of little polemical value, but it wasn't until I started attending the Divine Liturgy in Orthodoxy that I heard the phrase, 'for He is good and He loves mankind' over and over.

I know that we all know this, but somehow the idea that God LOVES us just wasn't so up front and central in the tradition from which I've come, where - in a liturgyless service - we talked (and sang) about how great God was, or how much we loved him or how we had escaped what we really deserved etc... but the love message from God just got missed out somehow.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
One can only see a merciful God as unjust if one has a God who wields power over one as in a law court, as Barnabas' last post, and perhaps counts sins as crimes against himself. Orthodox don't have this relationship with or see God as this kind of entity. I think this has been said before here, but in such a discussion it's often difficult to remember exactly where the other's view comes from.

Myrrh

I am even more puzzled by this post than I was by andreas' post. Who is saying mercy is unjust? St Isaac pointed out that God's mercy may often conflict with our human ideas of justice i.e. that justice in our experience is not always merciful.

Does Orthodoxy believe that the ubiquitous Old and New Testament picture of God as a righteous Judge is somehow flawed, inadequate, misrepresenting? Is there no Day of Judgment in Orthodoxy? Does not the Nicene creed say "He shall come again in glory to judge the quick and the dead"?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
God not just? andreas, you amaze me!

Dear Barnabas

How do you reply to Saint Isaac's questions?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
One can only see a merciful God as unjust if one has a God who wields power over one as in a law court, as Barnabas' last post, and perhaps counts sins as crimes against himself. Orthodox don't have this relationship with or see God as this kind of entity. I think this has been said before here, but in such a discussion it's often difficult to remember exactly where the other's view comes from.

Myrrh

I am even more puzzled by this post than I was by andreas' post. Who is saying mercy is unjust? St Isaac pointed out that God's mercy may often conflict with our human ideas of justice i.e. that justice in our experience is not always merciful.
I read it as St Isaac saying exactly that God is unjust in our terms not that "justice in our experience is not always merciful", but that it's we who impose the idea of justice as 'punishment to fit the crime onto God' and his ways are different. There can be no sense whatsoever of this kind of justice where God is ever merciful and loving, as we have it, and as Richard says we remind over and over.


quote:
Does Orthodoxy believe that the ubiquitous Old and New Testament picture of God as a righteous Judge is somehow flawed, inadequate, misrepresenting? Is there no Day of Judgment in Orthodoxy? Does not the Nicene creed say "He shall come again in glory to judge the quick and the dead"?
And what can that judgement be from an all-merciful, ever merciful God other than the one God has already given, "neither do I condemn you, go sin no more"?


Myrrh

[ 06. March 2008, 22:29: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I did reply already, andreas. And Freddy commended my explanation. See the top post to this page. If St Isaac were sitting with us I would say, "Thank you for your reminder that in human justice, no matter how well set up and directed, there is nothing to compare with God's grace and mercy in the execution of His justice and judgment. Mercy triumphs over judgment"

I do not see mercy as unjust, nor do I see grace as arbitrary. Such thoughts would make me a Pharisee. Rather, I see both as given by the Divine Hand of God according to the Divine Wisdom of God, whose judgments on everything and everyone are to be trusted and are far superior to my own. I am not like the older brother of the Prodigal, resentful of my brother's acceptability to my Father, I trust my Father. I join in the party!

You guys are talking in riddles. Perhaps you can take a crack at my questions?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Well, we know that the Father will not judge anyone, but he entrusts all judgment to the Son (John 5.22). And then, we are told by none other than the Son himself, that he judges nobody (John 12.47 and John 8.15)...

Or, to put it in Saint Isaac's words:

"Where, then, is God's justice, for whilst we are sinners Christ died for us! But if here He is merciful, we may believe that He will not change."

There is only one problem here, the very problem we have been discussing all over this thread. For the Orthodox the crucifixion does not have to do with God's justice. Saint Isaac brings the example of the Cross, because it would be "obvious" to all that it's not connected to justice! I guess, he didn't anticipate the later developments in Western Christianity, but then who did?

For the non-Orthodox, the crucifixion is somehow connected to a kind of Justice God is supposed (why?) to have...

That's a very real schism.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Or, to put it in Saint Isaac's words:

"Where, then, is God's justice, for whilst we are sinners Christ died for us! But if here He is merciful, we may believe that He will not change."

There is only one problem here, the very problem we have been discussing all over this thread. For the Orthodox the crucifixion does not have to do with God's justice.

And yet Isaac is using the same formula that Protestants use - that Christ somehow went around God's justice.

And here I had been hoping that the Orthodox really didn't connect the crucifixion and justice. [Frown]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'd take that further by saying that we ourselves are punished in Christ. Christ is the locus of sin's destruction because Christ is the locus of sinful people. We must take our sin into Christ and die with him as per Romans 6.6:

Numpty, this is the distinction I'm trying to get under the skin of. If you say 'we take our sin into Christ' in terms of our 'nature' then I would agree with you, but if you mean our personhood then I struggle to see how that happens, since I remain I and Christ remains Christ (I do not become the Logos, nor does the Logos become Richard Collins). I think this is why I struggle with the idea of penal-substitution if it refers to some sort of 'culpability exchange' (since persons are culpable). However if we are refering to some sort of 'essential/natural exchange' then I couldn't agree more.
I'm talking about mystical union with Christ in his death. We are united to the indestructible life of Christ so that we can safely die. In other words we can safely enter the destruction of our flesh by being 'in Christ'. This destruction is survivable only in and through Christ who is indestructible. We can therefore embrace the penalty of our own sin - which is destruction - through mystical union with Christ in his death. This is substitution through union.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
And yet Isaac is using the same formula that Protestants use - that Christ somehow went around God's justice.

How you are seeing this into what Saint Isaac wrote is beyond me. He first asked "Where is God's justice", and he asked that question many times. And to be even more convincing, he mentions the Crucifixion, where justice is nowhere to be seen. On the contrary, God's mercy is to be seen, because he was merciful enough to accept our ill treatment, and not get angry at us neither punish us for our sin.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:


I read it as St Isaac saying exactly that God is unjust in our terms...

So do I. We have a crap understanding of God's justice if we base it on even the best law courts.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

There can be no sense whatsoever of this kind of justice where God is ever merciful and loving

Who told you that? I mean, you can believe it if you want but it seems to assume that our human idea that it is just to punish wrongdoers is entirely foreign, nay completely alien to the mind and counsel of God. Your exegetical methods of both OT and NT interpretation must be very interesting.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62
Does Orthodoxy believe that the ubiquitous Old and New Testament picture of God as a righteous Judge is somehow flawed, inadequate, misrepresenting? Is there no Day of Judgment in Orthodoxy? Does not the Nicene creed say "He shall come again in glory to judge the quick and the dead"?

And what can that judgement be from an all-merciful, ever merciful God other than the one God has already given, "neither do I condemn you, go sin no more"?

A fascinating semantic re-interpretation of the Nicene Creed.

"He shall come again in glory to have universal mercy on the quick and the dead"

Are you sure that's what the Fathers really intended us all to see?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Barnabas

Saint Isaac in that quotation says:

But if here He is merciful, we may believe that He will not change.

That's my belief as well.

As for the judgment, we will be our own selves' greatest accusers. The judgment will be living, because each will live with the heart he has. And a self-centered heart, oh the hell and abyss and Gehenna...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Well, we know that the Father will not judge anyone, but he entrusts all judgment to the Son (John 5.22). And then, we are told by none other than the Son himself, that he judges nobody (John 12.47 and John 8.15)...

Or, to put it in Saint Isaac's words:

"Where, then, is God's justice, for whilst we are sinners Christ died for us! But if here He is merciful, we may believe that He will not change."


See my answer to Myrrh re the Nicene Creed. I accept of course that the final judgment is given to God the Son. But the Fathers would have saved us a lot of bother if they had worded the Nicene Creed thus.

"He shall come again in glory to have universal mercy on the quick and the dead"

Is that what you really believe and are you sure that is what all Orthodox really believe? And do you really believe that is what the Fathers intended you to believe by choosing, with great care, the particular words they did choose?

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

There is only one problem here, the very problem we have been discussing all over this thread. For the Orthodox the crucifixion does not have to do with God's justice. Saint Isaac brings the example of the Cross, because it would be "obvious" to all that it's not connected to justice! I guess, he didn't anticipate the later developments in Western Christianity, but then who did?

For the non-Orthodox, the crucifixion is somehow connected to a kind of Justice God is supposed (why?) to have...

That's a very real schism.


No it isn't really. And you should know where I'm going now. John Chrysostom on 2 Cor 5 v 21. And here's the quote yet again

quote:
Let us therefore not fear hell, but offending God; for it is more grievous than that when He turns away in wrath: this is worse than all, this heavier than all. And that you may learn what a thing it is, consider this which I say. If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation; and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude?
Now how does that connect the cross to the justice and mercy of God?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
xposted, andreas, but I'll let it stand, except the last sentence should have said "how does that not connect ...".

[ 07. March 2008, 00:51: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
How you are seeing this into what Saint Isaac wrote is beyond me. He first asked "Where is God's justice", and he asked that question many times. And to be even more convincing, he mentions the Crucifixion, where justice is nowhere to be seen.

Thank you. I misunderstood. I was confused there for a minute, and you have confirmed what I had thought was the Orthodox teaching.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'd take that further by saying that we ourselves are punished in Christ. Christ is the locus of sin's destruction because Christ is the locus of sinful people. We must take our sin into Christ and die with him as per Romans 6.6:

Numpty, this is the distinction I'm trying to get under the skin of. If you say 'we take our sin into Christ' in terms of our 'nature' then I would agree with you, but if you mean our personhood then I struggle to see how that happens, since I remain I and Christ remains Christ (I do not become the Logos, nor does the Logos become Richard Collins). I think this is why I struggle with the idea of penal-substitution if it refers to some sort of 'culpability exchange' (since persons are culpable). However if we are refering to some sort of 'essential/natural exchange' then I couldn't agree more.
I'm talking about mystical union with Christ in his death. We are united to the indestructible life of Christ so that we can safely die. In other words we can safely enter the destruction of our flesh by being 'in Christ'. This destruction is survivable only in and through Christ who is indestructible. We can therefore embrace the penalty of our own sin - which is destruction - through mystical union with Christ in his death. This is substitution through union.
Thanks for that clarification Numpty and there is little that I disagree with in your paragraph. In fact, this 'mystical union' with Christ can work through ALL of our life and existence. In his baptism we are baptised, in his hunger the hungry find satisfaction, in his homelessness the exiled find the house of the Father and - as St Paul points out - his 'descent' into our condition goes to the very, humiliating depths of fallen humanity ('even death on a Cross!') so that, no matter how fallen we are, we can meet (and be united) with Christ even there. In fact, this 'union' theme meets us even in Hades where - as you say - the deathless Life itself can not be contained - and bursts forth even from the realm of the dead bringing us to life with Him.

I think it was this understanding that allowed that Jewish concentration camp inmate (forget who it was exactly) to look at the executed humanity of a man hanging in front of him and, in response to his cry to God, 'Where are you?', got the small voice saying in return, 'Right here on the gallows'.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Saint Gregory of Nyssa approaches 2 Corinthians 5.21 thus:
quote:
For it was when He came in the form of a servant to accomplish the mystery of redemption by the cross, Who had emptied Himself, Who humbled Himself by assuming the likeness and fashion of a man, being found as man in man’s lowly nature—then, I say, it was that He became obedient, even He Who “took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses,” healing the disobedience of men by His own obedience, that by His stripes He might heal our wound, and by His own death do away with the common death of all men,—then it was that for our sakes He was made obedient, even as He became “sin - 2 Cor. v. 21.” and “a curse - Gal. iii. 13.” by reason of the dispensation on our behalf, not being so by nature, but becoming so in His love for man.
Christ died on our behalf, but not so we could watch the spectacle from afar. He died on our behalf in order to make provision for our own mystical death in him. He substituted himself by dying on our behalf in order that we might be safely united with him in his death. In this sense Christ's death makes provision for us for the killing of sin. Christ is the God given place for us to accept the wages of sin - Christ's substitutionary death is where we come to take responsibility for our sins, to die the death we deserve, and to receive the resurrection that we don't deserve. Christ only becomes sin inasmuch as he bears our sin for there was no other sin for him to become. As the Apostle Peter says, "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed." In my opinion there is penalty and substitution in Gregory of Nyssa.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Here is the final judgment and mercy of God the Son as seen through the eyes of St John Chrysostom. What he has to say about the cross en passant is pretty interesting as well.

I'm feeling generous this morning, so if you want to put it this way you can.

"It is the eternal judgment of God the Son that the eternal love of God will be experienced eternally as wrath by some and the eternal mercy of God will be experienced as eternal punishment by some. It is clear in eternity who those "some" are."

I think it is much simpler to say that God the Son will come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, but if you prefer a more complex formulation, you're welcome.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
No doubt about it, Numpty. When it came to conveying "spiritual milk", [basic principle, elementary truth), these old Fathers knew a thing or two. And they didn't half know the scriptures.

Of course one isn't looking for infallible interpretation here - but I've read some really good stuff thanks to the encouragement of the Orthodox. Quite heart-warming.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I'd like to look at the implications for our understanding of the nature of God of this difference between a) being negatively judged and sent to punishment for eternity, and b) experiencing God's love as torment, particularly in the light of our widespread belief that God is merciful.

In a) I find it difficult to see how mercy comes into it for those who are condemned. Yes, according to Anselm's powerful arguments God is being merciful to any who are saved but if Hell turns out to be populated by his decree then I can't see that his mercy could be universal.

B) has a problem in that it appears God's will is not being done. How can it be that God loves someone yet wants his love to be experienced by that someone as torment? Of course this is a problem for any non-Universalist understanding because of the rather inconvenient scriptural and experiential belief that God hates nothing he has made and wants all to be saved. Nevertheless, it is a problem - one that I tentatively solve by believing that love must be freely given.

Now, I suspect that if we take a charitable approach we can reconcile these positions.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Greyface

That seems to me to be a good idea. Here is a response to see if I catch your drift.

I quoted it earlier - from memory admittedly - but I am pretty sure that in "The Great Divorce", C S Lewis observes that there will ultimately be two categories of humans

1. Those who say to God "Your will be done".

2. Those to whom God says "Your will be done".

The helpful thing about that view, at least as I see it if one is not a universalist, is that it seems to me to both challenge and embrace the a) and b) options you gave! I know Father Gregory sees much that is Orthodox in C S Lewis and sees a lot in this particular book to commend. I'm not sure how it would work, but maybe we might start there?

Probably best to state opening positions. I'm not a universalist and I see the ultimate fate of all being determined by the eternal judgment of God the Son. I find the whole idea of Hell for some humans to be intolerable, but I do trust God the Son to get it right.

I know it is not my assessment of Divine Judgment which determines the outcome. I am there, like all of us, to be judged. I put my trust in the mercy of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me, and who I follow daily in every way I can. With the help of God. I have personal assurance that I have been saved, I am being saved and I will be saved. That is what goes on in me when I recite the Nicene Creed. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. He will judge. I cannot see that the words of the Creed, and the overall message of the scriptures and tradition give us reason to assume that judgment will be universally merciful. Much as I might like to believe that, it seems to assume what the judgment of God the Son will be.

Another C S Lewis-ism (from "The Pilgrims Regress" IIRC) is "God in His mercy made the fix-ed pains of Hell". I've been puzzling over that one for years!

Does that help?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Barnabas, a belated response to your post of March 6th, 16.10. I think that the fault was largely mine, for trying to make too many points in a single post, written in a hurry.

The main point that I was trying to make was that it is the implicit, rather than the explicit meanings of words which tend to lead to difficulties. Thus, I think that it is at least possible that modern Orthodoxen are uncomfortable with the word "wrath" and would not use it, because of the unwritten association with Jonathan Edwards-type understandings which seem to imply that God is wrathful against people , which they would emphatically reject, rather than against sin, which they might possibly accept. I have exactly these reservations, so I know how they (possibly) feel. Hence my comments about them being, maybe, happy with the essence of my quotation of your good self, but horrified by the language in which it is couched.

I think that much the same can be said with regard to the concepts of "Justice" and "judgement". I think that there would be agreement in absolute terms that these are meaningful concepts, but a big disagreement about what those concepts actually mean. For example, my interpretation of judgement is much the same as (was it?) Myrhh. It is the declaration of God's mind on the matter of sin. I don't find any essential link between such a judgement and the condemnation of a sinner.

Thus, in the OT, one common motif is God exercising his judgement in destroying God's enemies, his justice in vindicationg the people of God over their enemies. Now, we know this must be reinterpreted vis-a-vis how we assume the people of Israel understood this, in the light of the NT revelation. But what reinterpretation should that be. Well, we could decide, as per (on the whole) the western Church, that this corresponds to heaven for the righteous (however defined) and hell for the rest. Or we could decide that the true interpretation of the "enemies" is not people at all, but the sin and death that wars against humankind (which is, I think, something with which Orthodoxy would be in sympathy). Basically, we are, each of us, both the righteous and the unrighteous, Christ "puts to death" if you like, the power of sin and death on the cross, thus freeing us from our "oppressors".

I think that the same dynamic is at work with regard to "substitution". The concept of Jesus as our champion, doing battle for our eternal destiny on the cross, is one that I have certainly read being expressed by Orthodoxen. And a champion is a substitute, one who fights a battle on our behalf. So, to that extent, I would have thought the concept of substitution was acceptable to Orthodoxen. It's the implied baggage that comes with it that is the source of dispute.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
That is exceedingly good, JJ. It was fascinating for me, for example, to see the reaction to my statement that God is just - completely unexpected as well.

I'm sure you're right; one of the major reasons for the difficulties with the schisms is precisely the "portmanteau" effect that particular words bring. Separate development brings about these difficulties. We do need to work very hard to refine out the word-association difficulties and see what is left. There will be differences; I think there will be fewer than we currently see. It requires great patience to even make the attempt, but I believe it worthwhile. Learning to walk in each others moccasins is both uncomfortable and necessary.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:



There can be no sense whatsoever of this kind of justice where God is ever merciful and loving

Who told you that? I mean, you can believe it if you want but it seems to assume that our human idea that it is just to punish wrongdoers is entirely foreign, nay completely alien to the mind and counsel of God. Your exegetical methods of both OT and NT interpretation must be very interesting.
You're back to law courts. You may not think they're particularly good at the job of deciding degree of guilt and punishment, but you still believe our relationship is with a God who is a judge and juror over us. We don't have this kind of God or such a relationship. 'Technically' the difference is described as that between a juridical paradigm and an ontological by those who've analysed this. If we don't have such a juridical God we can't read this God into Scripture and the Jews have always taught that God is ever merciful and ever forgiving in a synergistic relationship in which repentance accesses that, God's judgement is always mercy.

So, our teaching is that God is ever-merciful, ever forgiving - God can't be anything else not even for a moment otherwise he wouldn't be ever etc., but with the emphasis from Christ that this actually means ever loving in an ontological ( Of or relating to essence or the nature of being.) relationship with God, hence the teaching to become perfect as God is perfect and the prayer for us to become one with them as He is one with the Father and so on, and with the confirmation that God's judgement means non-condemnation - a God that condemns even for a moment cannot be ever merciful. God's justice is mercy.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62
Does Orthodoxy believe that the ubiquitous Old and New Testament picture of God as a righteous Judge is somehow flawed, inadequate, misrepresenting? Is there no Day of Judgment in Orthodoxy? Does not the Nicene creed say "He shall come again in glory to judge the quick and the dead"?

And what can that judgement be from an all-merciful, ever merciful God other than the one God has already given, "neither do I condemn you, go sin no more"?

quote:
A fascinating semantic re-interpretation of the Nicene Creed.

"He shall come again in glory to have universal mercy on the quick and the dead"

Are you sure that's what the Fathers really intended us all to see?

If we don't see God through the lens of a juridical relationship how else can we see it?

St Isaac - "Far be it that we should ever think such an iniquity that God could become unmerciful! For the property of Divinity does not change as do mortals. God does not acquire something which He does not have, nor lose what He has, nor supplement what He does have, as do created beings. But what God has from the beginning, He will have and has until the [unending] end,"


Myrrh
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Barnabas

You say that he is Just while being merciful, that His Justice is not merciless...

Well, where is his Justice when he gives the sun to both the righteous and the wicked?

Si iniquitates observaveris, Domine
Domine, quis sustinebit?

Yet you say a Judgment will take place by God... and you seem very comfortable with that! Unbelievable.

I do think that the whole non-Orthodox approach to the Cross and to the question who and how is saved, is a philosophical attempt to reconcile justice with mercy. It all falls apart if you don't apply the human concept of justice. Yes, you said God's justice is not like human justice, but still, if it was justice at all, "quis sustinebit"?
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
Surely it is only possible to be merciful if one is legitimately capable of being something else? Only an offender requires mercy. Only the one offended can exercise mercy. In this respect God's mercy is the corollary to his wrath. This is why God's mercy is so great. Without wrath mercy becomes indulgence.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
On the contrary, without wrath mercy becomes love. To see a relation between mercy and wrath is something that's not accepted in Orthodoxy. We speak of mercy not because wrath exists or might exist or is just to exist, but because God is love.

[ 07. March 2008, 10:13: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Barnabas, I'll get back to you - I can't seem to grab more than a few minutes at a time on here today and it needs some serious thought.

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Yet you say a Judgment will take place by God... and you seem very comfortable with that! Unbelievable.

I'm confused. Don't the Orthodox say that Christ will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, then?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Dear Barnabas

Yet you say a Judgment will take place by God... and you seem very comfortable with that! Unbelievable.


I don't say it, andreas. Tradition, scripture, the Creed say it. And who else is to be trusted with it, other than the One who has taken on all of our humanity. Of course I trust him with it. I wouldn't trust anyone else.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear GreyFace

Like I said, Si iniquitates observaveris, Domine
Domine, quis sustinebit?

The Lord will come, in Glory, and the Judgment will be very real, but it will be our own hearts condemning us, our own self-centeredness making us miserable.

The Lord, in a final act of mercy will restore all. Nature will be made whole. Yet not all will partake in God's love, not because God will prevent them, but because they will not want to. This is the second death.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62
A fascinating semantic re-interpretation of the Nicene Creed.

"He shall come again in glory to have universal mercy on the quick and the dead"

Are you sure that's what the Fathers really intended us all to see?

If we don't see God through the lens of a juridical relationship how else can we see it?

St Isaac - "Far be it that we should ever think such an iniquity that God could become unmerciful! For the property of Divinity does not change as do mortals. God does not acquire something which He does not have, nor lose what He has, nor supplement what He does have, as do created beings. But what God has from the beginning, He will have and has until the [unending] end,"

I'll take that as a yes. Basically, you appear to be ruling out Divine judgment, other than eternal mercy, from the Creed. I can see how you get there, but it seems to be in contradiction of St John Chrysostom's homily on Matthew 25, linked above. How do you harmonise St Isaac's comment with St John's homily on the sheep and the goats? We are assured there will be goats. How are the goats excluded from the eternal mercy? I mean, even if you see them excluding themselves, they are still excluded. Are they not judged? And even if their actions judge themselves, is it not the eternal judgment of God the Son that this should be so? Call it a consequence of eternal mercy if you like, but as mdijon observed a few posts ago, I can't see it makes a lot of difference to the goats. The effect is the same.

[ 07. March 2008, 11:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas

Not want to? Who would not want to avoid the fixed pains of Hell? We bow the knee (every knee will bow), accept the sovereignty of God the Son, see the eternal mercy of God and rush into the lake of fire. Yet we're in this eternal mess out of the unredeemed habits of self-first? You lose me there somehow. Have another go, please. I know you're trying and you're probably finding me very trying, but you seem to me to be talking nonsense.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Barnabas

Imagine my shock when I saw Michaelangelo's Last Judgment in Capella Sistina... There was nothing in there I could identify with the Christianity I know...

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Not want to? Who would not want to avoid the fixed pains of Hell?

Yes, of course some don't want to partake in God! Hell is not a place where some people will be send, so that they would want to get out of there... Hell is the misery of our own hearts, and we turn our hearts either to others or to our ego by choice!

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
We are assured there will be goats. How are the goats excluded from the eternal mercy?

They are not! It would be a blasphemy if they did!

God will restore their nature too! Yet, even in their restored nature, they (we?) will choose not to partake in God. It's an issue of self-centeredness and selflessness. God will still be blessing them with existence, eternally, in a restored nature, but we will still choose to prefer our ego over selfless love.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Hell is not a place where some people will be send, so that they would want to get out of there... Hell is the misery of our own hearts, and we turn our hearts either to others or to our ego by choice!

This is an important point. You are so right, andreas.

People seem to struggle with the biblical imagery of hell as a fixed and unchanging place into which people are cast and tormented.

The way that I understand what andreas is saying, or rather what I believe about it, is that there is no such fixed place of torment. Hell is not a place as such. Instead, people after death live normal lives just as we do in the physical world. They are either happy or unhappy or somewhere in between, just as we are in the physical world. God's mercy is extended continually to everyone there just as it is in the physical world, and people either respond to it or not as they choose and in the way that they choose.

The difference between the physical world and the spiritual one, as I understand it, is that whereas people in the physical world have an inner life that can be the same or different from their outer, visible one, this is not the case in the spiritual world. There everything is visible, you act on your real desires, and your environment responds, or corresponds, to whatever is happening within your heart. This is what makes heaven heavenly and hell hellish. But the hellishness of hell is only from the misery inherent in attempting to act on desires that are discordant with spiritual law.

God permits this because this is what people wish, so it is a manifestation of His mercy even if it means that people suffer. The alternative would be that no one could wish for anything independently of God.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas

I am getting more than an inkling of a profoundly different eschatology in Orthodoxy - and that may be a part of the confusion. Is there a tolerable online summary of the Orthodox eschatology (or if like protestantism, there is more than one acceptable view, the eschatology which you personally accept)? That might make quite a lot of things clearer which are, currently, very muddled to me.

quote:
God will still be blessing them (the goats) with existence, eternally, in a restored nature
In the lake of fire? This is a definition of eternal blessing and mercy which I do not see! What is wrong with Matthew 25:46? Isn't that somewhat simpler? The goats depart into everlasting punishment.

Here is St John Chrysostom again, from the Homily on Matthew 25

quote:
But to the others He says, "Depart from me, you cursed," (no longer of the Father; for not He laid the curse upon them, but their own works), "into the everlasting fire, prepared," not for you, but "for the devil and his angels." For concerning the kingdom indeed, when He had said, "Come, inherit the kingdom," He added, "prepared for you before the foundation of the world;" but concerning the fire, no longer so, but, "prepared for the devil." I, says He, prepared the kingdom for you, but the fire no more for you, but "for the devil and his angels;" but since you cast yourselves therein, impute it to yourselves. And not in this way only, but by what follows also, like as though He were excusing Himself to them, He sets forth the causes.

"For I was an hungered, and you gave me no meat." For though He that came to you had been your enemy, were not His sufferings enough to have overcome and subdued even the merciless? hunger, and cold, and bonds, and nakedness, and sickness, and to wander everywhere houseless? These things are sufficient even to destroy enmity. But ye did not these things even to a friend, being at once friend, and benefactor, and Lord. Though it be a dog we see hungry, often we are overcome; and though we behold a wild beast, we are subdued; but seeing the Lord, are you not subdued? And wherein are these things worthy of defense?

<snip>

So for this cause, while the one are punished justly, the others are crowned by grace. For though they had done ten thousand things, the munificence were of grace, that in return for services so small and cheap, such a heaven, and a kingdom, and so great honor, should be given them.

There's a lot there of course, but for now just one question, based on the highlighted sentence. The goats are punished justly says St John. Even if their own sin punishes them is this not judgment? If I may put it this way, God the Father has created the pre-conditions for this punishment. It would seem sleight of hand to me so say that this judgment does not involve punishment.

[ 07. March 2008, 12:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Freddy

Very happy to discuss the "Hell is an analogy" POV with you; right at the moment, I'm trying to get a handle on Orthodox eschatology, which if it takes St John C seriously doesn't seem all that likely to be analogical. But I may be surprised yet!
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
On the contrary, without wrath mercy becomes love. To see a relation between mercy and wrath is something that's not accepted in Orthodoxy. We speak of mercy not because wrath exists or might exist or is just to exist, but because God is love.

You are conflating mercy and love! They're not the same. Mercy is only mercy if the exercise of it forestalls a legitimate punishment. I defy you to offer me a satisfactory definition of mercy that does not rest on the notion of legitimate punishment or just sanction being withheld.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
On the contrary, without wrath mercy becomes love. To see a relation between mercy and wrath is something that's not accepted in Orthodoxy. We speak of mercy not because wrath exists or might exist or is just to exist, but because God is love.

You are conflating mercy and love! They're not the same. Mercy is only mercy if the exercise of it forestalls a legitimate punishment. I defy you to offer me a satisfactory definition of mercy that does not rest on the notion of legitimate punishment or just sanction being withheld.
Agreed, but mercy is still mercy whether or not there is any possibility of such a sanction being imposed. Thus, one could argue that mercy is an inevitable expression of God's love, because He chooses, and will always choose, in love, not to impose such a sanction. The fact that He would, to an external observer, be justified in imposing such due sanction is neither here nor there.

Which brings us back to discussion about what is the nature of Divine justice, and whether or not it can be expressed without punishment.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
We're buzzing today!

On Orthodox eschatology, I did come across this link which I've only skim read, and which suggests a variety of different views and understandings, rather than a united position.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
*sigh*

There is a huge difference between the restoration of Saint Gregory (and the Orthodox Church) and the restoration of Origen (which has been condemned as heretical by the Orthodox Church).

The Church believes in the restoration of our nature... God's blessing us even then!

Origen thought that all creation will eventually partake in God... That even the demons will change their ways.

What's common between Origen and the Church is the word used... apokatastasis, restoration. Not the meaning of the word!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Why the sigh?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
From the linked article
Eschatology is one of the most precarious aspects of theological thought, because it tries to explain things that have not happened yet, and even when they do our language and understanding might be too limited to fathom them. The apophatic "honor by silence" in Maximos' writings, seems more correct than any treatise on the subject. The restoration of all however, a valid possibility according to the Church, although not a doctrine, has a special place in the hopes of saints who pray for the redemption of their enemies, and it expresses our hope for the charity of God. Possibly the honorable silence expresses this hope, which in spite of the danger of determinism, becomes almost a certainty in this light: If even one human being is able to forgive and pray for the salvation of the entire cosmos, wouldn't God's providence find a way to make it happen?

I liked that. Perhaps not surprisingly, because it is remarkably close to some thoughts of my own expressed to Greyface a few post ago. But experience teaches me that my liking for it probably means that I have picked up on something andreas would disagree with. My turn to sigh. Anyway, this is what I said.

quote:
Probably best to state opening positions. I'm not a universalist and I see the ultimate fate of all being determined by the eternal judgment of God the Son. I find the whole idea of Hell for some humans to be intolerable, but I do trust God the Son to get it right.

I know it is not my assessment of Divine Judgment which determines the outcome. I am there, like all of us, to be judged. I put my trust in the mercy of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me, and who I follow daily in every way I can. With the help of God. I have personal assurance that I have been saved, I am being saved and I will be saved. That is what goes on in me when I recite the Nicene Creed. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. He will judge. I cannot see that the words of the Creed, and the overall message of the scriptures and tradition give us reason to assume that judgment will be universally merciful. Much as I might like to believe that, it seems to assume what the judgment of God the Son will be.

Another C S Lewis-ism (from "The Pilgrims Regress" IIRC) is "God in His mercy made the fix-ed pains of Hell". I've been puzzling over that one for years!

The notion elsewhere in the article that the reprobate may not burn eternally in the eternal fires of Hell, rather be refined by them, was new to me. I'm not "hot" on eschatology, as you'll gather. I suppose you could also add to that the allied idea that we might all spend a bit of time (or a lot of time) there to get cleansed from impurities. Which would make Judgment Day a scary day for everyone (as andreas seemed to imply earlier). But I think the blood of Jesus purifies us from all sin, if we walk in the light (1 John 1 v 7).

Think I'll stick to the Creed, avoid needless speculation and trust in the Lord of Salvation and Judgment. Interesting and illuminating article, though.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Very happy to discuss the "Hell is an analogy" POV with you; right at the moment, I'm trying to get a handle on Orthodox eschatology, which if it takes St John C seriously doesn't seem all that likely to be analogical. But I may be surprised yet!

I think the point is that it is not an analogy. It is completely real. The question is how to effectively describe it.

Grasping the point about wrath and mercy is key to seeing what this is all about. It is also key to understanding what the cross is all about.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I cannot see that the words of the Creed, and the overall message of the scriptures and tradition give us reason to assume that judgment will be universally merciful.

Here is a dialectical opposition between mercy and judgment.

For my part, I cannot see that the overall message of the scriptures and tradition give us reason to assume that judgment will be anything but universally merciful.

As an aside point, there is a problem with the way some modern Orthodox read history... Some think that Saint Gregory proposed an empty Hell, which is simply not true. The common use of the term restoration by both the heretics and the Orthodox has confused some...

I am amazed by the naiveté of the argument "I agree with the Scriptures and the Saints" as if the other side says they disagree... It's not "the Scriptures and the Saints" but "my traditions' reading of the Scriptures and the Saints". I hope you see why using that line of argument is less than charitable. "OK, you might be saying this, but I agree with the Scriptures and the Saints". If only that was as simple as that!
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I cannot see that the words of the Creed, and the overall message of the scriptures and tradition give us reason to assume that judgment will be universally merciful.

Here is a dialectical opposition between mercy and judgment.

For my part, I cannot see that the overall message of the scriptures and tradition give us reason to assume that judgment will be anything but universally merciful.

Isn't it universally merciful to allow people to do as they wish, insofar as this is possible?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I cannot see that the words of the Creed, and the overall message of the scriptures and tradition give us reason to assume that judgment will be universally merciful.

I am amazed by the naiveté of the argument "I agree with the Scriptures and the Saints" as if the other side says they disagree... It's not "the Scriptures and the Saints" but "my traditions' reading of the Scriptures and the Saints". I hope you see why using that line of argument is less than charitable. "OK, you might be saying this, but I agree with the Scriptures and the Saints". If only that was as simple as that!
andreas, you confirm my view from loads of posts that you are simply pre-disposed to be argumentative. When I say "I cannot see" that allows plenty of scope for folks to argue differently. It really is as simple as that. My opinions on any subject are not meant to be conclusive for anyone but me. It really is as simple as that.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Barnabas

How many times in this thread have you replied to something I said with "Well, I prefer to follow the Scriptures and Tradition"? Can you see that this might sound patronizing to say the least?

There is no issue of choosing between the Scriptures and something else. We all choose the Scriptures. The problem is that we don't interpret them the same way, not that you are choosing the Scriptures while father Gregory and I are choosing a small t tradition's views over the Scriptures.

By the way, my comment and the passage from your post that was quoted are not directly connected with each other. My response to that quote from you was the passage above my expression of frustration.

[ 07. March 2008, 16:45: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't it universally merciful to allow people to do as they wish, insofar as this is possible?

Nice qualifier "insofar as this is possible". It is the one used in Romans 12 to describe the process of living at peace with everyone. What if it isn't possible? Why might it not be possible? Universal mercy tends to become less universal as you follow such arguments through.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

I think the point is that it is not an analogy. It is completely real. The question is how to effectively describe it.

Grasping the point about wrath and mercy is key to seeing what this is all about. It is also key to understanding what the cross is all about.

I accept that my statement "hell is an analogy" was shorthand. What I should have said is that the scriptural descriptions are often thought to be metaphors for underlying realities.

I agree with your second paragraph but we would probably see the point differently!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I'm sorry for causing you frustration, andreas.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
You are not causing frustration. Discussing with you is always a pleasure. This endless circle causes some frustration. Not you [Razz]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Try breaking out of the frustration then. For example, what do you think of the final para from that article on Orthodox eschatology which I extracted, and on which I commented a few posts ago?

It is part of my efforts to follow up on Greyface's most interesting line of thought. I'm also taking some account of Jolly Jape's astute observations that at least some of our differences are caused by the weight we give to particular words, and what I have described as the portmanteau effect, the baggage if you like, which some of our key words carry around with them.

Finding a non-pejorative way of discussing our differences is a very big challenge to all of us. Bigger than I thought when I first started discussing things here with Christians from many different backgrounds. I know you give a very high value to accuracy, but even when we all attempt that, the scope for misunderstanding seems to remain very high.

(Just to give a simple example, I still have to sort out with Myrrh the difference between my conception of divine justice and her use of "lawcourts" phraseology. I'm not sure I know how to do that other than looking at the contrasts between St John Chrysostum on sheep and goats and St Isaac on "Do not call God just". One of the Fathers seems comfortable with concepts of divine justice which are familiar to me, the other does not. Or so it seems to me. Which is why I asked Myrrh the question. I cannot be sure how you handle such things unless you tell me. I cannot be sure how you prioritise, choose, harmonise. I know how we do such things in my own tradition but it would be wrong for me to read our methods across to your tradition.)
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
It's not easy to explain, Barnabas. We deal with those texts exactly like we deal with the Scriptures... And you might have noticed that differences in interpretation exist between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox as far as the Scriptures are concerned!

So, we understand them from the unified experience of God the Church safeguards and offers to the believer...

Take Saint Chrysostom, for example. You say you agree with him on God's Justice... Yet, his work is unified, and someone coming from another tradition than his, could be benefited by taking all the things he said and wrote into account, together, as a unified whole.

Take into account, for example, what he said in that other passage I quoted from him... about God inflicting punishments not to punish but to heal as a Physician... Which means that they are not punishments in the first place... Saint John Chrysostom even reaches the point to say that God's wrath is not brought in... wrath!

So, there is no contradiction between what Saint John and Saint Isaac said! Quite the contrary! They are of one voice, that God is love, that he is a Lover of mankind, and that His only concern is our salvation and our good, not the satisfaction of an abstract justice or the reparation of his honor, which cannot be hurt in the first place!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I remember it well! I saw him defining divine wrath, not denying it. Still do! Can't see how you don't.

Myrrh has an aversion to lawcourt language yet St John Chrysostom talks about Jesus presenting his listeners with "the Judgment seat" in the Matt 25 homily; he mentions the "charges" against the goats; he talks about the "justice" of the "sentence". Of course all this is at least to some extent metaphor, but it is expressed in the language of the lawcourt. Chrysostom seems fine in using this sort of language in his exposition. So I don't see the problem Myrrh sees. God the Son is portrayed as a judge in the exposition, in the text and in the Creed. And also as a just judge!

Some of this is linguistics, some concepts, some dogmatics. I really am not trying to be difficult here - it seems totally elementary to me to describe what is there. I'm just reading words in context. In my tradition it is a normal part of our exegetical process to look at words in context first and ask what they mean in that context. Without in any way being influenced, at least for the time being, by any wider considerations. It is just taking text seriously.

[ 07. March 2008, 18:18: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Well, let's begin from there. How do you see him defining divine wrath? By all means, tell us, what do you think Saint John's definition of divine wrath is.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Here is the para,

quote:
For if the wrath of God were a passion, one might well despair as being unable to quench the flame which he had kindled by so many evil doings; but since the Divine nature is passionless, even if He punishes, even if He takes vengeance, he does this not with wrath, but with tender care, and much loving-kindness; wherefore it behoves us to be of much good courage, and to trust in the power of repentance.
You will remember the context of our discussion; that there was no wrath in God. Let us take the very first phrase.

"For if the wrath of God were a passion". I read this as starting from the point that there is wrath in God, but beginning to consider what the nature of that wrath might be. He argues first from our understanding of human wrath. Here my absence of Greek may get in the way ( I assume the original is Greek) for I am not sure whether he uses orge or thumos. Both convey anger, one "hotter" than the other. And in human beings, anger is normally understood as a passion. But St John argues that the wrath of God cannot be a passion, because (following impassibility) he sees God as passionless. So God's wrath (a passionless anger) may indeed be an inner state, but what are the consequences of stripping the passion away from the wrath. He goes on in the argument.

quote:

.. even if He punishes, even if He takes vengeance, he does this not with wrath, but with tender care, and much loving-kindness; wherefore it behoves us to be of much good courage, and to trust in the power of repentance.

St John says that even with this wrath in him, God will not act wrathfully, after the manner of human wrath. He may punish. He may take revenge. But he will do so with tender care and much loving kindness. What is he saying here? That whatever may have provoked this anger in God, he will not lose his love for those who have angered him. Even if it is necessary that he punish, he avenge, his love will still be there.

I see this as a purifying away any purely human understanding of wrath in God, a confirmation that He may nevertheless be angry, an affirmation that He will never lose his love for those who have angered him, and a recognition that out of his anger he may punish or avenge. Which is why I see the analogy with justice. For justice to be just it must be purged of the heat of anger. St John does not deny that God may be angry, clearly at sin, nor that he may need to act on the basis of that anger.

At any rate, that is a somewhat hasty summary of what I see there. It'll do to get the discussion going.

A final point. I am personally not sure that impassibility conveys accurately the nature of God as we see it in scripture. I think it is a philosophical concept. But for the sake of this discussion, that point does not matter. I accept that is what St John believed.

[ 07. March 2008, 18:53: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
He may punish. He may take revenge. But he will do so with tender care and much loving kindness. What is he saying here? That whatever may have provoked this anger in God, he will not lose his love for those who have angered him. Even if it is necessary that he punish, he avenge, his love will still be there.

This, I think, is a central issue to our disagreement. I don't read Saint John to be saying this; I read him to be saying something radically different than this.

I read him to say that there is no necessity that he punishes, that he avenges, and indeed, he does not punish, he does not avenge, but, as a merciful and loving God, proceeds to interact with man, as a Physician, to heal man and help him regain his senses. It's not because anger has been provoked in God that we get punishments. No, we don't get punishments any more than a sick man gets punished by his doctor when he gives him a medicine that tastes awful. That's no punishment, no punishment that has to do with justice or anger that is. It is punishment in the sense that it is something we don't like, something we see as awful, but it's true nature is healing and beneficial.

So, we differ in our readings of Saint John. For me, Saint John is saying, God's wrath is without wrath, exactly because there is no wrath in God. For you, Saint John is saying that God is angered, but nevertheless he avenges himself with kindness.

Is that a fair summary?

If it is, I will have to ask you why you stopped there, and haven't included the rest of Saint John's where he speaks of the Physician. It's one thing to say that God avenges himself with kindness, and another thing to say that God does not avenge himself. And I think Saint John takes the latter approach, because he says "not as avenging Himself, but by way of attracting us to Himself".

P.S. The Greek word used, in all cases, is orge
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think I would say that St John is arguing that God's wrath is without heat. To say that God's wrath is without wrath seems to me to miss the precise intention of the argument to take the heat out of it.

Let me move onto the next paras. I think I can explain my understanding much more briefly.

quote:
And for this reason God threatens us with punishments, and often inflicts them, not as avenging Himself, but by way of attracting us to Himself. For a physician also is not distressed or vexed at the insults of those who are out of their minds, but yet does and contrives everything for the purpose of stopping those who do such unseemly acts, not looking to his own interests but to their profit; and if they manifest some small degree of self-control and sobriety he rejoices and is glad, and applies his remedies much more earnestly, not as revenging himself upon them for their former conduct, but as wishing to increase their advantage, and to bring them back to a purely sound state of health.

Even so God when we fall into the very extremity of madness, says and does everything, not by way of avenging Himself on account of our former deeds; but because He wishes to release us from our disorder; and by means of right reason it is quite possible to be convinced of this.

There are two elements of just punishment.

1. Retributive. A payment to society for crime by a fine, a loss of liberty etc.

2. Rehabilitative. The punishment provides an opportunity for the convict to reflect, learn from the error of their ways, and leave the place of punishment better, wiser, more responsible.

In these paragraphs St John is simply affirming the rehabilitative nature of God's punishment, or threats of punishment.

[ 07. March 2008, 19:51: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Exactly! There are two ways of just punishment. Which is why what Saint John is talking about is not just punishment. Because it does not fall under one of the two categories, but it falls under a third category, a different category, that of healing. The difference in the words you are using (rehabilitation) and Saint John is (medical treatment) is telling! You wouldn't describe a human doctor's actions using the language of rehabilitative just punishment, would you? Why? Because there is a great difference between the physician's treatment and just punishment!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
When it comes to moral defect, andreas, the processes of healing and being corrected are synonymous, not opposed. Given the pastoral context of this letter, that seems a very important point.

I accept that in some contexts to be healed is not the same as to be corrected, but not in this one. And if you examine the nature of the healing, look carefully at the words

quote:
(The physician) does and contrives everything for the purpose of stopping those who do such unseemly acts, not looking to his own interests but to their profit; and if they manifest some small degree of self-control and sobriety he rejoices and is glad
This is moral correction. Stopping unseemly acts, improving self control and sobriety. Sin is both sickness and moral defect, andreas.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
I'd say that St John Chrysostom is saying that God's wrath is without malice.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I dont think so, Numpty. I think he is saying it is anger without heat. And of course, in human terms, heat can lead to malice. But I think the absence of malice in God is really self evident. A God in whom there is malice could not possibly be good. I don't think St John would have needed to demonstrate that to anyone.

It is interesting that the Greek orge is much less hot than thumos!
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There are two elements of just punishment.

1. Retributive. A payment to society for crime by a fine, a loss of liberty etc.

2. Rehabilitative. The punishment provides an opportunity for the convict to reflect, learn from the error of their ways, and leave the place of punishment better, wiser, more responsible.

In these paragraphs St John is simply affirming the rehabilitative nature of God's punishment, or threats of punishment.

It works better, though, if it goes a step further and describes God as merely permitting, rather than authoring, rehabilitative punishment. Or rather, that He permits actions to have consequences for the sake of long term goals.

But both Scripture and St. John describe the punishments as originating in God in order to emphasize His sovereignty as a matter of expression.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Freddy

That is not what St John is arguing in the text. He describes God as active in both punishment and rehabilitation. Of course there are wider issues, but for the time being, we are simply discussing the meaning of the text.

I'm heartened that the discussion is attracting attention, however.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Barnabas,

we will agree to disagree then.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It is interesting that the Greek orge is much less hot than thumos!

I think the opposite is true.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thats fine andreas. One thing we do agree on is that it is a very fine letter and I can well understand why you love it.

My understanding of the Greek words is based on an expository dictionary which describes thumos as a more agitated anger, but of course I accept your explanation.

As long as you see there is reason and consideration behind my understanding, that will do for me. 1000 year schisms are not mended by any single discussion. We understand each other better I think.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

Which brings us back to discussion about what is the nature of Divine justice, and whether or not it can be expressed without punishment.

I have reflected a lot on these words following the dialogue with andreas. I think the key word is "expressed". I am sure you are right that the nature of Divine justice can be expressed without punishment. We can say, for example, that God's justice is entirely rehabilitative. There is no retribution in God. He offers us correction by healing; any punishment is self-inflicted or indirect via circumstances which God uses for our good.

What I think is undoubtedly true is that in scripture it is possible to see both the language of the lawcourts and the language of the surgery, as attempts are made by the authors to express this nature. My cantering around the language of one of the Fathers (I see St John Chrysostom as a pretty remarkable expositer of scripture by any standard) leads me (though not others) to see him both using and refining the language of the lawcourts and the surgery to express his understanding of the nature of God, the nature of divine justice and salvation. That does not have to be a universal interpretation - it is mine now by means of study and reflection. I find him illuminating both ways - via the language of the lawcourts and the language of the surgery.

Of course expression is not the real thing, merely an attempt to describe. In all these cases it is description of the ineffable. So we are bound to see in part.

Perhaps it is good to learn to listen to these expressions, not be too put off by them because they they do not reflect the way our traditions normally express, and seek to get to the deeper understandings. We see in part and express what we see. Some things are clearer than others.

Rather like the Orthodox writer says about eschatology, I know that some of my theology is very fragile. Some of my seeing is as clear as mud! (That is particularly true about eschatology, come to think about it). I guess that is a common condition, no matter which Christian family we find ourselves in.

[ 08. March 2008, 06:47: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This is moral correction.

The Saint describes how a human doctor works. How you manage to see moral correction into what doctors do is beyond me!

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Not want to?

This is somewhat central. The personal freedom, the personal will of man is central... Which brings back the issue of Original vs Ancestral sin (in the first case our nature is to blame for sin, in the second our own personal wills), the issue of whether the world was created perfect (Origen) or immature (Orthodox), and the issue of how we get saved and the importance of Jesus being the Godman He is or the importance of the Crucifixion as a deed from which salvation comes (in a literal sense).

To sum up my position and view:

God is Love. He is utterly humble and always blessing creation. His mercy stands forever. There is no wickedness in him. He treats us with mercy and love. He judges no one. Every one is judged by his own heart. Jesus came to heal every division. The divisions within us are healed when we become who Jesus Christ is. Which is why I profess "God became man so that man becomes God".

[ 08. March 2008, 10:47: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This is moral correction.

The Saint describes how a human doctor works. How you manage to see moral correction into what doctors do is beyond me!


I did explain that by pointing to the "conditions" which were being "healed". But here's the full quote again.

quote:
I accept that in some contexts to be healed is not the same as to be corrected, but not in this one. And if you examine the nature of the healing, look carefully at the words

quote:
(The physician) does and contrives everything for the purpose of stopping those who do such unseemly acts, not looking to his own interests but to their profit; and if they manifest some small degree of self-control and sobriety he rejoices and is glad
This is moral correction. Stopping unseemly acts, improving self control and sobriety. Sin is both sickness and moral defect, andreas. Both are covered here under the description of the work of the Great Physician.
I'm quite happy to accept "both" rather than "either/or" as an explanation of the work of the Great Physician. The centre of sin is "I", self-centredness rather than God-centredness, a wilful separation from and disobedience of, God. Self-centredness leads to immoral actions requiring to be corrected. This is the domain of sin. The remedies include both healing and correction. The Great Physician is concerned with both. In this text, the specific field of operation that St John refers to is unseemly acts, the need for self control and sobriety. These seem to me to belong to the area of moral correction.

I think the difference between us is that when you see St John referring to God as the Great Physician you see him speaking of God purely in terms of His healing. It is reasonable to do that. of course, but given the context of healing to which he refers, I had taken the use of this term to include the total process of making well. Which in this case clearly includes moral correction. I am sure you accept that this friend of St John will need to be made well. Which will include both inner healing for the self-centredness and an improved self-control in his life (the fruit of the Spirit).

Anyway, that is perhaps a more helpful and fuller explanation of what I see intended by the text.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I'd like to say a few more things on hell and heaven.

An excerpt from the River of Fire:

quote:
Now if anyone is perplexed and does not understand how it is possible for God’s love to render anyone pitifully wretched and miserable and even burning as it were in flames, let him consider the elder brother of the prodigal son. Was he not in his father’s estate? Did not everything in it belong to him? Did he not have his father’s love? Did his father not come himself to entreat and beseech him to come and take part in the joyous banquet? What rendered him miserable and burned him with inner bitterness and hate? Who refused him anything? Why was he not joyous at his brother’s return? Why did he not have love either toward his father or toward his brother? Was it not because of his wicked, inner disposition? Did he not remain in hell because of that?

And what was this hell? Was it any separate place? Were there any instruments of torture? Did he not continue to live in his father’s house? What separated him from all the joyous people in the house if not his own hate and his own bitterness? Did his father, or even his brother, stop loving him? Was it not precisely this very love which hardened his heart more and more? Was it not the joy that made him sad? Was not hatred burning in his heart, hatred for his father and his brother, hatred for the love of his father toward his brother and for the love of his brother toward his father?

This is hell: the negation of love; the return of hate for love; bitterness at seeing innocent joy; to be surrounded by love and to have hate in one’s heart. This is the eternal condition of all the damned. They are all dearly loved. They are all invited to the joyous banquet. They are all living in God’s Kingdom, in the New Earth and the New Heavens. No one expels them. Even if they wanted to go away they could not flee from God’s New Creation, nor hide from God’s tenderly loving omnipresence. Their only alternative would be, perhaps, to go away from their brothers and search for a bitter isolation from them, but they could never depart from God and His love.

And another excerpt concerning God's justice.

quote:
The word dikaiosuni,"justice", is a translation of the Hebraic word tsedaka. This word means "the divine energy which accomplishes man's salvation". It is parallel and almost synonymous to the other Hebraic word, hesed which means "mercy", "compassion", "love", and to the word, emeth which means "fidelity", "truth". This, as you see, gives a completely other dimension to what we usually conceive as justice. This is how the Church understood God's justice.
Or, like Saint Isaac said, "We know nothing of God’s justice, only His mercy."

Saint Anthony the Great said "to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind."

[ 08. March 2008, 11:19: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Is this the full text? Do you treat it as a primary source?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
That's the text. No, no primary source. He is no Saint, at least not that I know of.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It is reasonable to do that. of course, but given the context of healing to which he refers, I had taken the use of this term to include the total process of making well. Which in this case clearly includes moral correction. I am sure you accept that this friend of St John will need to be made well. Which will include both inner healing for the self-centredness and an improved self-control in his life (the fruit of the Spirit).

Anyway, that is perhaps a more helpful and fuller explanation of what I see intended by the text.

It is helpful, in the sense that it makes things clearer. For my part, I hope my view is equally clear, that there is no issue of moral correction in our relationship with God. Our problem is not moral, but ontological.

And from where I stand, it cannot be an issue of both ontology and morality! Perhaps I need to clarify this, why this cannot be an issue of "both" being the case, because it might not be that apparent to a non-Orthodox at first glance.

I will leave aside what St. John said. I still maintain that in his imagery of the human physician you see a moral correction that simply does not exist, and that moreover, the same applies for the wider context of his letter. It is apparent, however that we are not going to agree on that.

Like I said, Jesus brings salvation in the sense that in His Person all divisions are healed, and we can live the same way. This healing is the whole point of the gospel. And moral correction has nothing to do with it, because it was never part of the problem in the first place!

Is moral correction meaningful when someone is living in division? No. It cannot make him whole. Is moral correction meaningful after one has become whole? No. What is healed is beyond correction. The real problem is a problem of divisions and wholeness, a healing to all dialectical oppositions.

[ 08. March 2008, 11:43: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
That probably is the nub of the disagreement. In my tradition, we see God involved in our refinement. Our becoming more like Christ. We are back at the two verses from Philippians, which Father Gregory and I discussed earlier.

quote:
12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
These really are my touchstone. Yours appears to be.

quote:
Is moral correction meaningful when someone is living in division? No. It cannot make him whole. Is moral correction meaningful after one has become whole? No. What is healed is beyond correction. The real problem is a problem of divisions and wholeness, a healing to all dialectical oppositions.
What is completely healed is beyond correction. But we are not made completely whole all at once. We could not stand it. A relationship once broken is restored. But then there is obedience and following. Taking up the cross. He must increase, I must decrease. We live our lives in the time before we become completely whole. Correction is ongoing. Both human will and divine grace are involved.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
[brick wall] Again you are faithful to the Scriptures and I follow my own views...

I will only say that I see Paul expressing exactly the same view I do... But that's the whole point is it? Paul says this, no Paul says that, no Paul says something very different from what you both are saying...

Paul is bringing the message of peace, the message of salvation, the message of healing, the message of the end to all divisions. Whether or not his audience will get healed is up to them. Some have rejected Paul altogether, others have accepted the message, and the one that sent Paul, and became healed, others try to accept the message...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I really do not understand. I am simply pointing out that in my understanding, correction is ongoing and necessary. I am not at present completely whole. Also that this is not just a matter for me but for God. These verses from Paul sum up that understanding for me. That is how I read them. I am describing, not ascribing a superiority to my view or playing a polemical trick.

So do they sum up a different understanding to that for you? What is it?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

To sum up my position and view:

He judges no one. Every one is judged by his own heart.

Leaving aside the fact that it is impossible to come to that conclusion from the bible I don't see how you can justify that position logically.

How can there be an abstract concept such as justice if someone doesn't 'judge' to decide what is right and wrong? If each one of us is 'judged by our own heart' then either that is a subjective judgment (which collapses into solipsism) or it is an objective judgment (which must come from some external source of authority).

If God, in his very being, defines justice then he must, by definition, 'judge' everyone according to his justice. He doesn't have to 'do' anything, just by 'being' he judges.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I'm out of the discussion for several hours, Johnny S (getting out more, you see) - and I thought you might be asleep! But clearly you are very wide awake!

The pregnant possibilities of your post and the results will be part of my evening fare!
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So do they sum up a different understanding to that for you? What is it?

I agree with what Paul said. I just happen to read Paul differently than you do. I read Paul to say the Jesus Christ is our salvation in the sense that in Jesus Christ there is no division, and that in our becoming what He is, we get healed, which is our salvation.

Paul is giving birth to people in Jesus Christ. He is guiding his children to the wholeness that is in Jesus Christ. And that's not easy. So, by Paul appealing always to Jesus Christ, he tries to help his children become Jesus Christs.

There is no difference between what I read Paul to be saying and what I am saying. Difference exists only in the way I read Paul and the way you read Paul.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Leaving aside the fact that it is impossible to come to that conclusion from the bible I don't see how you can justify that position logically.

We are not philosophers. We are Christians. For the philosopher, there is a dialectical opposition between mercy and justice. Numpty puts it best here: "Mercy is only mercy if the exercise of it forestalls a legitimate punishment." This, for this Orthodox, is a Hellenization of Christianity which is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Here's a short passage from the River of Fire:

"No, my brothers, unhappily for us, paradise or hell does not depend on God. If it depended on God, we would have nothing to fear. We have nothing to fear from Love. But it does not depend on God. It depends entirely upon us, and this is the whole tragedy."

This is very Orthodox... God is Love, and not subject to the necessity of our rationalizations on God's Justice and Mercy... Our philosophical way of thinking about God is the great mistake here.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Why do I bother?

... off to bed. [Snore]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62
A fascinating semantic re-interpretation of the Nicene Creed.

"He shall come again in glory to have universal mercy on the quick and the dead"

Are you sure that's what the Fathers really intended us all to see?

If we don't see God through the lens of a juridical relationship how else can we see it?

St Isaac - "Far be it that we should ever think such an iniquity that God could become unmerciful! For the property of Divinity does not change as do mortals. God does not acquire something which He does not have, nor lose what He has, nor supplement what He does have, as do created beings. But what God has from the beginning, He will have and has until the [unending] end,"

I'll take that as a yes. Basically, you appear to be ruling out Divine judgment, other than eternal mercy, from the Creed. I can see how you get there, but it seems to be in contradiction of St John Chrysostom's homily on Matthew 25, linked above.
You'll have to excuse me from answering in the detail here, I don't have the knowledge of the writings or language necessary and so don't know if I'd agree with Chrysostom or not, you're better off continuing it with Andreas, however, in a more general way.

quote:
How do you harmonise St Isaac's comment with St John's homily on the sheep and the goats?
From catching up on this discussion, it appears that 'juridical' and 'healing' are becoming views in opposition to each other and so the confusion of 'juridical' language used in Scripture, and perhaps by various writers like Chrysostom, becoming attributed to the "juridical" paradigm of God and our relationship with him which is the characteristic of Western Christianity when that paradigm doesn't exist, as we claim, in Scripture or these writers, our view is always ontological from a relationship with God of being, nature. Without a "jurical" framework, both 'judgement' and 'healing' are complementary descriptions of a process, bearing in mind also that 'judgement' also carries, with equal weight, the meaning of 'discernment'.

(THREE VIEWS OF THE FALL AND SALVATION ORTHODOX AND THE WEST: LATIN & REFORMATION) Perhaps this will help, don't know how accurate it is in the detail, but in general concept there is a very great difference between "juridical" relationship with God as developed in the West, and consequent interpretation of Scripture, and the "ontological"; so to understand our viewpoint we'd need to separate the use of 'juridical' language such as in Matthew 25 from the actual doctrines of the "juridical" paradigm, and from that the 'juridical' language of Chrystom is not in conflict with St Isaac.

quote:
We are assured there will be goats. How are the goats excluded from the eternal mercy?
In the Orthodox view the goats are never excluded, can never be excluded, because God cannot be anything other than always merciful which is a given. This led Origen to say that one day all will be saved (God all powerful, all merciful), but this is seen as a heresy by the Orthodox (heresy, choice contrary to teaching) because in an ontological relationship with God (of being, created in the image and likeness with free will etc.) God cannot override our independence; so we say that we can hope that all will be saved, but not that all will be.

quote:
I mean, even if you see them excluding themselves, they are still excluded. Are they not judged?
You're back to the "juridical", of law courts, God does not have authority to "judge us", to condemn or to save. Reading "juridical" here is akin the mis-reading of Gen II, of punishment for consequence (which is the basis of the "juridical" view). From an ontological paradigm the final judgement can be far more interesting, for example those condemned/those not healed are the ones who have have failed to act to aid God, to alleviate His pain and misery in being, and particularly of ourselves in relation to God that hell, our wailing and gnashing of teeth, comes from our not meeting like with like, of our love not being equal to God's love from which selfless action to alleviate pain follows; those not loving as God loves then are contributors to the creation of hell not there as punishment for not being good enough.


quote:
And even if their actions judge themselves, is it not the eternal judgment of God the Son that this should be so? Call it a consequence of eternal mercy if you like, but as mdijon observed a few posts ago, I can't see it makes a lot of difference to the goats. The effect is the same.
Again from the "jurical" view, it's not a question applicable quite in that form to the "ontological" which sees a difference between sin as a crime and sin as not fullness of being. In the ontological where we're participants in God's being we have only to say we refuse participation in any heaven which excludes the possibility of even one goat from becoming a sheep to agree with the eternal judgement of God the Son already made, "neither do I condemn you".

Myrrh
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
It really does seem to me that St John Chrysostom does see penal substitution in the crucifixion. He also sees death of death in the death of Christ. He also sees the defeat of Satan. St John's comments on Collosians 2.13 ff. really do seem to engage directly with the idea that Christ was punished on the cross. Look:
quote:
We all were under sin and punishment. He Himself, through suffering punishment, did away with both the sin and the punishment, and He was punished on the Cross.
Yes Chrysostom said that, not some heretical Protestant! What am I to make of this? Of course, Chrysostom does not say by whom Christ was punished and also personifies death, so it wouldn't be fair to say that he is presenting a fully developed theology of penal substitution. But it certainly appears to me that he doesn't reject the possibility of Christ being somehow vicariously punished. The task, at least for me, is to now search his writings for further clarification of his view of Christ's 'punishment'.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
May I suggest that readers trace for themselves the sources of The River of Fire, Orchid Land Publications and Orthodox Press to determine whether those publishers are associated with canonical Orthodox churches or not.

M
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Numpty, see father Gregory's replies. Saint John speaks of death. Nobody denies that Christ died.

Leetle Masha, I don't understand your comment about the publisher. If you have something to say, just say it. Do you disagree that there is no wrath in God? That He will still be blessing the wicked even after the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? Tell us what you think!
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
What I think, andreas1984, is that if you and Myrrh want to find quotes that testify to the unity of Orthodox doctrine, it would be preferable to select links from recognised, canonical Orthodox sources. That's all.

M
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
That there is such a thing as "a canonical Orthodox source" is not Orthodox.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
I disagree. Here in the United States, we have SCOBA, the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas. link

Orthodox Churches listed in that link are said to be "canonical", that is, recognised throughout the world as Orthodox Churches. It is from those churches that I prefer to draw the material that shapes my beliefs.

Your mileage may vary.

Mary
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
What I think, andreas1984, is that if you and Myrrh want to find quotes that testify to the unity of Orthodox doctrine, it would be preferable to select links from recognised, canonical Orthodox sources. That's all.

M

When Barnabas asked me if that was a primary source, I said no. I don't see what's the big deal is.

The quotes however from the fathers that document contains, are primary sources and are holy.

If you ask me, I don't approve of the roughness with which the author seems to speak against the non-Orthodox, but anyway, this has little to do with whether God blesses everybody and will continue to do so, or not.

Frankly, I believe that this "you and Myrrh" of yours is provocative. It excludes the contribution of father Gregory in purpose, and I personally think you bring luggage to Orthodoxy, which I see as the reason for much of the disagreement between you and me in past threads.

[ 08. March 2008, 15:15: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Thank you, andreas1984. My apologies to you and Myrrh, and to Fr. Gregory too if he has blessed the links you've quoted.

I personally avoid any documents issued by U.S. schismatic Orthodox groups such as the ones to which your and Myrrh's links can be traced. The websites themselves may or may not be scholarly or worthy of anyone's wholehearted acceptance, but each individual will have to evaluate their trustworthiness for himself.

On the questions your thread has raised, however, I would not venture an opinion. See psalm 131:1-3:

Psalm 131 (NRSV)

Song of Quiet Trust

A Song of Ascents. Of David.
1 O Lord, my heart is not lifted up,
my eyes are not raised too high;
2 I do not occupy myself with things
too great and too marvellous for me.
3 But I have calmed and quieted my soul,
like a weaned child with its mother;
my soul is like the weaned child that is with me.

I shall be turning the Ship off of my computer soon, at least until after 27 April. But I specially wanted to wish the other posters on this thread a very Happy Easter!

Mary

[ 08. March 2008, 15:32: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
A very Happy Easter to you too, and forgive the words of opposition on my part!
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Of course, andreas1984, Myrrh, and Fr. Gregory! God forgives, and so do I. But forgiveness includes only what you have said to me. I cannot agree with your links as well; hope you understand.

Mary
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
I disagree. Here in the United States, we have SCOBA, the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas. link

Orthodox Churches listed in that link are said to be "canonical", that is, recognised throughout the world as Orthodox Churches. It is from those churches that I prefer to draw the material that shapes my beliefs.

Your mileage may vary.

Mary

Mary, to take your information about Orthodox doctrine from an organisation claiming it is alone is the arbiter of who is and who is not Orthodox is certainly up to you, but the idea of someone/some organisation being such an authority is most definitely not Orthodox.

These buzz words 'canonical Orthodox' and 'world Orthodoxy' appeared only in the turmoil of the 20th century. It's a political construct created, far as I can trace, initially out of the denigration of the Russian Church Abroad by those who had sought to replace the 'authority' of the Russian Church by killing its bishops, priests and lay members... The irony here of course is that in finally managing to turn those holding out against this by infiltrating its membership in the effort to acquire its status and holdings for itself the MP Church had to recognise its canonicity.

This strand of events was joined by and intertwined with another, that of the EP's history which joins with the above at the beginning of these events (in which the EP was anathematised for supporting the Bolshevik Church) and continues intertwined with it in a strand peculiar to itself where it began to deviate from Orthodox ecclesiology around the same time; as seen in it going from its previous 19th century argument against papism (authority of doctrine doesn't come from the chair, but the chair from authority of doctrine) to the creation of a neo-papist doctrine to support its own authority, and from this, it gained enough momentum during the 20th century to create the idea that a) there was such a thing as "canonical Orthodoxy" and b) this begins with being in "canonical communion" with itself. For an example of this argument (Neo-Papism)

Anyway, this idea that there is an infallible source of Orthodox doctrine either in the 'fathers' or the councils is not Orthodox, so neither is there a 'source of canonical Orthodoxy'. The best we can do is what all of us are doing here, searching out and debating the differences and agreements in Christ. An example of true ecumenism in practice.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So do they sum up a different understanding to that for you? What is it?

I agree with what Paul said. I just happen to read Paul differently than you do. I read Paul to say the Jesus Christ is our salvation in the sense that in Jesus Christ there is no division, and that in our becoming what He is, we get healed, which is our salvation.

Paul is giving birth to people in Jesus Christ. He is guiding his children to the wholeness that is in Jesus Christ. And that's not easy. So, by Paul appealing always to Jesus Christ, he tries to help his children become Jesus Christs.

There is no difference between what I read Paul to be saying and what I am saying. Difference exists only in the way I read Paul and the way you read Paul.


This is not an exegesis of Philippians 2 v 12-13. That was what I was hoping you would do but I did not ask clearly enough. It is a more constructive way of discussion than each of us asserting a meaning. So I would like to see your arithmetic, please, not just your result. Do those verses support your summary? If so, how?

I think it constructive to ask you to do this in view of your comments and the efforts we made over the Chrysostom letter. And on countback, it is your turn. Exegesis is hard work.

There is one thing which does puzzle me about your reply so far. What do you mean by Paul is giving birth to people in Jesus Christ? Clearly from Phil 1:1 they are already Christian and clearly from Phil 2:12a they have already been demonstrating obedience, at least in some measure. I can understand that he is guiding his children to the wholeness that is in Jesus Christ. I think that is exactly what he is doing myself. But I do not understand the significance of the "giving birth" sentence. Perhaps you could explain that as well.

I will put on hold any observations on the extracts from River of Fire until, with your agreement, we have taken a careful look at this scripture we see differently.

For Hosts; I appreciate we have strayed a little way from the main theme (CV compared with other models like PSA). If you would prefer, I would be happy to take this to PM. It connects indirectly by the way the argument has gone to the question of whether there is wrath in God, which is actually a very important aspect of CV/SA discussions and comparisons. The "fear and trembling" bit in Phil 2:12 is also a reasonable clue!

[ 08. March 2008, 19:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Myrrh

Thanks for your posts - I need a bit more time to get through them, then I'll post some response.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I will try and explain how I read those verses from Paul later. I feel a bit embarrassed doing exegesis, but I will do what you ask. In the meantime:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is one thing which does puzzle me about your reply so far. What do you mean by Paul is giving birth to people in Jesus Christ?

My little children, whom I am again giving birth in pain until Christ is formed in you Gal. 4.19
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thanks, I wondered if that was it. The context is different. The letter to the churches in Galatia is notable for its lack of commendation; after some brief introductions he observes "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who has called you by the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel (Gal 1 v 6). There is a lot of correction in Galatians.

Whereas, in the letter to the Philippians, the context is expressed very differently. Here is the beautiful introduction.

quote:
3 I thank my God every time I remember you. 4 In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy 5because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

7 It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart; for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me. 8 God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus.

9 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, 11filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.

And in his introduction to the text we are considering, he begins in the same warm way.

"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed ...." (Phil 2 v 12a).

This is not a wresting with those in whom Christ has not been birthed because of confusion, this is an encouragement to a faithful and obedient community, for which he has an obvious very great affection, to continue as they have started. But I move into your expository territory so I shall stop there.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Actually, I remembered that verse after you have asked what I meant...

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This is not a wresting with those in whom Christ has not been birthed because of confusion,

Huh? Has not been birthed? But he says "give birth in pain again"... And again means that he has already given them birth in pain unto Christ!

Anyway, I will come back for the other passage.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Fair point. I think Paul was observing "I'm going to have to go through this all over again - clearly some of them (the foolish Galatians) haven't 'got' the heart of the gospel. Some seed fell on stony ground?"

Anyway, if the verse was a post facto thought, no worries. I still think my observations about context are important. The Philippian church seems to be a totally different kettle of fish to the churches in Galatia. (Where the term "can of worms" seems to be a more appropriate description of the pastoral, teaching and evangelising issues the Apostle faced.)
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
We are not philosophers. We are Christians.

Andreas I do not expect us to reconcile differences between our church traditions easily. Obviously there will be frustrations on both sides.

However, I am about to give up. (Yes, even me [Biased] )

When I (and others) try to interact over the text of scripture you simply reply that you read it differently.

When I try another tack, that of logic, you dismiss this as sophistry.

When others raise the teachings of the Fathers, they are similarly inadmissable.

I'm not asking you to agree with me, just to engage with me... I just don't see any evidence of that. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
This from Irenaeus on Colossians 2.14:
quote:
3. Therefore, by remitting sins, He did indeed heal man, while He also manifested Himself who He was. For if no one can forgive sins but God alone, while the Lord remitted them and healed men, it is plain that He was Himself the Word of God made the Son of man, receiving from the Father the power of remission of sins; since He was man, and since He was God, in order that since as man He suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us, and forgive us our debts, in which we were made debtors to God our Creator. And therefore David said beforehand, “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin;” Ps. xxxii. 1, 2. pointing out thus that remission of sins which follows upon His advent, by which “He has destroyed the handwriting” of our debt, and “fastened it to the cross;” Col. ii. 14. so that as by means of a tree we were made debtors to God, [so also] by means of a tree we may obtain the remission of our debt.
So Irenaeus says:Dear Andreas, Fr. Gregory, and Myrrh, how do I read this incorrectly? Don't just tell me that I do, tell me why!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Numpty, a brief request. Part of my past readings (because of studies of Gnosticism) did include Irenaeus' massive work " Against Heresies". As you can see from the link, it is online.

Does your quote come from there? (I shall never find it without a roadmap!)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Myrrh

I did wade through your link! It is a commentary on many things and it did illuminate for me what the nature of the underlying differences might be. Thank you for that. One does not have to agree with the conclusions to be able to derive value from the description of distinctions.

I am also grateful to you for the eschatological comments - as you've seen I've already picked up that there are significant differences in eschatology, and there appear to be varying views amongst the Orthodox as well. Which is a bit of a complication!

Should circumstances and time permit, I may bring the St John Chrysostom homily on sheep and goats into other discussions. But it is available in English online in at least one place. Here is one place where it is to be found.

Of course it is perfectly valid to argue that the use of juridical language (I think it crystal clear that St John does that) does not mean that the underlying realities are juridical. At least not in the sense that we normally use the human concepts of justice. I have actually been trying to get that point across to andreas but up to now have possible not been clear enough on it. But there is a corollary to that. I am all for ontology. But there is specification in ontology. Perhaps, more accurately, there is a need to specify the definition of ontology being used and the significance of the use to which it is put. You do not avoid the questions of inner meaning by saying they are all to be found in the modes we choose to take as fundamental. What you are actually saying is "this is the way it looks to us, this is the way we believe the Fathers and Tradition have always seen it, and this is why". And all of that is an argument subject to questioning. As well as assertions of Apostolic and Patristic authority.

Which is quite a long way round of getting to my conclusion! Although you may believe, with good or overwhelming reason which satisfies you completely, that juridical description does not convey the underlying reality of God, and therefore has no place in salvation, others' mileage may vary, and with good reason. We look at the same roots and see variety in the shoots.

One of the reasons why I think Jolly Jape's recommended approach might have real value is that we may not fully appreciate the baggage all our uses of language bring. Aldous Huxley observed, in a completely different context, that "Words are at one and the same time both necessary and fatal"! I think we have to find better ways to talk to one another. We have been aiming and missing for a very long time.

But I do thank you, most warmly, for your efforts to clarify the discussion.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
We are not philosophers. We are Christians.

When I (and others) try to interact over the text of scripture you simply reply that you read it differently.
This is true. It's not that either I or you reject the Scriptures or are ignorant of them. We both read them and accept the and believe what they write to be true. Our differences come with different readings of the Scriptures. You guys have tried to explain how you read some Scriptural passages, and we the Orthodox Shipmates that contributed in this thread tried to do the same as well.

quote:
When I try another tack, that of logic, you dismiss this as sophistry.
Hey, that's unfair! I didn't say it was sophistry, I said it was philosophical in nature! Which, as far as I could tell, it was! A dialectic opposition between mercy and justice is philosophical in nature. How can it not be? [Confused]

quote:
When others raise the teachings of the Fathers, they are similarly inadmissable.
That's not fair either! I am confess all the patristic passages you guys quoted! They are just not saying what you say they do. It is said that Pelikan joined Orthodoxy after reading a work by one of the Kappadoceans... for the fifth time... in ancient Greek! What I'm trying to say is that it takes time to understand.

quote:
I'm not asking you to agree with me, just to engage with me... I just don't see any evidence of that. [Disappointed]
I'm sorry you don't see me engaging with you. I think I have. What more can I do? I will re-read our discussion and see if there is anything I could have said differently.

Numpty, hold on, I'll read that passage

Barnabas, if you see something that looks like a quote, google a small part of it and you shall find the text... (Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter XVII paragraph 3) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103517.htm

[ 09. March 2008, 09:06: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Quite right about quotes search andreas. A temporary bind spot (I actually do what you say a lot in loads of contexts). Anyway, at least I was in the right work!
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
So Irenaeus says:
Dear Andreas, Fr. Gregory, and Myrrh, how do I read this incorrectly? Don't just tell me that I do, tell me why!
A)Of course remittance and healing are distinct. God remits us for free, but we need to becomes Jesus Christs to get healed. God offers both remittance and healing, but while remittance means that God does not take into account our sin, healing means that we get to become whole, and this "we" means it's not only up to God. God makes healing possible, but we can choose whether to become Jesus Christs or not!

B) Of course we are debtors. Not only debtors, but ungrateful as well! We have been ungrateful, and this is what's worse. God calls us into a dialog. He gives, and we are to give what he have us back. When we don't, that's a deeply problematic situation... for us! Which is not a legal failure! This is I think the problem. You read into "debtors" a legal meaning the word didn't have for Ireneus. Can you show that it meant what you think it did? Let's make it easier. What scholars explain that in Ireneus a legal understanding of debt can be found?

C) It doesn't say that! That's your creative mis-reading in Protestant light! He says, Christ is of two natures. In one nature he suffered, in another nature he showed compassion. He doesn't say he suffered to show compassion, that he doesn't show compassion unless he suffers.

D) On the contrary. It does not says anything of an imputation. He says something very different to that! First of all he says "in time the Lord has restored us into friendship through His incarnation" and then he says "because through wood we expelled him, through wood he becomes again apparent to all, showing the height and the width, and the breadth, and the depth in himself".

Christ destroys on the wood all divisions, and we get saved when the divisions are no longer within us, when we become Jesus Christs. We are not justified by imputation, we are healed in a very *real*, ontological, way.

I don't want to cause frustration but here's how I see it: We, the Orthodox Shipmates that posted in this thread, have been explaining passages for many pages now. However, to really see that this is an explanation of these passages, one has to realize first what we are saying. One needs first to realize how Jesus Christ is our salvation because in him there is no division, and how we get saved by becoming Jesus Christs, and then it can be understood why what we are saying is an explanation of the texts.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Barnabas

First of all, if I was to choose something from Philippians that sums up my stance, I would choose

quote:
3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
Which says that our salvation is Jesus Christ, in whom there is no division, in whom wholeness can be found. To get saved means to become Jesus Christs. Now, to the passage you quoted.

quote:
12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
You have been saved in Jesus Christ.

Continue walking the Way, because wholeness is not to be taken for granted. If you allow divisions to arise within, you will be broken again.

Since you have been made whole, you experience the salvation that is in Jesus Christ. You experience the union of the divine with the human, and God is working in you, you experience God, whose Presence and Power enables you to live in ways unthinkable to broken humanity. Continue being whole, don't fall into inner divisions again, don't get broken again. Be vigilant.

[ 09. March 2008, 09:58: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Numpty, a brief request. Part of my past readings (because of studies of Gnosticism) did include Irenaeus' massive work " Against Heresies". As you can see from the link, it is online.

Does your quote come from there? (I shall never find it without a roadmap!)

Sorry Barnabas, it comes from here - Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 17.

quote:
Andreas1984 contested:
C) It doesn't say that! That's your creative mis-reading in Protestant light! He says, Christ is of two natures. In one nature he suffered, in another nature he showed compassion. He doesn't say he suffered to show compassion, that he doesn't show compassion unless he suffers.

You're right he doesn't say what I mistakenly quoted him as saying, he says this:
quote:
For if no one can forgive sins but God alone, while the Lord remitted them and healed men, it is plain that He was Himself the Word of God made the Son of man, receiving from the Father the power of remission of sins; since He was man, and since He was God, in order that since as man He suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us, and forgive us our debts, in which we were made debtors to God our Creator.
However, I think it is saying exactly what you say it doesn't say it's saying. It is saying that God has compassion upon us by becoming incarnate to suffer for us. There is a direct link between the suffering of the incarnate Christ and the compassion of the eternal Christ. The former is the direct result and temporal outworking of the latter. It is how God has compassion on us; not why God has compassion on us. The suffering of the incarnate Christ is the essence of God's eternal compassion.

[ 09. March 2008, 14:18: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I understand what you are saying. I don't see it in Ireneus though. What I see is Ireneus saying Jesus Christ was crucified in his humanity, yet, instead of punishing us or taking that into account against us, he forgives us and is compassionate in his divinity towards us despite what we did to him.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:
12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
You have been saved in Jesus Christ.

Continue walking the Way, because wholeness is not to be taken for granted. If you allow divisions to arise within, you will be broken again.

Since you have been made whole, you experience the salvation that is in Jesus Christ. You experience the union of the divine with the human, and God is working in you, you experience God, whose Presence and Power enables you to live in ways unthinkable to broken humanity. Continue being whole, don't fall into inner divisions again, don't get broken again. Be vigilant.

Thanks you for your explanation andreas. I found it helped me and I think we may be closer than I had thought previously.

Your theology allows for the possibility that our wholeness in Christ might be broken again by our falling, our failing, our lack of vigilance. And it also acknowledges that God's power and presence enables us to live like Christ. Without which we can fall into inner divisions (does that mean both within ourselves as individuals or corporately as the Body of Christ. I can see that it might mean both.)

I would like to bring St John Chrysostom into our discussion on this passage. Here is the Homily.

It seems to me that the difference between us might be summed up in the difference between the words "temporary" and "incompleted". For if our wholeness is permanently complete, there is no need for the exhortation and encouragement in these scriptures. Given that both you and St John point to the fact that we are in danger of falling from wholeness, then this wholeness is not the permanent wholeness we see in Christ, who did not fall. Whereas we do fall. Therefore I say, Christ's wholeness is not perfected in us, otherwise there would be no need for both the encouragement and the exhortation. His wholeness is of course perfect, our containing of it is not. We carry this treasure in jars of clay.

As St John the Apostle says, speaking to the believers, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sin He is faithful and just and will forgive our sin and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives" (1 John 1:8-10).

Father Gregory and I agreed a very brief summary of the meaning of the Philippian scriptures a few pages ago. The Christian life is struggle and grace. Personally it is a matter of only secondary importance whether we describe this as a cycle of

wholeness-brokenness-repentance-wholeness-brokenness to be continued until we break (or are broken) no more

Or as a cycle of

incompleted wholeness-falling away-confession-repentance-forgiveness-incompleted wholeness ... to be continued until we stop falling away and our wholeness has become complete.

Either way it is struggle. We are both agreed that we must engage our wills and must not take for granted that God will control our wills. And that we need to be vigilant. I say there is a battle here.

St John Chrysostom is very clear on our responsibility in all of this. "Seest thou how he does not deprive us of free will?" I am in fundamental accord with that. God's work does not nullify the human will in any way.

But he is equally and wonderfully clear that we have the power of God to help us. There is this beautiful phrase here "Be not affrighted, thou art not worsted; both the hearty desire and the accomplishment are a gift from Him: for where we have the will, thenceforward He will increase our will". Struggle and grace together.

(BTW St John Chrysostom's take on "fear and trembling" is most interesting - I am not sure I accept all of what he says on that but he has certainly given me something to think about.)

Whichever way we interpret the Pauline scripture, there appears to me to be a learning process. We are disciples (mathetes) of Christ. We have been made disciples by the Grace of God and others obediently following the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19). And I am told that the root of mathetes is the concept of learner; not so much learning as in the study of ideas, but learning how to live like Christ, how to be Christ.

Falling hurts us and denies the wholeness we have received. Such fall, however caused, is to be avoided for the future. I call that correction. I am very happy also to call it healing, restoration, resulting in more fruitful, more consistently Christlike behaviour. But the behaviour which led to the fall needs to be learned from and avoided in future. And that lesson needs incorporation in our will. So that it flows into our intentions and our actions. With the strengthening of God.

At any rate, that is how I see it. May I suggest that even if you see error in this understanding (and I can see where you may), you give some time to considering how much is not error from your point of view? (I think that is the sort of thing Johnny S meant by engagement.)
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
You know that I love lengthy posts, don't you?

I agree with most of what you wrote. There are two points I don't agree with:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Falling hurts us and denies the wholeness we have received.

[snip]

But the behaviour which led to the fall needs to be learned from and avoided in future. And that lesson needs incorporation in our will.

First, I don't think it denies the wholeness,, but it breaks the wholeness. What do you think about that? Would you feel OK with that verb?

Second, I think that what we do comes from our ontology. In other words, unless we get whole again, we can't avoid leading a broken life. It's not by example that Jesus saves, we can't force ourselves to be the men Jesus Christ calls us to be. When we force to behave in a good way, this is no great consolation to our brokenness.

Good behavior, godly behavior, must stem naturally from the heart. I can do all kinds of good things, give my entire fortune to charities, attend the sick and the poor, console the mourning, help that peace comes, but I can still be broken! Doing those things wont help me get healed again. Which is why I don't agree with the morality view you seem to have proposed...

Now, do you want me to comment on all the other things you said with which I agree? I don't know how you want me to engage with you!
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I understand what you are saying. I don't see it in Ireneus though. What I see is Ireneus saying Jesus Christ was crucified in his humanity, yet, instead of punishing us or taking that into account against us, he forgives us and is compassionate in his divinity towards us despite what we did to him.

andreas, I think you're forgetting that Irenaeus is offering commentary on the following text of scriprure from Colossians:
quote:
14having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross
. Irenaeus puts it like this:
quote:
“He has destroyed the handwriting” of our debt, and “fastened it to the cross;”
In other words Irenaeus is meditating on how - by suffering on the cross -the compassionate God incarnate cancelled the written record of offences that stood against us in our unbelief. Irenaeus - contrary to what you are saying - is touching on the mechanism of the cross as the means by which "we may obtain the remission of our debt". Yes, Irenaeus speaks of the mystery of the incarnation as the ground and context of the tree's efficacy but he goes further - as does the Apostle Paul in the text of scripture - into the efficacy of the cross itself.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
It took a lengthy post andreas! You must be a very quick reader.

I certainly accept one correction

Falling hurts us and denies the wholeness we have received.

That was wrongly put. What I meant to say is that it is we who deny the wholeness when we fall, not the falling itself. It is our denial which causes the breach, the break. So I think we are saying the same thing.

Your second point is the one I thought you might bring out. It does indeed bring us into the area of ontological/juridical/moral differences to which Myrrh referred and is an issue in itself to which I am giving a lot of thought. I don't want to reply hastily.

andreas, I am going to visit my mother tomorrow - she is 89 and very frail - and staying with her for a week for her support. So I am going to have to press the pause button on this discussion for several days. But I am glad we have got to where we have got on this part of the discussion. I find that heartening.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Numpty

Are you sure that's a quotation from Ireneus? Because the way I read that scriptural passage, from the Greek ancient text of Paul's epistle, it does not say that "he hath taken it out that way", but "he hath taken it out of the way". I think there is a difference between the two.

Also, you miss the fact that a couple of verses before that, he spoke of the Incarnation, saying that "in time the Lord has restored us into friendship through His incarnation". If the Lord restored us into friendship through the incarnation, then how is it that you say he says the cross is the means by which we get remission of our debt? I don't get it!

Cross-posted with Barnabas!

[ 09. March 2008, 16:38: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Col 2:14 - Blue letter Bible

Greek is hardly my strong suit but both the Textus Receptus and Westcott-Hort seem to support "taken it out of the way". Yes I know I've pressed the pause button but I've got a few mins to spare.

According to my memory of dating, Irenaeus was writing at the turn of the 2nd/3rd century I think so he would be using an early text before the canon and versions got authorised. Don't know any more than that.

quote:
Therefore, by remitting sins, He did indeed heal man, while He also manifested Himself who He was. For if no one can forgive sins but God alone, while the Lord remitted them and healed men, it is plain that He was Himself the Word of God made the Son of man, receiving from the Father the power of remission of sins; since He was man, and since He was God, in order that since as man He suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us, and forgive us our debts, in which we were made debtors to God our Creator. And therefore David said beforehand,"Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin;" pointing out thus that remission of sins which follows upon His advent, by which "He has destroyed the handwriting" of our debt, and "fastened it to the cross;" Colossians 2:14 so that as by means of a tree we were made debtors to God, [so also] by means of a tree we may obtain the remission of our debt.
andreas, I think the argument is as follows. Jesus as God the Son was Incarnated with the power to remit sins (because he was God) and did indeed remit the sins of individuals he encountered during his earthly life (all of which is consistent with the Irenaeus text). The culmination of the Irenaeus argument is in the last phrase.

quote:
... pointing out thus that remission of sins which follows upon His advent, by which "He has destroyed the handwriting" of our debt, and "fastened it to the cross;" Colossians 2:14 so that as by means of a tree we were made debtors to God, [so also] by means of a tree we may obtain the remission of our debt.
What Numpty and I "see", what our eyes are drawn to is this phrase beginning "so that"

quote:
so that as by means of a tree we were made debtors to God, [so also] by means of a tree we may obtain the remission of our debt.
I think you will look at this and say "yes indeed, that is what Christ on the Cross says, but it is not what he does. He remits by being who he is. This is the ontological argument again. Accepting Christ, having Christ born in you, is for you the receiving into yourself that innate Christ power to remit sins which comes from who he is, not what he does on the cross. And that is the difference. And that is why you see the text saying what you say it does.

Now if Numpty understands me and I have properly understood you, we might be getting somewhere! And now I will go away and pack! (But I will probably check later).
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
What I don't see is how Ireneos' He "restored us into friendship through His incarnation" fits into any what you are saying... And he said that only a couple of verses before what we are now discussing... If we are already restored into friendship through the incarnation (and indeed we are) why do you see remission of sins coming from the crucifixion?

By the way, I don't think Ireneos made that quotation. I think it's Numpty...

Anyway, if we really want to understand Ireneos, we should take his work as a whole and add much much more in our discussion from him... We can't just speak about a passage in isolation from the rest of his work!

[Votive] for your mum
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Point appreciated BTW and I should have said it .. I was trying to use the part quoted to illustrate how the ontological argument works at the Cross, not resolve all differences. I'll come back to it if I've any time later tonight.

Prayer appreciated very much. My mum is a marvellous old lady; full of courage, amazingly quick-witted still, very shrewd, but struggling very much with her ailments.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
What I don't see is how Ireneos' He "restored us into friendship through His incarnation" fits into any what you are saying... And he said that only a couple of verses before what we are now discussing... If we are already restored into friendship through the incarnation (and indeed we are) why do you see remission of sins coming from the crucifixion?

By the way, I don't think Ireneos made that quotation. I think it's Numpty...

If you read the post again you'll see that I haven't suggested it's Irenaeus. I said it's the Apostle Paul in Colossians 2.14! The scripture I've cited was cut and pasted from the ccel hyperlink from the Irenaeus text that we're discussing. That text can be found here. If you click on the red hyperlink for Col. 2.14 in the margin it will take you to the bible text that I've cited. It is from the American Standard Version of 1901. However, I have no particular affection for this translation of the scriptures and would be happy to discuss it using the AV, NIV, ESV, RSV etc.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas

Briefly thus

quote:
And therefore in the last times the Lord has restored us into friendship through His incarnation, having become "the Mediator between God and men;" 1 Timothy 2:5 propitiating indeed for us the Father against whom we had sinned, and cancelling (consolatus) our disobedience by His own obedience; conferring also upon us the gift of communion with, and subjection to, our Maker. For this reason also He has taught us to say in prayer, "And forgive us our debts;" Matthew 6:12 since indeed He is our Father, whose debtors we were, having transgressed His commandments.
Depends how you read it andreas. You can read is as "restored us into friendship by
a) His Incarnation
b) Having become mediator ...
c) propitiating ...
and
d) cancelling .....

In short, all of those things work together in restoring our friendship. And all of them do, by reference to other parts of scripture.

God with us AND God for us.

But of course you will read the text differently and say my reading is contrived.

And Numpty will say you have a contrived understanding of the debt-cancelling at the cross.

Impasse

So we need to look at the juridical/ontological divide to understand one another better. Pregnant place to leave a debate.

My very best wishes to all of you. I feel like I have lit the blue touchpaper just before departing ..
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And Numpty will say you have a contrived understanding of the debt-cancelling at the cross.

This morning in church we had a beautiful little black lamb. In fact we had a pair of them, held and patted by the children, who liked them very much.

We talked about Isaiah 53 and how Christ bore our iniquities.

I asked the congregation if Isaiah 53 was suggesting that we could transfer our sins onto the lambs, and then punish them, or banish them, so that they could pay the price for our iniquities.

Instead we decided that the lambs' innocence was very powerful, and that it could overcome our iniquities if we could be more lamb-like.

We all enjoyed the illustration, and it seemed to me that the idea of debt-cancellation is a hard one to accept when you try to illustrate it with sheep. [Angel]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Instead we decided that the lambs' innocence was very powerful, and that it could overcome our iniquities if we could be more lamb-like.

[Ultra confused] In what way should we be more 'lamb-like'? Should we eat grass? Is frollicking in the sun what is called for?

If you jump straight to the person of Christ to answer that question then the image of lamb has become redundant and brings nothing more to our understanding.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Freddy

Off to catch a train in about 1 hour, then offline for a week. But I thought this comment might make you chuckle.

That lamb thing? It was an ontological illustration! (Personally, I don't think it was a very good one, but we're bound to differ on that [Biased] )
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[Ultra confused] In what way should we be more 'lamb-like'? Should we eat grass? Is frollicking in the sun what is called for?

This is why it is good to have a real life illustration in front of you. While observing the lambs no one seemed to have any trouble agreeing that they wished to become more lamb-like.

In any case, Jesus said:
quote:
John 10:14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own....My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
The point is that sheep know their master and follow their master. That quality is what true innocence is.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you jump straight to the person of Christ to answer that question then the image of lamb has become redundant and brings nothing more to our understanding.

Yes, the idea was to ask if it is reasonable to believe that Jesus, as the Lamb of God, could similarly have sins laid on Him and take them away by His crucifixion.

The illustration was to show how self-serving that imagery is. It is nice to think that someone else can pay for our sins and that they can be taken away while we are still sinners. But Jesus never suggested this. He said that sins can only be taken away or forgiven through repentance and change of life, not by transferring them to another or by the imputation of that person's righteousness.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That lamb thing? It was an ontological illustration! (Personally, I don't think it was a very good one, but we're bound to differ on that [Biased] )

Yes, that's right. And yes, it wasn't very good. But everyone loved patting the lambs and hearing their little occasional baahs.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
In any case, Jesus said:
quote:
John 10:14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own....My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
The point is that sheep know their master and follow their master. That quality is what true innocence is.

Yes, the idea was to ask if it is reasonable to believe that Jesus, as the Lamb of God, could similarly have sins laid on Him and take them away by His crucifixion.

The illustration was to show how self-serving that imagery is. It is nice to think that someone else can pay for our sins and that they can be taken away while we are still sinners. But Jesus never suggested this. He said that sins can only be taken away or forgiven through repentance and change of life, not by transferring them to another or by the imputation of that person's righteousness.

[Confused] In John 10 Jesus specifically states (in the continuation of your quote above [Roll Eyes] ) that he 'lays down his life for the sheep'. That may not be penal but it has to be substitutionary - how can you read it any other way?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
For does not mean instead of or on behalf for. "For" is atonement, "instead of" is substitution.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
In John 10 Jesus specifically states (in the continuation of your quote above [Roll Eyes] ) that he 'lays down his life for the sheep'. That may not be penal but it has to be substitutionary - how can you read it any other way?

Yes, it is substitutionary in the sense that a shepherd risks his life in protecting his sheep or a soldier lays down his life in fighting for his country.

Neither of these are substitutionary in the sense that you mean it. The soldier and shepherd don't take the punishment from God so that we don't have to take it. Rather, they give offer their lives to prvent the foe from being successful in their attack.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Now this being is the Creator (Demiurgus), who is, in respect of His love, the Father; but in respect of His power, He is Lord; and in respect of His wisdom, our Maker and Fashioner; by transgressing whose commandment we became His enemies. And therefore in the last times the Lord has restored us into friendship through His incarnation, having become “the Mediator between God and men;” 1 Tim. ii. 5. propitiating indeed for us the Father against whom we had sinned, and cancelling (consolatus) our disobedience by His own obedience; conferring also upon us the gift of communion with, and subjection to, our Maker. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Chapter XVII.—There is but one Lord and one God
Now, andreas, you will no doubt insist that it is the incarnation that propitiates the Father for us. It does look as if Irenaeus is saying that the incarnation is salvific in an of itself. But this is not what it means because such reading does damage to the text of scripture on which the statement rests. The Apostle Paul says this in 1 Timothy 2:5-6:
quote:
5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men...
But of course you could perhaps say that that this is not a reference to the cross of Christ but that would fly in the face of Christ's own words found in Mark 10:45:
quote:
...the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
I therefore submit to you that Irenaeus is suggesting that the cross propitiates the Father in some way. Of the course the incarnation is the ground by which a crucified God becomes possible, but the incarnation alone isn't the means by which salvation is wrought. As Irenaeus says later:
quote:
The cross of Christ is indeed a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to the believing it is salvation and life eternal. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Chapter XVIII. - The glory of the cross
andreas, is the cross salvation and life to you?

[ 10. March 2008, 17:40: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, it is substitutionary in the sense that a shepherd risks his life in protecting his sheep or a soldier lays down his life in fighting for his country.

Neither of these are substitutionary in the sense that you mean it. The soldier and shepherd don't take the punishment from God so that we don't have to take it. Rather, they give offer their lives to prvent the foe from being successful in their attack.

That does not fit with what Jesus says in John 10. He goes out of his way to explain that no one takes his life from him but that he lays it down by his own freewill.

Again, that doesn't prove anything penal, but it does discount the sense you use above. A soldier or shepherd has his/her life taken from them.

We return to the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world ... another Johannine theme. It clearly happens in an objective sense as well as a subjective (we need to repent) sense.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
That does not fit with what Jesus says in John 10. He goes out of his way to explain that no one takes his life from him but that he lays it down by his own freewill.

Again, that doesn't prove anything penal, but it does discount the sense you use above. A soldier or shepherd has his/her life taken from them.

I don't think that it does discount the sense I use above.

Jesus also had His life taken from Him. He willingly submitted to this, which is what He is saying in John 10. In that He is like a soldier who willingly undertakes a suicide mission because he understands the importance of the cause.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
We return to the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world ... another Johannine theme. It clearly happens in an objective sense as well as a subjective (we need to repent) sense.

The lamb of God is a powerful lamb. He overcomes the power of evil and takes it away. He sets us at liberty (in an objective sense) so that we can repent (in a subjective sense).
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:


I am also grateful to you for the eschatological comments - as you've seen I've already picked up that there are significant differences in eschatology, and there appear to be varying views amongst the Orthodox as well. Which is a bit of a complication!

You're welcome, though I'm not sure what you mean here by varying views. As I said earlier here, I'm generally wary of giving actual views lest they're taken as 'doctrine' in the sense used in the West, as an example I gave the arguments about the Eucharist, Orthodox find such pinning down to be counterproductive ...


quote:
Which is quite a long way round of getting to my conclusion! Although you may believe, with good or overwhelming reason which satisfies you completely, that juridical description does not convey the underlying reality of God, and therefore has no place in salvation, others' mileage may vary, and with good reason. We look at the same roots and see variety in the shoots.
Ah, no! I'm not saying "has no place in salvation"! God so loved the world. For example, the world is full of people who believed/believe that God requires a blood sacrifice for sins and as seen in Hebrews this was an important aspect for the Jews and some immediately attributed sacrifice for sin to Christ's crucifixion and so connected it with Yom Kippur. Were they wrong to do so? Not in relationship to Christ who became for them the final sacrifice and in that set them free. But it was not Christ's God who required blood sacrifice (Isaiah, Jeremiah), but it was Christ's God who willing became a sacrifice for them to set them free, hence the 'paid the ransom to the Devil' idea. Same with the later doctrine of Augustine's which set up a juridical relationship with a God who had already damned everyone and taught we are born without grace and separated from God unless baptised, of course baptism freed those who believed this from the separation even though the separation wasn't real with Christ's God. The difficulties and differences arise when those so saved fail to move on to appreciating Christ's God, in not letting go their own God. Is their 'salvation' compromised by this? Not in terms of how they see salvation and not any less than Abraham who was set free from human sacrifice and walked with God as friend, but in the fullness of understanding what salvation means in Christ we'd have to say, yes.

To go back to what you said about ontology, "Perhaps, more accurately, there is a need to specify the definition of ontology being used and the significance of the use to which it is put."

I began to write "I wouldn't know where to begin..", thinking you were referring to some vast body of knowledge and exposition on this subject of which I knew zilch, but then remembered I'd already done so as far as I thought I needed here in showing the difference from "juridical" - "our view is always ontological from a relationship with God of being, nature." So perhaps only a bit of elaboration necessary to show what I mean by ontological.

The ontological always begins with Genesis I, (The juridical begins with Genesis II). In that the only separation between God and us creatures is that between the Creator and his creation of us in time in his image and likeness; ontologically the relationship in quality of nature, being, of God is a given here. (Hence the Orthodox 'God became man so that man could become God' relates back to quality).

Contrast with the juridical which posits a separation of kind between God and us his creation, God is other than us his creation at a remove in quality.

An example here of the difference between juridical(/OS) and what I mean by ontological in contrast, is in the juridical God gifts the ability to remain in perfect supernatural relationship with him by means of "grace" (JPII Catechesis on Original Sin etc.) and this, we realised from Palamas meeting Augustinianism, is meant a "created" thing and not at all what we mean by "grace". It was Palamas who first coined the use of "uncreated" from this argument.

This isn't simply a 'difference' in quality because the underlying concepts are different (the recent RCC use of "uncreated" for their idea of grace can be a bit of a red herring here); what Orthodox mean by grace is God Himself, not something created by God for us.

For us grace, as an uncreated energy of God, is actually God, of God's being, nature. It isn't a created supenatural gift for man as a 'bridge' to God, but God's very being, life itself in all and every part of creation. It's not something that can be lost or denied by God for man as in OS, or there wouldn't be any life, any creation, at all. (What Palamas was saying was 'no, grace can't be created because it is God, therefore it's uncreated.)


quote:
One of the reasons why I think Jolly Jape's recommended approach might have real value is that we may not fully appreciate the baggage all our uses of language bring. Aldous Huxley observed, in a completely different context, that "Words are at one and the same time both necessary and fatal"! I think we have to find better ways to talk to one another. We have been aiming and missing for a very long time.
I think we're beginning to communicate in the general ecumenical discussions, but I do find it frustrating when for some this means finding the lowest common denominator of acceptance such as the WCC promotes which tends to dismiss the problem of differences between faiths.

As in the examples of Paul's words, given on the link I gave above, the 'fathers' would have taken this ontological base for granted in their work, their writings really can't be read outside of it. I'm pretty sure that all the other Orthodox here are far more familiar with the writings of the Church than I who only became interested in the subject a few years ago, when I was shocked to find all this unfamiliar to Christians I thought shared the same view, but as I was reminded from orlapubs pages, we can end up getting very annoyed with each if we don't first make our core differences of viewpoint understood because we really don't mean the same thing just because we use the same word... [Smile]

quote:
But I do thank you, most warmly, for your efforts to clarify the discussion.
Thank you. This short essay might be useful here, I find the orlapubs pages really hard going.. (The Uncreated Energies: The Light and Fire of God. By Peter Chopelas)


Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

Jesus also had His life taken from Him. He willingly submitted to this, which is what He is saying in John 10. In that He is like a soldier who willingly undertakes a suicide mission because he understands the importance of the cause.

No, the suicide mission to which you refer is potentially suicide, it is never actual suicide ... unless you are comparing Jesus with a suicide bomber, or a kamakaze pilot.

Jesus states that no one takes his life (he lays it down himself) but also that he has to die.

The question we keep returning to is this - what, objectively, did his death achieve?

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The lamb of God is a powerful lamb. He overcomes the power of evil and takes it away. He sets us at liberty (in an objective sense) so that we can repent (in a subjective sense).

How does he 'take it away'? Such language seems to be directly opposed to what you said in your little talk with the lambs???? [Confused]

How does he set us at liberty in an objective sense? (If it is not by paying the penalty of sin it must be some other objective means.)
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The question we keep returning to is this - what, objectively, did his death achieve?

It works like this:

Whenever you do something, whatever it is, the neural pathway that facilitates the action is affected. Doing things repeatedly strengthens the neural pathway, as well as the muscles involved, so that the action becomes progressively easier, and eventually it becomes habitual.

Similarly, a habit can be broken over time by not repeating it, but instead forming new habits. Over time, for example, an addiction to alcohol, and the associated habits, can be overcome by not drinking, one day at a time. Eventually the desire to drink disappears.

This is also how sin works. It is strengthened by practice and weakened by the refusal to sin.

People are unaware, however, that this process involves the unseen working of inner spiritual forces within us. Both heaven and hell are near to us, and come closer or recede depending on what is going on in our hearts and minds. When we do evil then heaven recedes and hell draws closer. When we do well the opposite happens. Over time the power of heaven, or the power of hell, becomes stronger and stronger within us.

This happens inside of every person, but within Jesus it amounted to continual full-scale warfare. The hells, pictured as the devil, knew who He was and attacked Him with all the power at their disposal. As He continually resisted them, and as He continually did the Father's will, their power was weakened and broken. Since He was God Himself the effect was to weaken Hell itself, causing it to submit to His will.

The attachment to evil in every person rests in the body's normal physical desires, and a person's natural social urges - all of which revolve around success and survival in the world. All of these are good things when they are subordinated to higher goals, but they are the root of evil when they become ends in themselves. These are what came with Jesus' humanness, and the hells attacked Jesus through them. The most fundamental of all of these is the human attachment to physical life itself.

Simply stated, the reason that Jesus gave up His life was that hell had infiltrated that normal human desire, and in giving it up He broke its power and defeated it. This was the last step in setting humanity free of hell's power.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The lamb of God is a powerful lamb. He overcomes the power of evil and takes it away. He sets us at liberty (in an objective sense) so that we can repent (in a subjective sense).

How does he 'take it away'? Such language seems to be directly opposed to what you said in your little talk with the lambs???? [Confused]
He took it away by overcoming and defeating it, in the same way that a rescuing king coming to the aid of a besieged city would be taking away the threat and ending the danger.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
How does he set us at liberty in an objective sense? (If it is not by paying the penalty of sin it must be some other objective means.)

The objective means is that it took away the power of hell over human hearts and minds. He didn't destroy hell, He merely put it in its place. Before He came the world was in darkness and hell threatened to overwhelm and destroy humanity. Now, since He has set us free, we are able to choose good or evil, as we wish.

Johnny, in your scenario God is the enemy. He is the one that Jesus came to rescue us from. Does that really make sense?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, it is substitutionary in the sense that a shepherd risks his life in protecting his sheep or a soldier lays down his life in fighting for his country.

Neither of these are substitutionary in the sense that you mean it. The soldier and shepherd don't take the punishment from God so that we don't have to take it. Rather, they give offer their lives to prvent the foe from being successful in their attack.

That does not fit with what Jesus says in John 10. He goes out of his way to explain that no one takes his life from him but that he lays it down by his own freewill.

Again, that doesn't prove anything penal, but it does discount the sense you use above. A soldier or shepherd has his/her life taken from them.

We return to the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world ... another Johannine theme. It clearly happens in an objective sense as well as a subjective (we need to repent) sense.

Why does anything have to 'fit in' with anything else?

The writes of the gospels and epistles had different ways of understanding atonement so would not necessarily fit in with each other.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The writers of the gospels and epistles had different ways of understanding atonement so would not necessarily fit in with each other.

From my point of view I am with Johnny in thinking that they absolutely have to fit with each other. Despite their different understandings and points of view, the basic principle is that God, not the literal writers, is the real author of these works.

So I also am interested in making sure that they fit in with each other.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, it is substitutionary in the sense that a shepherd risks his life in protecting his sheep or a soldier lays down his life in fighting for his country.

Neither of these are substitutionary in the sense that you mean it. The soldier and shepherd don't take the punishment from God so that we don't have to take it. Rather, they give offer their lives to prvent the foe from being successful in their attack.

That does not fit with what Jesus says in John 10. He goes out of his way to explain that no one takes his life from him but that he lays it down by his own freewill.

Again, that doesn't prove anything penal, but it does discount the sense you use above. A soldier or shepherd has his/her life taken from them.

We return to the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world ... another Johannine theme. It clearly happens in an objective sense as well as a subjective (we need to repent) sense.

Why does anything have to 'fit in' with anything else?

The writers of the gospels and epistles had different ways of understanding atonement so would not necessarily fit in with each other.

This moves the discussion into areas of intertextuality and divine revelation in Scripture. Evangelicals believe in the integrity of Scripture in that God has inspired the writers of Scripture. That's why we (evangelicals) engage in biblical and systematic theology. It's a perfectly acceptable theological approach that rests on the belief that God's revelation has intrinsic intertextual integrity.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The objective means is that it took away the power of hell over human hearts and minds. He didn't destroy hell, He merely put it in its place. Before He came the world was in darkness and hell threatened to overwhelm and destroy humanity. Now, since He has set us free, we are able to choose good or evil, as we wish.

Thanks Freddy. I like some of your stuff, but would still argue that all it is still subjective - it is about what goes on inside my heart and mind rather than anything objective.

It raises the question of justice - what about the evil I have done before Christ set me free (... or even after [Hot and Hormonal] )? If I face no consequences for my actions then it hardly seems fair?


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Johnny, in your scenario God is the enemy. He is the one that Jesus came to rescue us from. Does that really make sense?

God is not the enemy, but isn't there some sense of this in Ephesians 2: 16?

To quote John Stott, "Here (v 16 the ‘hostility’ is clearly between God and men, just as in v 14 it was chiefly between Jew and Gentile. And just as there the ‘hostility’ was mutual, I think we need to see a certain mutuality also in the hostility between men and God. It is not just that our attitude to him has been one of rebellion; it is also that his ‘wrath’ has been upon us for our sin (v 3).”
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why does anything have to 'fit in' with anything else?

The writes of the gospels and epistles had different ways of understanding atonement so would not necessarily fit in with each other.

Agreed - there will always be a tension between our systematic and biblical theologies - however, there is a difference between asking how different views might complement each other and allowing for direct contradiction.

IMHO If we allow for outright contradiction then we lose all sense of being able to speak of a coherent gospel.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Thanks Freddy. I like some of your stuff, but would still argue that all it is still subjective - it is about what goes on inside my heart and mind rather than anything objective.
Surely the exact reverse is true, the defeat of the cosmic forces of evil which hold the universe (and, almost incidentally, us) in thrall to decay and death; surely this is much more objective than any (merely) personal salvation can be. I just don't accept that this idea of cancelling juridical guilt is in any way as objective as you seem to feel it is.


quote:
It raises the question of justice - what about the evil I have done before Christ set me free (... or even after )? If I face no consequences for my actions then it hardly seems fair?
What is fair? Is grace fair? Is vicarious atonement fair? Evil can only defeated by the one thing that is more powerful, that is, love. Sin can only be eradicated by the superior power of forgiveness. Is is fair? Possibly not. Is it good? Undoubtedly. As has been said countless times before on this thread, what matters is that evil is ended, not that someone is punihed for it. Quiite frankly, I'd be happy if every malefactor from the dawn of time got away scott-free, if that meant that sin could in the process be ended. What matters is to fix things!

And, of course, in the resurrection God in jesus does fix things, undoing evil and remaking the univers!
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think this is sacrificial and salvific language, but it is definitely not substitutionary. (Kallistos says so). Personally, I find it a compelling reason for the necessity of the Crucifixion, and I also find it illuminates the atonement. But it does so very much in the context of both the Incarnation and the Resurrection and is perfectly on all fours, for example, with the view that there is a single doctrine at work here, connecting Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension. It is a "One Act Drama".

Sacrificial, yes! Love is sacrifice, and we are to becomes living sacrifices as well.

Salvific, yes! Jesus Christ is mankind's Savior, He is the Savior of the whole cosmos.

In other words, there is atonement. Yes!

But there is no substitution, no punishment either.

I will link to three lectures by metropolitan Callistos on the Cross:

http://holycrossonline.org/media/05/Kallistos_Lecture_1.mp3
http://holycrossonline.org/media/05/Kallistos_Lecture_2.mp3
http://holycrossonline.org/media/05/Kallistos_Lecture_3.mp3


I hope they help illuminate the issues at hand! I understand that still there will be many things that are not clear, but we can discuss further after we get benefited from metropolitan Kallistos' explanation.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As has been said countless times before on this thread, what matters is that evil is ended, not that someone is punished for it. Quiite frankly, I'd be happy if every malefactor from the dawn of time got away scott-free, if that meant that sin could in the process be ended. What matters is to fix things!

Okay, hypothetical situation:

X spends his entire life abusing Y in the worst possible way imaginable. Neither X nor Y experience the grace of Jesus before they die - what happens then?

ISTM that there are several options and here are some:

1. Some form of annihilation ... they just cease to exist - but if so then in what sense did Jesus put things right for them?

2. Some form of universalism ... in which case how can God put any of this right without 'forcing' X and Y to accept it?

Life is not fair. I see God doing lots of great stuff in people's lives but also tons of lives where Jesus does not 'fix' them - when and how does that happen? If he just 'fixes' everyone when they die then why can't he do it now? It seems cruel and malicious to make us experience all that pain.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
That's another gospel Andreas. It's OK, they're two a penny round here.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Johnny, the point is to fix the system, not to punish it for not working. In the world, legal systems require punishments, even years after the fact, because this is a logical way for a human legal system to work in order to enforce the concept that actions have consequences.

God doesn't work that way because He deals with people's inner workings, and He knows when those inner workings change. A judge can't know whether a criminal's heart has changed, but God can.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
X spends his entire life abusing Y in the worst possible way imaginable. Neither X nor Y experience the grace of Jesus before they die - what happens then?

It all depends on what is going on their hearts. A person who is abusive and hateful will continue being abusive and hateful in the next life, where the consequences are perfect and immediate. The hell that was hidden in that person's heart will then visibly surround them.

The innocent one, however, will be free of the abuse and will visibly and tangibly experience the heaven that was within them all along.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Life is not fair. I see God doing lots of great stuff in people's lives but also tons of lives where Jesus does not 'fix' them - when and how does that happen? If he just 'fixes' everyone when they die then why can't he do it now? It seems cruel and malicious to make us experience all that pain.

Life actually is fair. The life that really matters is within every person, and is happy or unhappy in exact proportion to the love and faith that they have. It is possible to have an inner joy in the most horrendous of situations, and to miserable in the most apparently easy and affluent ones.

Life, however, is not externally fair - if by fair we mean nothing bad happening. This is because gravity is a constant, the laws of physics obtain everywhere, and people who fall down often hurt themselves. Constant, universal laws affect every aspect of life in the physical world, and this means that accidents, hurricanes, economic depressions, illnesses, explosions, and other bad things, happen.

It isn't cruel and malicious for God to allow gravity to pull you to the ground, even if it means that you are hurt. These kinds of universal constants in the physical world are not unfair, they are what make a free and independent existence to be possible.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The life that really matters is within every person, and is happy or unhappy in exact proportion to the love and faith that they have. It is possible to have an inner joy in the most horrendous of situations, and to miserable in the most apparently easy and affluent ones.

This seems to equate depression with a lack of love and faith. It also trivializes the suffering some people suffer - the implication being that they can have happiness and inner joy despite some of the situations one could report seems a little trite, frankly.

Why would one want to believe such a thing? And what evidence is there for it?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This seems to equate depression with a lack of love and faith. It also trivializes the suffering some people suffer - the implication being that they can have happiness and inner joy despite some of the situations one could report seems a little trite, frankly.

Maybe it is trite, and you are right that very difficult circumstances can make this kind of suggestion look pretty heartless and stupid. I don't mean to equate depression with a lack of love and faith. Depression is a disease like any other.

Still, isn't it true that people's inner joy or suffering often do not match their external circumstances?
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Why would one want to believe such a thing? And what evidence is there for it?

I would want to believe it because it means that outer circumstances do not control a person's real well-being.

The evidence is that people suffering apparently hard times are often not as miserable as you might think, and conversely that the apparently priviledged are often quite unhappy.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The evidence is that people suffering apparently hard times are often not as miserable as you might think, and conversely that the apparently priviledged are often quite unhappy.

I suppose that is true. But that doesn't mean the external circumstances are irrelevant - just that they're not the whole story. Neither does it mean that faith and love make the difference.

Mental health (i.e. depression) might be the key factor.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Johnny, the point is to fix the system, not to punish it for not working.

And what about all that went wrong before the system got fixed?


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Life, however, is not externally fair - if by fair we mean nothing bad happening. This is because gravity is a constant, the laws of physics obtain everywhere, and people who fall down often hurt themselves. Constant, universal laws affect every aspect of life in the physical world, and this means that accidents, hurricanes, economic depressions, illnesses, explosions, and other bad things, happen.

Exactly - I think it was CS Lewis who spoke about impersonal forces such as gravity - the whole problem with such a 'cause and effect' view of the world is that there is no grace there ... gravity cannot forgive, gravity cannot love. If 'bad' things only happen because of simple cause and effect then there is no hope for us all. [Frown]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The evidence is that people suffering apparently hard times are often not as miserable as you might think, and conversely that the apparently priviledged are often quite unhappy.

I suppose that is true. But that doesn't mean the external circumstances are irrelevant - just that they're not the whole story. Neither does it mean that faith and love make the difference. Mental health (i.e. depression) might be the key factor.
I don't disagree. I'm not meaning to say that people are completely responsible for their happiness or unhappiness. There are countless factors, many of which are beyond our control in this life. So it is in no way reasonable to suggest that an unhappy person is a bad person.

I am only saying, as you say, that external factors are not the whole story, and that the most powerful sources of true happiness are internal and spiritual.

During a person's life in this world these sources may be dimmed and obscured by unfair worldly circumstance ranging from physical hardship to mental illness. But after death, as I understand it, these worldly factors disappear and the underlying reality becomes the only relevant factor.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Johnny, the point is to fix the system, not to punish it for not working.

And what about all that went wrong before the system got fixed?
What about it? You can't unspill spilled milk. The point is to stop spilling it.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Life, however, is not externally fair - if by fair we mean nothing bad happening. This is because gravity is a constant, the laws of physics obtain everywhere, and people who fall down often hurt themselves. Constant, universal laws affect every aspect of life in the physical world, and this means that accidents, hurricanes, economic depressions, illnesses, explosions, and other bad things, happen.

Exactly - I think it was CS Lewis who spoke about impersonal forces such as gravity - the whole problem with such a 'cause and effect' view of the world is that there is no grace there ... gravity cannot forgive, gravity cannot love. If 'bad' things only happen because of simple cause and effect then there is no hope for us all. [Frown]
Yes, gravity cannot forgive. This is because grace is a spiritual thing and gravity is a physical one. The physical world operates according to physical causes and effects. The spiritual world operates according to spiritual causes and effects. Grace is something spiritual, as is love, inner peace, joy, and everything else that is of genuine, eternal importance.

So "bad" things happen and always will happen in the physical world according to the implacable laws of physics. The more important reality, however, is on a different level. This is why Jesus continually hammered away on this theme:
quote:
Matthew 6:19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

Matthew 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.

Matthew 16:26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?

We could almost say that Jesus' entire mission was to clarify the distinction between the inner and the outer world, and to make sure that people realize that the treasures of the spirit are what is important, and not so much the treasures of the world. He described the distinction in stark terms, as if the world and the spirit were absolute enemies:
quote:
John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.

John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

John 16:33 These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”

John 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world.

I think that it is clear, though, that the world is not the enemy of the spirit, or the enemy of heaven, but just that there is a tension between the two. So if you value worldly things more than heavenly things there is a problem. Nevertheless, worldly things are still important, necessary and beneficial, because, "your heavenly Father knows that you have need of all these things."

The point is to prioritize heavenly things above worldly ones, and then there is a harmony between the two.

Gravity does not forgive, but God does. The distinction is that forgiveness is a spiritual thing, whereas gravity is purely physical.

Do you agree that Jesus makes and emphasizes this distinction between worldly and heavenly things? [Confused]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
What about it? You can't unspill spilled milk. The point is to stop spilling it.

That's not much comfort to the rape victim. I thought you said Christ 'undoes' the harm of sin?


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So "bad" things happen and always will happen in the physical world according to the implacable laws of physics. The more important reality, however, is on a different level.

This is where you lose me Freddy. More important reality? What do you mean by that? Is the spiritual realm 'more real' than the phyiscal?


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is to prioritize heavenly things above worldly ones, and then there is a harmony between the two.

Gravity does not forgive, but God does. The distinction is that forgiveness is a spiritual thing, whereas gravity is purely physical.

Do you agree that Jesus makes and emphasizes this distinction between worldly and heavenly things? [Confused]

Yes, Jesus distinguishes them but not in the way you do. As I have said before this, ISTM, is platonic dualism. In John's vision in Revelation 21 there is a new heaven AND a new earth. Physical and Spiritual - it is not a one better than the other thing, it is a both / and thing.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
What about it? You can't unspill spilled milk. The point is to stop spilling it.

That's not much comfort to the rape victim. I thought you said Christ 'undoes' the harm of sin?
He undoes the harm of sin by "setting free the captives", by "putting down the mighty from their seats", by "healing the blind and lame", etc. Nothing can undo past crimes. A rape victim will still have been raped even if all future rapes were permanently prevented. But victims of crime are usually interested in preventing the crimes from happening again, and in having the wrongs righted in whatever way is possible.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So "bad" things happen and always will happen in the physical world according to the implacable laws of physics. The more important reality, however, is on a different level.

This is where you lose me Freddy. More important reality? What do you mean by that? Is the spiritual realm 'more real' than the phyiscal?
Both are equally real, but Christ consistently prioritizes the heavenly reality over the worldly one. Or do you have another explanation for statements such as:
quote:
Matthew 6:19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

Matthew 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.

Matthew 16:26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?

These seem to me to say that kingdom of heaven is more important than the kingdom of this world. Do you see it differently?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is to prioritize heavenly things above worldly ones, and then there is a harmony between the two.

Gravity does not forgive, but God does. The distinction is that forgiveness is a spiritual thing, whereas gravity is purely physical.

Do you agree that Jesus makes and emphasizes this distinction between worldly and heavenly things? [Confused]

Yes, Jesus distinguishes them but not in the way you do. As I have said before this, ISTM, is platonic dualism. In John's vision in Revelation 21 there is a new heaven AND a new earth. Physical and Spiritual - it is not a one better than the other thing, it is a both / and thing.
Yes, both heaven and the world are important. There is a new heaven AND a new earth. But Jesus consistently prioritizes heaven over earth. The point is that if you seek worldly things you lose heavenly ones. But if you seek heavenly things you do not lose worldly ones, contrary to the appearance. Rather "all these things are added to you."
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Nothing can undo past crimes.

Then for so many people in the world there is no hope - suicide is to be encouraged. [Frown]


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Both are equally real, but Christ consistently prioritizes the heavenly reality over the worldly one. Or do you have another explanation for statements such as:

Your quotes pit 'heaven' against 'this world / this life' not heaven against earth. Also, who says 'kingdom' (e.g. Matt. 6: 33) is a purely 'spiritual' term? Surely it is a term that embraces both ... as I keep saying. [Biased]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Nothing can undo past crimes.

Then for so many people in the world there is no hope - suicide is to be encouraged. [Frown]
I'm not sure I understand. Things can be improved. Crimes can be repented of. Crimes can be prevented. Restitution can be made for many past crimes. But after something terrible has happened - a murder, a rape - nothing can undo it.

Why suicide?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Both are equally real, but Christ consistently prioritizes the heavenly reality over the worldly one. Or do you have another explanation for statements such as:

Your quotes pit 'heaven' against 'this world / this life' not heaven against earth. Also, who says 'kingdom' (e.g. Matt. 6: 33) is a purely 'spiritual' term? Surely it is a term that embraces both ... as I keep saying. [Biased]
Yes, it does embrace both, since both are present with us in the world. Nevertheless, they are two things, and heavenly things are to have priority, according to Jesus.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Just to clarify, I see the whole problem that necessitated the Incarnation as being that heaven had lost its priority in human minds. Therefore hell was growing out of proportion and out of control.

The whole point was to arrest its growth, reduce its power, and enable people to willingly prioritize heaven over hell, or over worldly interests, and find peace on earth.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Why suicide?

Because some things are so horrible to live with that no hope of 'undoing them' is no hope at all.


quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Nevertheless, they are two things, and heavenly things are to have priority, according to Jesus.

But my point is that you are setting up a false dichotomy. If Christ's kingdom is both a new heaven AND a new earth then (in this sense) it is redundant to speak of 'heavenly things having priority'.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Nothing can undo past crimes.

Then for so many people in the world there is no hope - suicide is to be encouraged. [Frown]
I don't see the logic here. We are given in Christ an example of suffering transformed, not unmade--his body raised by God with the wounds still on it. We are taught to look to the Kingdom of Heaven as a place where God will wipe every tear from every eye, not drench us all in the unremembering bliss that makes tears unnecessary in the first place.

To return to the initial point, I don't see a faith problem or a reason for despair in the simple reality that past crimes don't get uncommitted--on Earth or (ISTM) in Heaven. I think we might do well to trust that God has another means of making things right--a means that became visible in the resurrection of Christ.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
I think we might do well to trust that God has another means of making things right--a means that became visible in the resurrection of Christ.

Okay, but you are now the one using language of justice (making things right) - this was exactly what I raised with JJ and Freddy in the first place.

I'm happy to ditch the phrase 'undo' - how does Jesus 'make things right'?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
OK, been away from the computer for a few days.

First, I realise that my imprecise user of the term "unmake" may have caused some confusion. Infinate Monkey sort of iterpreted this as "drench(ing) us all in the unremembering bliss that makes tears unnecessary in the first place. This isn't quite what I meant. My starting point was, indeed the Revelation passage of every tear being wiped away, but, rather than this being the result of unremembering, I think the biblical image of the pain of childbirth is probably nearer to my thinking. So, more transformation of suffering by Divine grace. The point is that, from the pewrspective of the suffering person, the negative effects of the suffering pass away, and the person is left with the positive understanding of how God redeems that suffering through union with Christ, for God's glory and their "consolation". if that's the right technical term.

Now to the more substantive points. John, I'm still not sure that I follow your argument here. What you articulate is a general problem theodicy, rather than a specific problem of CV vs PSA.
quote:
If he just 'fixes' everyone when they die then why can't he do it now? It seems cruel and malicious to make us experience all that pain.
This is the same problem faced by any Atonement doctrine. PSA as well as Exemplar or CV. But, of course, neither CV nor PSA would allow for the "just" in line 1. God, of course, does work towards "fixing" these things in this life as well as the next, but, as yet, we only experience it in part. Why that should be so is not explained by any Atonement theory.

quote:
Some form of universalism ... in which case how can God put any of this right without 'forcing' X and Y to accept it?

You know that I am unwilling to discuss universalism on this thread, as I don't accept the link between a universalist hope and any particular Atonement theory, but I'm sure you realise that there are ways in which God can put things right without any "forcing" going on. For example, one possibility is that, freed of their bondage to sin and death at the general resurrection, both X and Y would be free to choose that which they would always have chosen had it not been for that bondage. This is an affirmation, rather than a denial, of free will.

Furthermore, a retributive view of Atonement does no more, in restutionary terms, than does a non-retributive view, in bringing about justice. Punishing the guilty does nothing towards restoring the victim, and, of course, the guilty themselves are, in some sense, victims of the law of sin and death.

[ 15. March 2008, 12:17: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
I think we might do well to trust that God has another means of making things right--a means that became visible in the resurrection of Christ.

Okay, but you are now the one using language of justice (making things right) - this was exactly what I raised with JJ and Freddy in the first place.

I'm happy to ditch the phrase 'undo' - how does Jesus 'make things right'?

Thanks, that's what I was hoping for. Why talk about "undoing" past actions - as if something could make it so that the Holocaust never happened. The point is to prevent it from happening again.

Making things right involves taking a world where there is hatred and injustice and turning it into a world where there is love and fairness. It means cleaning up a poluted world. It means ending hunger, poverty and violence.

If the world were to change in those directions this would, in effect, "undo" the Holocaust because it would mean that it couldn't be repeated, or that the conditions that foster holocausts would be gone.

This is what Jesus came to do. He did it by the power of His Word. He came to educate the world, and bring it from the darkness into the light, by exposing its evils and defeating the power of darkness. Jesus said:
quote:
“I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness.” John 12:46

“For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” John 18.37

“For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known.” Luke 12.2

“I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” John 10:10

The point is that His "will be done on earth as it is in heaven." With every individual the point is that we stop sinning and do God's will. This "undoes" our past actions and is our reception of God's forgiveness.

[ 15. March 2008, 12:29: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Nevertheless, they are two things, and heavenly things are to have priority, according to Jesus.

But my point is that you are setting up a false dichotomy. If Christ's kingdom is both a new heaven AND a new earth then (in this sense) it is redundant to speak of 'heavenly things having priority'.
Are you missing the part where I point out that Jesus specifically gives priority to the kingdom of heaven?

Do you disagree with Jesus, or do you have another explanation for what He says about such things as seeking heavenly treasure rather than worldly treasure?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you missing the part where I point out that Jesus specifically gives priority to the kingdom of heaven?

I think the term 'heaven' is confusing us here - it has connotations of being 'spiritual only' and being set opposed to 'earth'.

However, in the gospels Jesus speaks of the 'kingdom of God' as a synonym.

So when I read 'kingdom of heaven' I read 'the rule of Jesus as King whether on earth or in heaven' ... like the Lord's Prayer.

Jesus is contrasting those who put their trust in transient things (that rust) of this present age as opposed to things of eternal significance. It is not about spiritual being more important than physical.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
(Back on line briefly - clearly loads of catching up to do).

Johhny S and Freddy. I think you will find that the Orthodox (or some of them) also have a different take on basileia i.e kingdom in English. It's an abstract word in the Greek (meaning sovereignty) which we tend by association in the West to see as denoting a territory or people under that sovereignty. But I think they see it different to either of you (my take is pretty much the same as Johhny S's BTW).

Rather as Myrrh has flagged energeia as a distinctive, I think basileia is a distinctive. But I'm not sure.

Back after more catch-up. Probably this evening UK time.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think the term 'heaven' is confusing us here - it has connotations of being 'spiritual only' and being set opposed to 'earth'.

Fortunately it is a word that occurs frequently in the Bible, so it is not that difficult to see from the context what it means.

In many contexts, heaven is definitely a realm, an unseen realm that is somehow apart from and above the earth. God is consistently said to be in heaven. Angels "come down from heaven." Jesus came down from heaven. Jesus says:
quote:
John 3:13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.
So heaven is an unseen world where God and angels live, and where Jesus came from. God's will is done in that realm, and our prayer is that His will done on earth as it is in heaven:
quote:
Matthew 6:10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
This statement seems clearly to say that when His kingdom comes His will shall be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Nevertheless, heaven and earth are two distinct places, so that, for example Jesus says:
quote:
Matthew 18:18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."

If heaven and earth were the same thing, or if there was no such thing as heaven, or if heaven was only God's kingdom on earth, then there would be no point is His saying these things.

Jesus also made a distinction between "earthly things" and "heavenly things":
quote:
John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
This is echoed when He speaks of "treasures in heaven" compared with "treasures on earth", or "riches" compared with being "rich toward God."

So heaven is, in one sense, spiritual only and distinct and different from things on earth. There is even an opposition implied in the statements about it.

But the term is also used in other contexts, as you point out:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, in the gospels Jesus speaks of the 'kingdom of God' as a synonym.

So when I read 'kingdom of heaven' I read 'the rule of Jesus as King whether on earth or in heaven' ... like the Lord's Prayer.

Yes, exactly.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Jesus is contrasting those who put their trust in transient things (that rust) of this present age as opposed to things of eternal significance. It is not about spiritual being more important than physical.

Yes, Jesus is contrasting those who put their trust in transient things as opposed to things of eternal significance. But it is also about spiritual being more important than physical. The things that He is calling "heavenly" are spiritual things and these are the same thing as things of eternal significance. We are to seek spiritual pleasures, that is heavenly pleasures, or pleasures that have eternal significance, ahead of physical pleasures. Spiritual things are to have the priority. These seems very clear fro mthe quotes:
quote:
Matthew 6:19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

Matthew 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.

Matthew 16:26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?

John 3:31 He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all.

Heaven is above earth, and heavenly things are above earthly things. Heavenly things are love, truth, peace, honesty, virtue, humility, service, innocence. Earthly things are pleasure, food, rest, sex, success, power, money.

The kingdom of heaven is on earth when people prioritise heavenly things over earthly things. In this situation these earthly things are perfectly in order and perfectly consistent with God's will. But the priority is seeking first the kingdom of God.

So I certainly agree that the "kingdom of heaven" in many contexts refers to God's kingdom on earth. Nevertheless, even in that situation the priority always rests with heavenly things over earthly things, because these are the things that are of eternal worth and significance.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why does anything have to 'fit in' with anything else?

The writes of the gospels and epistles had different ways of understanding atonement so would not necessarily fit in with each other.

Agreed - there will always be a tension between our systematic and biblical theologies - however, there is a difference between asking how different views might complement each other and allowing for direct contradiction.

IMHO If we allow for outright contradiction then we lose all sense of being able to speak of a coherent gospel.

A coherent gospel might not have appeared 'folly to the Greeks'.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think the gospel appears folly to most people groups, whether made coherent or not.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

I will link to three lectures by metropolitan Callistos on the Cross:

http://holycrossonline.org/media/05/Kallistos_Lecture_1.mp3
http://holycrossonline.org/media/05/Kallistos_Lecture_2.mp3
http://holycrossonline.org/media/05/Kallistos_Lecture_3.mp3


I hope they help illuminate the issues at hand! I understand that still there will be many things that are not clear, but we can discuss further after we get benefited from metropolitan Kallistos' explanation.

A quick preliminary question, andreas, as I get up to speed. Are these talks by the late Metropolitan Callistos of Corinth? (As mentioned in this OrthodoxWiki article).
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
No, it's your compatriot! Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diocleia! The author of the Orthodox Way etc.

[ 16. March 2008, 18:11: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Listening now - and a quick poke around the website revealed my error! Just finished talk 1 - v. good indeed. Good way to start Holy Week.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Heaven is above earth, and heavenly things are above earthly things. Heavenly things are love, truth, peace, honesty, virtue, humility, service, innocence. Earthly things are pleasure, food, rest, sex, success, power, money.

But what would that look like in practice?

For example, do you think those who chose marriage over chastity are preferring earthly things over spiritual ones?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A coherent gospel might not have appeared 'folly to the Greeks'.

C'mon Leo - have you forgotten where that quote comes from?

It is specifically 'Christ crucified' that is such folly ... not Christ crucified and risen ... in 1 Cor. 1 and 2 it is just the cross which is considered 'foolishness'.

Ummh. Where does CV fit into that?

It would be easy to make a case from 1 Corinthians that CV is an attempt to make the atonement coherent but actually PSA is being faithful to the charge of being a 'stumbling block'! (Applying the logic of your argument that is. [Biased] )

So thanks, I'm thinking of getting a sig. of "PSA - as officially approved by Leo" [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But what would that look like in practice?

I'm sort of amazed that this isn't clear to you. How on earth do you interpret "seek first the kingdom of heaven and all these things shall be added to you"?

Doesn't it simply mean that if you seek to obey God in your life you are not likely to suffer materially for doing so? That is, if you are honest, conscientious, respectful, hardworking, kind, generous, moral, prudent, and seek to serve God, you are likely to do fine in life.

This is all that it means to put heavenly things first. It means to love God and the neighbor and to act from those principles. They are the things that matter, that are important, that are eternal.

I thought that this is what everyone understood by Jesus' words.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
For example, do you think those who chose marriage over chastity are preferring earthly things over spiritual ones?

In my church marriage is considered to be more chaste than celibacy. So it's not a good example for me.

Another example might be those who prefer the pleasures of a promiscuous lifestyle over marriage. That would be preferring the earthly pleasures of sexual freedom over the deeper and more spiritual pleasures of a life-long committment to a spouse and family.

I'm not expecting that we will disagree about this.

You were originally asking about this when I said that "bad" things happen and always will happen in the physical world according to the implacable laws of physics. The more important reality, however, is on a different level. You seemed not to agree that there was a different level that was more important and permanent, and which took precedence over the things of the physical world.

Do you still see it that way?

[ 16. March 2008, 23:14: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This is all that it means to put heavenly things first. It means to love God and the neighbor and to act from those principles. They are the things that matter, that are important, that are eternal.

On this we are agreed - but therefore isn't loving my neighbour a very 'earthly' thing to do?

I think we are both saying similar things but it is the terminology that is confusing. I think that Christ's death and resurrection has an equal impact on both 'heaven' and 'earth'.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
You were originally asking about this when I said that "bad" things happen and always will happen in the physical world according to the implacable laws of physics. The more important reality, however, is on a different level. You seemed not to agree that there was a different level that was more important and permanent, and which took precedence over the things of the physical world.

Do you still see it that way?

I see one reality (that is BOTH physical and spiritual). That one reality has been spoilt by sin and therefore needs to be redeemed by Christ. So, for me, it is about all of creation (phyiscal AND spiritual) coming to accept Jesus as King, and not about saying that the spirit realm is any better than the physical realm.

Me: fallen world --> redeemed world

Freddy: physical world --> spiritual world.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
On another tangent entirely, it is Easter. All the stories we tell deal with the betrayal, trials, crucifixion and resurrection. What about what Jesus' spirit got up to between the giving up of his body and the resurrection? Surely that has some relevance to he atonement!. My understanding is that Paul taught that he first descended before he ascended and Col 2:14, states that he spoiled principalities and powers making an open show of them. The nicene creed states that he descended into Hell. The precise purpose and accomplishment of this descent seems quite germane to the discussion. My take is that Satan obviously took Jesus into the lowest hell before recognising the horrific mistake he had made. The Christ spirit was sinless and therefore beyond the authority of Hell. God proceeded to empower his spirit to throw off Hell's chains. Christ acted to take possession of Hell with his presence, proceeded to free the OT righteous dead from 'paradise' and headed up to recapture his body.

The fact that God saw the shed blood of Christ as an offering for sin is what enabled the whole process. Ro 8:3 "For... God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, condemned sin in the flesh"
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:


I will link to three lectures by metropolitan Callistos on the Cross:

http://holycrossonline.org/media/05/Kallistos_Lecture_1.mp3
http://holycrossonline.org/media/05/Kallistos_Lecture_2.mp3
http://holycrossonline.org/media/05/Kallistos_Lecture_3.mp3


I hope they help illuminate the issues at hand!

Yes they do, and I found myself in very great measure in agreement with him. (andreas, on some issues which you and I have disagreed about I think he agrees more with me ! But more of that later.)

I recommend the talks to other Shipmates, regardless of where we might be in the Christian rainbow. You'll need the time (2 hours plus, I guess) and you'll also need QuickTime! I liked his sonorous voice, his gentle humour, the clarity of his delivery, and his illustrations. But of course YMMV. Calenders differ, but I found these were very helpful and thought-provoking talks at the start of Holy Week.

Thanks for the links, andreas. I'll return to the questions of difference and agreement after some more reflection (and possibly listening again). I am much taken by the idea of a Bishop falling asleep in the middle of a talk he was delivering himself after lunch - and also the joys of kite-flying!

[ 17. March 2008, 11:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This is all that it means to put heavenly things first. It means to love God and the neighbor and to act from those principles. They are the things that matter, that are important, that are eternal.

On this we are agreed - but therefore isn't loving my neighbour a very 'earthly' thing to do?
I wouldn't call it earthly, but His will being done on earth as it is in heaven. The point is to do God's will.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I see one reality (that is BOTH physical and spiritual). That one reality has been spoilt by sin and therefore needs to be redeemed by Christ. So, for me, it is about all of creation (phyiscal AND spiritual) coming to accept Jesus as King, and not about saying that the spirit realm is any better than the physical realm.

Me: fallen world --> redeemed world

Freddy: physical world --> spiritual world.

Yes, there is really only one reality, and it is both spiritual and physical, just as there is one world and it is land, sea, and air. So unless you are denying that there is such a thing as the spiritual realm, I don't see the point of your comparison. I agree that the world is fallen, and that Christ has redeemed it.

I wouldn't say that the spirit realm is better than the physical realm. It is "higher" and it is better to act from spiritual principles than physical desires, but they are both part of one reality.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, there is really only one reality, and it is both spiritual and physical, just as there is one world and it is land, sea, and air. So unless you are denying that there is such a thing as the spiritual realm, I don't see the point of your comparison. I agree that the world is fallen, and that Christ has redeemed it.

Fantastic ... one might even say 'hallelujah!' ... we are one in mind and purpose!? [Angel]

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I wouldn't say that the spirit realm is better than the physical realm. It is "higher" and it is better to act from spiritual principles than physical desires, but they are both part of one reality.

In that physical desires are often tainted by sin ... then, yes... but not because physical desires are some how 'lower' just because they are physical.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What about what Jesus' spirit got up to between the giving up of his body and the resurrection? Surely that has some relevance to he atonement!. My understanding is that Paul taught that he first descended before he ascended and Col 2:14, states that he spoiled principalities and powers making an open show of them. The nicene creed states that he descended into Hell. The precise purpose and accomplishment of this descent seems quite germane to the discussion.

Yes, it is very germane. The purpose and accomplishment here is central to our discussion, I think.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My take is that Satan obviously took Jesus into the lowest hell before recognising the horrific mistake he had made. The Christ spirit was sinless and therefore beyond the authority of Hell. God proceeded to empower his spirit to throw off Hell's chains. Christ acted to take possession of Hell with his presence, proceeded to free the OT righteous dead from 'paradise' and headed up to recapture his body.

Aren't you sort of recapitulating the Christus Victor theory?

The whole idea of Christus Victor, as I understand it, is that Jesus overcame the power of hell, enabling humanity to choose good or evil in freedom.

So the way I view this "harrowing of hell" is that at His resurrection Christ first descended into hell and freed the righteous who had been unjustly imprisoned there. He was able to do this because He is God Himself, and has "all power in heaven and on earth" as He says in Matthew 28.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The fact that God saw the shed blood of Christ as an offering for sin is what enabled the whole process. Ro 8:3 "For... God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, condemned sin in the flesh"

Not at all. The shedding of blood was simply part of the process of victory. Romans 8:3 is saying that God came down and put on flesh and blood in order to combat sin. He overcame the power of sin and condemned it by exposing it and removing its power. That's my read, anyway.

So, yes, Christ's descent into hell is vital to His entire mission. He set the captives free, and He sets us free as well.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I wouldn't say that the spirit realm is better than the physical realm. It is "higher" and it is better to act from spiritual principles than physical desires, but they are both part of one reality.

In that physical desires are often tainted by sin ... then, yes... but not because physical desires are some how 'lower' just because they are physical.
That's right. Physical desires are perfectly good and right when they are properly subordinated to spiritual purposes. They are only tainted by sin to the extent that they become ends in themselves. The very thing that we call the taint of sin is our propensity to make our physical desires and worldly objectives into ends in themselves.

So, in my view, eating and drinking, procreating and resting, and having money, success and power in this world, are all perfectly good and blameless aspects of a God-centered, heaven-bound lifestyle - as long as the real motives and goals are about service to God and the neighbor. This is seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Then these other things, which we have need of, fall in line behind them.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Not at all. The shedding of blood was simply part of the process of victory. Romans 8:3 is saying that God came down and put on flesh and blood in order to combat sin. He overcame the power of sin and condemned it by exposing it and removing its power. That's my read, anyway.

But how? How did his death overcome the power of sin? Lots of innocent men have died before, how did Christ's death expose sin and remove its power when no one else's death did? What was different here?

If it was because he was God - then how does the 'death' of God do this?

If it was because he rose to life again then why didn't Lazarus do it?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Not at all. The shedding of blood was simply part of the process of victory. Romans 8:3 is saying that God came down and put on flesh and blood in order to combat sin. He overcame the power of sin and condemned it by exposing it and removing its power. That's my read, anyway.

But how? How did his death overcome the power of sin? Lots of innocent men have died before, how did Christ's death expose sin and remove its power when no one else's death did? What was different here?

If it was because he was God - then how does the 'death' of God do this?

If it was because he rose to life again then why didn't Lazarus do it?

It wasn't simply His death. It was two things.

First it was the "power of His Word" or the power of the truth that He spoke that exposed and defeated the false ideas that empower sin.

Second, it was His continual spiritual battles with the power of hell, or with the hells themselves, that overcame them and put them in their place.

Jesus death and resurrection were the final victory because the power of evil rests in placing natural/physical life ahead of spiritual life. It rests in our propensity to prefer the things of this world to the things of heaven. When a person resists following their desires and does what is right, it is a small victory and sin's power over them is lessened. When Christ did this, the effect was enormously greater, because He is God Himself. The effect was to defeat, in a permanent way, the power of that evil.

In allowing Himself to be crucified Jesus defeated the power of hell that would place physical life over spiritual life. This is why He spoke so frequently about this:
quote:
Matthew 10:39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Matthew 16:25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

Mark 8:35 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.

Luke 9:24 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.

Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

John 12:25 He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

Luke 17:33 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.

Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.

Jesus is saying that a person should not value physical life over obedience to God. Rather, a person should be willing to sacrifice physical things, including his own life, in order to serve God. This is life. Jesus fits His own death into this same paradigm, saying that His death was about life:
quote:
John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.

John 10:15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

John 10:17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.

John 12:24 Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.

Christ's death was significant only as part of His ongoing struggle with the inner forces of evil. It was the final blow in the battle, the giving of life as the ultimate sacrifice in the war against the primacy of the physical over the spiritual. It defeated hell because of the way that hell was bound up and involved in human physical desires. This is what it meant to be "fallen" or to be "sinful."

All of this is simply part of Christ's admonition to "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness." When this happens, there is a victory and hell is overcome. The alternative is that whoever commits sin is the slave of sin. Christ modeled the former, and the effect of doing this, which was called "fulfilling the Scriptures" was the victory over evil.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Freddy, all you say is true but you still haven't explained why Jesus (in doing all this) was qualitatively and not just quantitatively different from the rest of us.

Read the list in Hebrews 11, Jesus wasn't the first person to be 'obedient unto death'. So why did his obedience do something that no one else could?

... I'm off to bed. [Snore]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Not at all. The shedding of blood was simply part of the process of victory. Romans 8:3 is saying that God came down and put on flesh and blood in order to combat sin. He overcame the power of sin and condemned it by exposing it and removing its power. That's my read, anyway.

But how? How did his death overcome the power of sin? Lots of innocent men have died before, how did Christ's death expose sin and remove its power when no one else's death did? What was different here?

If it was because he was God - then how does the 'death' of God do this?

If it was because he rose to life again then why didn't Lazarus do it?

Besides the usual conquering of the fear of death, which played such an extraordinary part in the life of the early Church, historically he succeeded where Moses failed, (Mohammed made the same error as Moses). It's one thing to come down from the mountain all aglow with the commandment from God not to kill, quite another not to get offended when people don't agree with you - especially when you've just gathered them together in an amazing series of events following God's instructions. Christ's - 'you know not which spirit you're of' was followed through, God himself came to show the way; from which 'pick up your cross and follow me'. This was as much a victory for God as it was for us, by inextricably involving himself in the human condition, Christ could have failed (temptation in the desert and so on).


Myrrh
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Didn't some of the early fathers see Christ's death and resurrection affecting a victory because, as human, death attempted to swallow him up and hades contain him but, as God, this couldn't be done and so he literally 'burst forth' destroying both death and hades and lifting all those united to him from their slavery to death and hades?

But for 'God' to enter death and hades he needed to be, also, a human (since humans die).

Now, because death and hades have been defeated, those united to Christ have no fear of death since what was a route to slavery is now the passage to glorification.

Lazarus could achieve nothing by his resurrection because he was not the 'Life'.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Beautifully put.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Freddy, all you say is true but you still haven't explained why Jesus (in doing all this) was qualitatively and not just quantitatively different from the rest of us.

Read the list in Hebrews 11, Jesus wasn't the first person to be 'obedient unto death'. So why did his obedience do something that no one else could?

... I'm off to bed. [Snore]

As Myrrh and Richard Collins suggest, it was because Christ was divine.

What was happening, as I understand it, was that entire communities of devils were encountering and being defeated by Jesus throughout the course of His lifetime. This does not happen with any ordinary individual because we actually have no power at all and cannot defeat any evil spirit. Our victories are from the power of God, because only He has power.

Still, it is true that if humans were not willingly sinning then hell would have not accumulated such power, and Christ would not have had to come. Humanity did not have to "fall." But it did because "men preferred darkness to the light."

The whole issue was that since people had so consistently chosen evil they were losing the power to do otherwise, because they were losing access to God, who alone has that power. The world was becoming "the slave of sin."

Jesus came to restore that access and so restore humanity's power to resist evil. He replaced false ideas with true ones, or darkness with light.

He also encountered and overcame every community of hell, breaking its power over the human race by His own power. People have no power to break those links, and can only do it from God. But with God's help, relying on the truth that Jesus taught, we are able to turn away from sin and obey His will.

[ 17. March 2008, 13:23: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Didn't some of the early fathers see Christ's death and resurrection affecting a victory because, as human, death attempted to swallow him up and hades contain him but, as God, this couldn't be done and so he literally 'burst forth' destroying both death and hades and lifting all those united to him from their slavery to death and hades?

Let's not get carried away here. While the Orthodox Church might make use of the imagery of Christus Victor, let's keep in mind that the fathers thought it wouldn't make any sense for God to trick death into defeat... Plus, it's part of he imagery to personalize Hades, he is not an actual person!

The imagery might be good to use, because it sets forth in a graphical way the fact that the fear of death no longer exists for those in Christ, but it's only an imagery; there was no real battle between Christ on the one hand and Death and Satan on the other.

ETA: Dear Barnabas

True, metropolitan Kallistos disagrees with me in one point, on how we interpret Jesus' "my God, my God...", but we knew that, didn't we? You have already quoted from him when we discussed the issue. Nothing new here. I do want to note, however, that this was the only issue from his talks he didn't refer to any of the fathers though. I wonder why [Razz]

[ 17. March 2008, 15:33: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Didn't some of the early fathers see Christ's death and resurrection affecting a victory because, as human, death attempted to swallow him up and hades contain him but, as God, this couldn't be done and so he literally 'burst forth' destroying both death and hades and lifting all those united to him from their slavery to death and hades?

Let's not get carried away here. While the Orthodox Church might make use of the imagery of Christus Victor, let's keep in mind that the fathers thought it wouldn't make any sense for God to trick death into defeat... Plus, it's part of he imagery to personalize Hades, he is not an actual person!
I'm not sure what you're getting at here Andreas, this is our liturgy as we'll soon be singing. It was no trick, but very real and I don't see where Richard has personalised it as "H"ades and don't see it a problem even if he did, we personalise the adversary as The Evil One...

quote:
The imagery might be good to use, because it sets forth in a graphical way the fact that the fear of death no longer exists for those in Christ, but it's only an imagery; there was no real battle between Christ on the one hand and Death and Satan on the other.
It's not just the victory of life over death, we still bury our dead, but of life more abundantly, but anyway, the imagery is spot on. (for the Resurrection Icon)


O death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Given these recent exchanges, which are very significant in the understanding of CV and in contrast with SA, I thought I would throw into the pot some quotes from Kallistos Ware (Lecture 1). Considering "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me", he explains this way.

"Although True God from True God, Jesus experiences the Divine absence, the spiritual separation from God. There is no play acting on the cross".

And then later, in response to a question about the meaning of the Greek for forsaken, Kallistos Ware, explains further both the meaning and use of this scripture on the Cross in these terms.

"Because this quotation comes from Psalm 22, some people see Jesus as quoting the scripture. While it is understandable that he would know the scripture (and it might indeed come to his mind in these circumstances) I cannot dismiss this as a quotation. Surely if he said it, he meant it." He then explains the Greek as meaning "left, deserted, desolate". And observes further that there is a mystery here. We cannot understand what it would be like to be inside the unique mind of Christ, fully God and fully human. But "He who is God experiences the loss of God". There is a paradox here, and it reaches its climax at this moment (the cry of desolation).

Kallistos sees the practical consequences as being that Jesus entered completely into the human condition, at this point, experiencing the fullness of human desolation, loneliness and despair. Later on, at the start of lecture 2, he warns (wisely I think) of the dangers of going too far into speculation into the meaning of the atonement - and I think he does this very effectively and well. I must emphasise that he does not in any way use the language of sinbearing to explain the mystery of separation he sees illustrated by the cry of desolation.

Of course many who believe in PSA and SA would say, with conviction, that this is the revealed mystery of this cry of desolation. That He who was God experienced the loss of God, because this was the time when "he bore the sin of the world, in his body, on a tree". There, precisely, may be the heart of our differences.

Later, in lecture 2, Kallistos comments on substitution in these very precise terms. In contract with the satisfaction theory (Anselm) "substitution is a New Testament theme" as exemplified by 2 Cor 5 v 21 (God made him to be sin who knew no sin in him we might become the righteousness of God). He also observes that "the idea of substitution is certainly used by the Fathers". He believes the essence of substitution is that "Christ has done something for us which we could not do ourselves". He does not like the language of "instead of me" and he is unhappy when substitution "is interpreted in very legalistic terms".

Given the title thread, I found what Kallistos had to say about Christus Victor was quite marvellous, but rather than quote from it, I think it is well worth listening to in its entirety and in its context, which is a clear and well thought out review of all the major atonement themes.

Finally, in view of andreas' latest post, it is worth observing that Kallistos provides an excellent critique of the "trickery" elements of the Ransom theories of atonement, rebutting both Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa and commending Gregory the Theologian who observed that "God does not trick and the Devil has no rights". No fish caught on a hook, no mousetrap.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
PS andreas

I think he does not agree completely with you about substitution either. He confirms that it is a NT theme and the idea is certainly used by the Fathers. Numpty and I spent a good deal of time and effort to emphasise both points. He explains his reservations about "instead of" and too legalistic" and I think he makes good sense on both points.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
If I remember the speeches accurately, he rejects all models based on those themes. As themes, as imagery, they might illustrate some aspects of the truth, but if we take them and use them as philosophical models, they are mistaken and they are to be rejected. So, he rejects these models, as philosophical interpretations of what truth is, but he doesn't mind their use as imagery, provided the Truth is preserved and not distorted by the imagery's philosophical implications.

Which is my take as well.

I disagree with his take on Gregory Nyssen. I think the Saint uses the theme as imagery and not as a theological explanation. I might disagree on his reading of history on that point, I don't disagree with his theology. What he says is very Orthodox indeed!

The problem with mp3 files is that you can't just have a quick look... You have to listen to them again... I might do that later, so I can come back with more info.

[ 17. March 2008, 16:48: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
One more thing that I remembered:

In lecture 2, he says that we must not separate Christ from the Father even when he says "my God, my God"... When I heard that I realized that he didn't mean what I originally* thought he did. So, I agree to what he is saying, to an extent.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with his point about that verse fully, and that might be either because I'm not yet ready to understand or because he is expressing a view he has which is not supported by the fathers. I find it strange that he didn't refer to anyone when he spoke on that issue in lecture 1, just like I found it worth noticing that he was asked questions (which were a bit of objections) by his audience on that interpretation of the verse.

*when you first quoted from him in a discussion we had in a thread somewhere
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
If I remember the speeches accurately, he rejects all models based on those themes.

Your memory is at fault, I think. He cautions that they might have defects and explains why he thinks that it. He is also very careful to explain when his reasoning is his own. Have another listen. His biggest caution is in respect of all theological speculation - of crossing lines, of going too far.

Interestingly to me, he says, rather like Tom Wright, that the inner truth of these things is to be found in our worship, in the sacraments. Jesus did not leave us a concise theological explanation for his death and resurrection - instead he instituted a meal.

I found Metropolitan Kallistos to be both open and [i]irenic[/b] in his explanations, in addition to his clear and faithful profession of Orthodox Christianity.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Well, where I would say "that's a grave heresy", he says "that's profoundly disturbing", and where I would say "that's heresy", he says "I don't find my self very attracted to that image".

I don't know what's irenic and what's not. I prefer others to reply to me in an explicit way, because if they don't I might miss their point and the substance of what they are saying. [Yipee]

That said, I listened to the second lecture again, and I think that what he accepts is the power of the imagery of these models, because some truth is conveyed in them, and what he rejects is the full philosophical implications of these models. And in this thread we have been discussing about a full philosophical explanation of the Cross! Perhaps we should discuss this, but I do think the metropolitans way of speaking should be taken into account. To put it differently, I don't have any trouble adding my signature to what he said! (save the two small points I spoke of in an earlier post)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I don't think he rejects anything, andreas. "Reject" is your language, not his.

He is fine for example with ransom, provided one does not ask to whom the ransom is paid. Instead he emphasises the effect of ransom, which is that we go free. (I agree with him).

He does not like satisfaction because it is a medieval theory, influenced by ideas of offence and honour. (I agree with him).

He is concerned to clarify a proper understanding of sacrifice and I think he does an excellent job there.

He confirms substitution as a NT theme, an idea used by the Fathers. His says it does not necessarily mean a change in God (that would be PSA) - which gets it a tick - and it is objective rather than subjective - which gets it another tick. His reservation is that it implies a separation in the Godhead - and I do understand that - but he acknowledges (the cry of desolation argument) that there is a mystery there. He concurs in lecture 1 that "He who was God experienced the loss of God". So the substitutionary model does not get a tick against his test (true) but he has already pointed to an exception - there is separation in the cry of desolation (also true).

It is undoubtedly true that the models which speak most truth to him are Christus Victor and Example. I've said it lots before but I'm personally most strongly influenced by CV and I loved his explanation.

Anyway, that's what I hear.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Sigh.

He is fine with ransom, provided it's no real ransom that was paid to someone. That's the line he takes for all four models he talks about. He is fine with Christus Victor, but not with a real victory that is based on God's power, but a "victory" based on weakness, through "the refusal to use force and violence". He is fine with Example, but only when that means that Love transforms us objectively, and not that we as individuals can change by following the example of Christ...

The metropolitan sets some criteria by which all models are to be judged. And if a criterion is not fulfilled, then the model becomes problematic. And by showing the problems he rejects the models as philosophical explanations.

We will have to agree to disagree once again! He does not accept a separation as an exception! On the contrary, he affirms in lecture 2 that no separation is to be accepted. "Even in my God my God...". And I agree with that. Even in that cry no separation really took place!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

We will have to agree to disagree once again! He does not accept a separation as an exception! On the contrary, he affirms in lecture 2 that no separation is to be accepted. "Even in my God my God...". And I agree with that. Even in that cry no separation really took place!

Well, only if you choose to ignore what is there! Having bowed before a mystery, Kallistos can hardly set it aside in an explanatory argument!
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
What I can't understand is this.

Kallistos says that even when the cry My God, my God, why did you forsake me is spoken, there is no separation between Christ and the Father. And he does not seem to think a contradiction between what he said in lecture 1 and what he is saying in lecture 2 exists.

How do you take that into account? Because you seem to stop in what he said in lecture 1, and not interpret it under the light of what he said in lecture 2.

What's your take on that?

P.S. Forgive the sigh. Haven't realized fully it's Great Week for you.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
He is fine with Christus Victor, but not with a real victory that is based on God's power, but a "victory" based on weakness, through "the refusal to use force and violence". He is fine with Example, but only when that means that Love transforms us objectively, and not that we as individuals can change by following the example of Christ...

I shouldn't really be taking part in this exchange as I haven't listened to the talks, my computer is without audio and printer at the moment, but, I'm having a problem understanding you here. How is God's real power in this victory anything else but Love as the icon of Extreme Humility shows? (Extreme Humility)


Myrrh
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Andreas - don't fear, I'm fairly happy to agree that ''tis Mystery all!' but that the church (starting with Christ himself - 'binding the strong man' anyone?) has found ways to articulate this greatest of mysteries.

I think it's fair to summarise that the eastern approach is to explore the mystery in terms of a cosmic victory, 'Trampling down death by death and bestowing life on those in the tombs', and there's enough scriptural support for the idea of the Triumphant King defeating his enemy and ascending on high to give 'gifts' to his people (psalm 110 is instrumental here).

The point Johnny et al are making is that scripture also alludes to the idea of a sacrificial substitution, of the just undergoing punishment in order to make the unjust just, such that the parallel theme of the 'suffering servant' (for which Isaiah 53 is instrumental as well as Psalm 22) plays a part.

I'd need to dig out the liturgical text for Holy Friday to see just how our church deals with this theme of self-giving sacrifice, but it's true that - as an 'explanation' of the atonement - this is more common to the latin/western theological tradition (and it's heirs) than the eastern one. I wonder why that is?
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
also to add that I believe Fr Tom Hopko (a US Orthodox scholar/priest) made mention that the Hebrew word used in Psalm 22 'forsaken' is also only used in Genesis for 'he will forsake his mother and father and be joined as one flesh etc...'

I think he used this parallel to point out that the Cross was a form of 'marital consummation' between Christ and his harlot bride (c.f. Hosea) for her sake (to make her pure and spotless) and which necessitated 'leaving' his Father to cleave with fallen flesh (or something like that).

I'm still processing this perspective, but it does open up some possibilities (esp. that, in John's Gospel, the Theotokos - for John often an image of the Bride/Church - is mentioned only at the start at the wedding in Cana - 'my hour has not yet come' - and at the end when he is on the cross, his 'hour' and he cries it is 'finished', which I also understand can mean 'it is consummated').

hmmmm....
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I shouldn't really be taking part in this exchange as I haven't listened to the talks, my computer is without audio and printer at the moment, but, I'm having a problem understanding you here. How is God's real power in this victory anything else but Love as the icon of Extreme Humility shows? (Extreme Humility)

Dear Myrrh

I truly believe and confess that God is victorious and that His Victory lies in Humble Love. However, when one sees the phrase Christus Victor, at first glance one might think that there was a battle between Christ and Satan or Death, and that Christ won because he was powerful. This thing is not worthy of Christ. It was never an issue of power, it was never an issue of a war, where two opposing forces fight with each other.

Which is why Christus Victor could be used as an image, but not as a full philosophical explanation, because if we take the image literally, then it is not in accordance with Truth.

Dear Richard

Indeed, the word is one, both in Genesis and in the Gospel. Perhaps in the Gospel it's a bit stronger.

That said, Jesus Christ is a true Sacrifice. He sacrifices Himself for all, and it is in self-sacrificial humble love that God's majesty is revealed. The problem with what Johnny et al are saying is not with sacrifice, but with sacrifice satisfying some notion of divine justice. God's mercy is free, we don't get it because Christ had works of merit. Forgiveness, Mercy, Healing, they come for free, out of God's humble, self-sacrificial love, and not out of meritorious works. Grace comes for free, and not through works.

If I understand them correctly, some Protestants are very fierce that grace does not come by works, but, at the same time, they place what they see as Christ's meritorious works at the heart of grace. This is very ironic to say the least, and I would like to ask you guys if that's right, if I understood that correctly. That would be an interesting spin!
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As Myrrh and Richard Collins suggest, it was because Christ was divine.

But neither have explained why / how that makes a difference!

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


What was happening, as I understand it, was that entire communities of devils were encountering and being defeated by Jesus throughout the course of His lifetime. This does not happen with any ordinary individual because we actually have no power at all and cannot defeat any evil spirit. Our victories are from the power of God, because only He has power.

True - but Jesus was not unique in this. Elisha's ministry in the OT was very similar.

You still haven't explained what it was about the ministry of Jesus that was completely unique to him and why the NT specifically says that it was his death that brought us freedom.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I shouldn't really be taking part in this exchange as I haven't listened to the talks, my computer is without audio and printer at the moment, but, I'm having a problem understanding you here. How is God's real power in this victory anything else but Love as the icon of Extreme Humility shows? (Extreme Humility)

Dear Myrrh

I truly believe and confess that God is victorious and that His Victory lies in Humble Love. However, when one sees the phrase Christus Victor, at first glance one might think that there was a battle between Christ and Satan or Death, and that Christ won because he was powerful. This thing is not worthy of Christ. It was never an issue of power, it was never an issue of a war, where two opposing forces fight with each other.

I'm still not sure I understand you here. The very fact that it was love and humility which conquered shows it wasn't a 'conventional' battle (I do think the word humility carries with it a sense of cringing or 'being a doormat' which isn't what is meant here, Christ taught self-respect as well as respect for others), but we certainly feel it as a great power and rejoice in it at Pascha. Maybe I've not been following this well enough.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Johnny and Freddy,
Surely it was due to God's choice of him, his sinlessness and his essential 'godness,' confirmed by the virgin birth although he went through the cross as a man submitted to the father.

The messiah had to be Son of Adam, a Man, son of David , a king, son of Abraham, a Jew, and son of God, God. Jesus is unique in fitting all criteria.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas

I think you miss my point, but then I didn't really explain it. So let me make amends.

Firstly, Kallistos Ware's three (or four) tests of the atonement models are not Holy Writ - or at least not to me. And I think we should both remember that they come after Kallistos has said these things.

"The cross is a mystery to be embraced with faith, wonder and adoration, through liturgy, worship, prayer and self offering, bowed down in silence"

"Approaches to the cross are in danger of trying to say too much".

"The Cross is not to be unravelled in a rationalistic manner through a series of arguments, but though symbols, liturgical acts".

"What we find is NOT a single theory but a variety of images. We should not isolate any one of these. We should not press one image against another. Safety in numbers should be our motto".

"These images are not alternatives. We need to use them all".

These statement ensure that the analysis he does carry out is, intentionally, a humble one and indeed that is his approach throughout. How could he use the language of rejection (as you do) after saying such things? And indeed he does not. Throughout, he uses the language of preference. He knows he must proceed with caution, since he has cautioned himself. He is restrained in a way that you have not been.

Now, specifically, on substitution. Your point is that Kallistos says

a) Re separation in lecture 1, unimaginable though it is, God the Son experienced the loss of God at the time of the cry of desolation and this was a real experience.
b) Despite this, in lecture 2 he nevertheless affirms that there is no separation in the Godhead.

You miss my point again - incidentally, I think the excellent Kallistos Ware in this instance misses his own point as well!

I am not arguing that Kallistos Ware contradicts himself here. These statements above are not necessarily contradictory. This mysterious experience of God the Son, real to Him at this point as Kallistos affirms, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there was at that time an ontological separation. I hesitate to use the word "subjective" when considering this unimaginable experience (Kallistos calls it unimaginable) of God the Son at this point. But it is the nearest word I can find. In any case, if the experience is for God the Son alone, alone in his abandoned loneliness, desolation and "yes, even despair" (Kallistos' words) at this point, that does not make the experience of God the Son, and His consequential suffering, any the less real. Indeed this may be how Kallistos Ware sees it - it would certainly be consistent with his words. That is a perfectly possible conclusion from lecture 1 and lecture 2 taken together.

Nor do I believe the substitutionary model requires more than that real experience in any case. No one who sees the value of substitution argues for any permanent tearing in the "fabric" of the Godhead, and all arguments see the restoration of the full communion of the Godhead before Christ's death. In substitutionary atonement, as in other models, the cry "It is accomplished. Father into your hands I commit my Spirit" says it all.

In short, if the experience of God the Son is real to Him, despite the continuation of union in the Godhead, then substitution, properly understood in that mysterious light, would actually pass the second test, not fail it. There need be no objective separation in the Godhead. (I think Penal Substitutionary Atonement would need the separation to be objective, but I am not arguing in favour of that model, which is in any case a subordinate variation of SA.)

Personally, I am less concerned than you whether there was, or was not, an ontological break in the union of the Godhead at this point. What I am saying is that if you want to hold to that doctrine, it is actually possible to see substitutionary atonement in comformity with that doctrine.

Personally, when confronting so great a mystery, I want to do no other than to recognise the same truth that Kallistos Ware quotes from the Holy Saturday liturgy. On this issue "let all mortal flesh keep silent". I think we would all be wise to do the same.

On one other point, andreas, I would be grateful for your further consideration. Do you now accept, as does Metropolitan Kallistos, that substitution is a New Testament theme and some of the Fathers have certainly used this idea in their writings about the meaning of the Cross? Numpty and I have been banging our heads against your denial of these points for long enough now. Will you please concede this point, or, if you cannot, will you please concede that on this point your opinion is at variance with Metropolitan Kallistos Ware? I'll be happy with either confirmation. I do not see that you have a third option.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Johnny and Freddy,
Surely it was due to God's choice of him, his sinlessness and his essential 'godness,' confirmed by the virgin birth although he went through the cross as a man submitted to the father.

The messiah had to be Son of Adam, a Man, son of David , a king, son of Abraham, a Jew, and son of God, God. Jesus is unique in fitting all criteria.

I think we are all agreed on that Jamat.

My question is why was it necessary for Jesus to be fully human and fully God, and why was that necessity tied up with his death?

IMO PSA answers those questions by saying that only a perfect life can take all the wickedness and rebellion of the world, like the scapegoat on the day of atonement in Leviticus 16. (BTW As I have commented previously it is interesting that in the book of Hebrews - with its focus on the sacrificial system - calvary is described as being 'outside the camp' in chapter 13.)

I'm still interested in how CV answers those questions.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

My question is why was it necessary for Jesus to be fully human and fully God, and why was that necessity tied up with his death?

IMO PSA answers those questions by saying that only a perfect life can take all the wickedness and rebellion of the world, like the scapegoat on the day of atonement in Leviticus 16. (BTW As I have commented previously it is interesting that in the book of Hebrews - with its focus on the sacrificial system - calvary is described as being 'outside the camp' in chapter 13.)

I'm still interested in how CV answers those questions.

I think you may miss the point that CV does indeed connect Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection, Ascension. It cannot be properly understood in isolation from the whole. God gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is victorious both because of who He is and what He does.

And as you will have seen from the above, I personally give value to the theme of substitutionary atonement which I take as truth, together with CV. I am satisfied that there is at least one influential Orthodox voice who recognises that substitutionary atonement is indeed a New Testament theme and the idea of it has been used by the early church fathers to illuminate the meaning of the cross. Precisely the same may be said about CV. Indeed one can hardly read 1 Cor 15 without coming to that conclusion. IMO CV does illuminating things which PSA does not, and SA does illuminating things which CV does not.

We do well to take Kallistos Ware's wise advice. There is safety in numbers here - there is more than one NT theme at work. And it is dangerous to push the logic of any one theme too far to the exclusion of others. We speak of what we truly see but barely know.

Kallistos Ware has a really good joke in lecture 2. Recalling a notice read at a railway station "Do not proceed beyond this point. Fine £50 for transgression". He observes that there should be a warning for theologians who go beyond that point. "Fine; a considerable time of purification in the next life". Go on, you can have a chuckle even though you probably see Purgatory as another error! I think it is really good advice.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As Myrrh and Richard Collins suggest, it was because Christ was divine.

But neither have explained why / how that makes a difference!

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


What was happening, as I understand it, was that entire communities of devils were encountering and being defeated by Jesus throughout the course of His lifetime. This does not happen with any ordinary individual because we actually have no power at all and cannot defeat any evil spirit. Our victories are from the power of God, because only He has power.

True - but Jesus was not unique in this. Elisha's ministry in the OT was very similar.

You still haven't explained what it was about the ministry of Jesus that was completely unique to him and why the NT specifically says that it was his death that brought us freedom.

OK, John, in one word - authority. Jesus was the only One who was able to demonstrate forgiveness (by showing that God's heart was to redeem and not to punish, however great the offence) because He was the one with the power to forgive sins (ie sins against God). And, of course, it was the actualising humility of forgiveness which destroyed (and destroys) sin. Basically, the power of God is never more powerful or effectual than when it is expressed in the (to us) weakness and vulnerability of love. All heaven's legions of angels would not be up to the task of defeating the power of sin and death in the cosmos. That task required power that only God has.

Andreas, I'm truely astonished that nearly 50 pages into this thread, you hadn't realised that when we talk of the "victor" in CV, we mean that He achieved victory by means of His own defeat, as it were.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
B62,

I'll buy that. There are so many 'themes' going on in scripture attempting to describe and 'explain' the nature of the Atonement.

I find it interesting that Christ's passion itself occured over Passover, an event which certainly involved the 'sacrifice' of an animal (the Lamb) but whose national theological identity was wrapped up in escape from slavery and victory over ones enemies (hence the politically sensitive nature of Passover during Roman occupation). Passover is NOT Yom Kippur and the Jews would have well understood this.

The ideas behind SA/PSA definately tie in with the levitical sacrificial structure (as Johnny points out, the scape goat is sent 'outside' the city) but that prior (and post) to the levitical system one has event of Passover and the promise of the Prophets (especially concerning God's victory over his enemies) which ties in with the Kingship (a post levitical development), so scripture is already finding other ways to describe the atonement which step outside of the sacrifical model.

Paul, being a good Jew obviously uses all of the textual themes at his disposal so it's unsurprising to find themes of substitutionary sacrifice/death AS WELL AS victory over enemies and the DEFEAT of death (achieved by the 'king').

I guess what we're debating is how the later church takes up these pre and post Christ scriptural themes and work them into the system of Christian dogmatic theology. The eastern church (I would say coming from the early semitic church) went one way and the western church went another way such that now the Catholics make a film called 'The Passion', which has about 3 minutes on the Resurrection and the Orthodox sing endlessly about the Resurrection and concentrate of the 'victory' motif somewhat more.

I think we all accept it's a both/and situation but it's interesting to see how and why the different churches went with the different approaches.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK, John, in one word - authority. Jesus was the only One who was able to demonstrate forgiveness (by showing that God's heart was to redeem and not to punish, however great the offence) because He was the one with the power to forgive sins (ie sins against God). And, of course, it was the actualising humility of forgiveness which destroyed (and destroys) sin.

Yes, that's it. No one but God has the power and authority to defeat hell. The crucifixion was the last step in this work, as He prayed for the whole world and forgave them on the cross.

Also, no one but God as the Word could teach the divine truth with authority, to the point where He could say that His words were life:
quote:
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
He said that this was the purpose of His coming:
quote:
John 18.34 For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice
This why He is the light, and why it is so important for us to believe in Him and believe in His words. As He says:
quote:
John 12:46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.
Only Jesus as God come into the world could speak these words. The prophets could not teach these things, because they spoke from visions, or from the angel of the Lord, and were not actually divine themselves. Similarly, Jesus needed to be human in order to make God visible to people in the world.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
I'm probably starting a parallel idea here, but I've been wondering how the differing theories of atonement tie in to the notion of 'Sin'.

I was thinking that 'Sin' is both the expression of a disordered human nature/will as well as the means to consequential outcomes (such as suffering, disease, death et...). As I see it, the Torah saught (as all 'law' seeks) to contain disordered human will by stressing the consequences: 'If you do such-and-such then such-and-such will happen to you' (either as a process of cause and effect such as eating too many calories making you fat, or by deliberate intervention such as imprisonment for violent crime). And we know that this can be an effective system of deterence (as my 3 year old daughter is finding out!). However, such systems - as much as they can shape human will - can't deal wtih the fundamental distortion at it's very core, thus even the Saints 'sinned'. Instead, we each need a renewed 'nature' or 'will' which simply doesn't Sin and so needs no deterence.

It's this ontological exchange which is at the core of what God achieved in Christ and which forms the basis of our 'atonement'. Because we acquire new natures we are 'fit for heaven' and so are able to abide the presence of God.

As B62 has been at pains to point out, such an exchange can well be described in terms of a 'substitution', where we hand over our fallen self to Christ (to die on the cross) and receive his risen life into ourselves.

The 'problem of penality' therefore arises when we consider what part 'punishment' plays/played in the above situation. Since punishment (whether cause-and-effect or externally applied) deals with the consequence of Sin I see it as working 'further down stream' but NOT at the point of ontological exchange (the source of the river).

Of course, we all live in these 'inbetween times' where we are (present continous) learning to put off Adam and put on Christ, to become what we are, so there will be both processes at work. We still live in a fallen world, with fallen human will so Sin will continue to be present and will thus lead to consequences (and need to be 'deterred' by consquences) - this is a simple fact of interim 'containment', however AT THE SAME TIME the Kingdom of God is advancing, humans are learning to put on Christ, to exchange their wills and natures for His and so, in many places, Sin and Consequences can be reversed and (sometimes) overcome.

Certainly the sacrifical metaphors work very strongly in terms of understanding the basis of this ontological, substitutionary exchange (the pure one dies to destroy our impurity so that we might receive his purity) but I'm just not sure where the specific notion of 'punishment' fits into this.

On Yom Kippur, the goat that bore the sins wasn't the animal that was killed, as I've said Passover isn't a festival of sin/guilt-atonement.

This is the problem I have with specifically PENAL SA.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Richard,

there is one big problem. If our salvation is ontological, if through Jesus Christ we can become Jesus Christs, this is completely different to a forensic approach of salvation.

It's one thing to say, we gave to Christ our fallen nature, and He gave us incorruptibility, and quite another to say that Jesus was crucified instead of us. And as far as I can see, Barnabas did not go for the first interpretation of substitution, which, after all, is no real, literal, substitution at all!

This is why substitution is totally unacceptable to me. Because it says that Christ was crucified instead of us. There was no issue of us doing something in the first place, there was no issue of us saving ourselves or of us getting punished for our sin.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Barnabas

As you probably read from my reply to Richard, I have no problem with us offering our wounded human nature to Christ, and him giving us back salvation. I doubt you would accept that as a proper substitution though!

Like I said yesterday, I don't mind the imagery, but I do mind the philosophical explanations. And up to the introduction of Kallistos' speeches, we haven't been discussing imagery, but philosophical explanations.

The Cross is in fact a Mystery. But what does this mean? For me, it means that it all has to do with Who Jesus Christ Is. And Jesus Christ is a Mystery, a Great Mystery. God is a Mystery, Man is a Mystery. The Mysteries of the Church are Mysteries, Salvation is a Mystery. Because of Who Jesus Christ is, because of Who God Is.

One last point. In his second lecture, metropolitan Kallistos does not say that there was no separation in the Godhead. He says that even when My God, my God, why have you forsaken me, is spoken, there is no separation between Christ and God. And Christ is the Godman, and he is not separated from God the Father in both His Godhead and His Humanity!

It's interesting how you thought he meant the Godhead. But do listen to that part again. He does not say there was no separation in the Godhead. He said there is no separation between Christ and God the Father, even when "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me" is said.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Andreas,

That's why I prefer the term 'representation' to 'substitution'. Such representation is the definitive 'priestly ministry' of humanity which is pioneered (c.f Hebrews 12) by Christ but something to which we are all called (c.f. 2 Corinthians the 'ministry of reconciliation'). He represents our fallen nature in his death and suffering, but we identify with this ministry in and through our own suffering and death (esp. if 'for the world').

This whole us-in-him-and-he-in-us is key to my understanding of the Christian identity and vocation which speaks of that ontological exchange and union about which I spoke.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK, John, in one word - authority... That task required power that only God has.


Thanks JJ. I completely agree that it comes down to authority.

I also appreciate how frustrating you must find it for me to keep asking this question [Hot and Hormonal] - but I still don't see why God had to (and the NT seems to insist that he did) use his authority through the death of Jesus? What was it about the death of Jesus that uniquely displays his authority?

quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
I think we all accept it's a both/and situation but it's interesting to see how and why the different churches went with the different approaches.

Amen to that!

quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Certainly the sacrifical metaphors work very strongly in terms of understanding the basis of this ontological, substitutionary exchange (the pure one dies to destroy our impurity so that we might receive his purity) but I'm just not sure where the specific notion of 'punishment' fits into this.

But surely this works perfectly as a transactional metaphor - our sin is put onto Jesus who dies with it - Jesus sucks our poison into himself. That much is CV. The problem is that it is only a metaphor - Jesus doesn't actually have 'sin lines' going into his body. So some abstract concept is needed to explain how this transaction might be possible. 'Punishment' is the only biblical answer I've ever come across.


quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
On Yom Kippur, the goat that bore the sins wasn't the animal that was killed, as I've said Passover isn't a festival of sin/guilt-atonement.

But as you yourself have said Jesus fulfils all the aspects of the OT. Do you really expect there to have to be two Jesus' (one crucified and one wandering in the desert) for Yom Kippur to be alluded to?

... oh, yes, and I'm still not convinced that the Passover doesn't have an element of guilt-atonement. Do you really believe that Israelites could read Exodus and then Leviticus and not think, "Ummh, lamb sacrificed ... that means cleansing from sin"?
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Johnny,

I'm trying to suggest that there are many OT allusions to the Atonement, some sacrificial, some therapeutic, some military and that - in Christ - all these threads are woven together to make a rich tapestry whose 'synthesis' can't be unpicked without loosing the total picture.

The dogma of the Church then seeks to articulate these themes in a way which does 'justice' (ha!) to that garment woven by Christ himself along with his immediate Apostles (and their disciples, and their disciples etc...).

Now, the core debate MUST be how did the early Fathers intepret these themes and express them? I am no patristics scholar, but again and again when I read books and essays here and there it's more often the 'Victor' theme which I discover (which is evidenced by the use of such themes in Orthodox liturgy which is VERY conservative and harks back to the byzantine times strongly) ALTHOUGH clearly, as B62 and Numpty demonstrate, there are also the themes of sacrificial substitution AS WELL AS escaping from punishment (I said it was both/and!).

So I'm asking:

a) Why is this?
b) Why did the 'west' take the predominantly 'penal' line that it did?
c) Why are modern (conservative) evangelicals still so enamoured by a majority 'penal' explanation? Whence the Victor theme?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Richard

From my reading, I offer two things:

First, the ancient fathers didn't have differences about these things. Take Western fathers like Ambrose, Hilary, Hippolytus, Ireneos, Jerome, and Eastern fathers like Athanasius, Gregory, Basil, Cyril... They are in perfect agreement with each other.

Second, while we make use of the Christus Victor imagery, we don't really use it as a philosophical explanation. As far as I can see, our explanation is the change in being that Christ effects, ALONE. God became man so that man becomes God. The rhetorics might be rich and diverse, but the substance, the truth is one and the same.

Now, I don't think the difference between let's say me and Johny here is one of imagery, but I think it's one of substance. And this is what matters. I was reading from I think it was fr. Kimel something the previous Pope wrote, and I found myself disagreeing with the substance of what the Pope was saying about how Christ satisfied divine justice on the cross. The cross is about injustice, not about justice! Here Notice how father Kimel speaks of Saint Isaac's rhetorics. For me, that great Saint is not being rhetorical in the least, and to see the Truth he conveys as rhetorics shows a real difference in approaches. Of course, what the Pope said is very nuanced, but the problem is still there.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Dear Barnabas


One last point. In his second lecture, metropolitan Kallistos does not say that there was no separation in the Godhead. He says that even when My God, my God, why have you forsaken me, is spoken, there is no separation between Christ and God. And Christ is the Godman, and he is not separated from God the Father in both His Godhead and His Humanity!

It's interesting how you thought he meant the Godhead. But do listen to that part again. He does not say there was no separation in the Godhead. He said there is no separation between Christ and God the Father, even when "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me" is said.

You are right, andreas, but it makes no difference to the argument.

Metropolitan Kallistos says two things.

1. God the Son really experiences separation from God

2. There is no separation between God the Son and God the Father.

You are ignoring the possibility that both are true. I am suggesting that, paradoxically, both can be true, and I see Kallistos Ware saying that both are true when both lectures are taken together. So how can both be true? You are ducking the question.

Now I do not mind if you do that, I do not mind if you join me in saying that on some issues it is best to be silent. But you are not silent. I think you are not silent because you deny the truth of the first statement. Unlike Kallistos Ware.

Please do me and yourself a favour. Try to jump out of your doctrinal box and look at the real implications of Kallistos Ware's paradoxical pair of beliefs? And if your considered answer is "Kallistos Ware is in my opinion wrong", then we can drop it - we can agree to disagree. Personally, I think Kallistos Ware is right and I think he honours both scripture and the patristic record in saying so. I wont beat out my brains yet again by pointing to the incontrovertible evidence of St John Chystostom's use of the idea of vicarious atonement in his explanations of the Cross. You appear to be isolated on this thread if you continue to believe that has not been demonstrated.

You mentioned earlier that when Metropolitan Kallistos was discussing the cry of dereliction, he did not quote from the Fathers. Do Matthew and Mark not count? If Jesus said it, then he meant it. (As Kallistos Ware says). It is really very hard to get around that simple statement without doctrinal rationalisation. Millions upon millions of Christians all over the world have taken, do take, that statement at face value. Why should we believe you when you say we should not? Particularly when there are other voices in Orthodoxy saying that we should?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
For the pure love of God, our difference is not because you accept what the bible says while I am not. Our difference is because we interpret what the bible says differently.

Of course I accept that Christ really prayed that prayer, that he really meant what he was chanting. There is no disagreement here. The disagreement comes when you think your interpretation of what Christ meant is the only possible interpretation. We have had that discussion before. I believe in what Christ said, and I see him referring to a very physical abandonment, not a severance of communion!

P.S. The metropolitan does not say in lecture 2 that there is no separation between God the Father and God the Son. He says there is no separation between Christ and God the Father. Christ is Godman. Also, could you quote the exact words from lecture 1 that say "God the Son really experiences separation from God"?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
This is getting frustrating for me. As far as I can see, father Gregory and I explained how we read Saint john the Chrysostom. Now Barnabas says I'm being isolated and that incontrovertible evidence has been put forth that St. John believed in vicarious atonement.

This is very frustrating. Richard says something about substitution, which is very very different than what Barnabas was saying, and suddenly I'm isolated.

[brick wall]

I give up [Razz]

Again!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The metropolitan does not say in lecture 2 that there is no separation between God the Father and God the Son. He says there is no separation between Christ and God the Father. Christ is Godman. Also, could you quote the exact words from lecture 1 that say "God the Son really experiences separation from God"?

OK, here are the exact words from lecture 1.

"He who is Himself true God from true God, who is always united with His Father, nevertheless experiences the loss of God, the Divine absence, the spiritual death of separation from God. Now we may ask ourselves how could this be. We do not understand. But what we know is that on the Cross there is no play-acting. All is real".

About half way through the recording. And in answer to the first question he is asked in the Q and A session, he points out that "Eli Eli lama sabacthani" is from the Psalms (22 v 1). He then adds the following comment.

"Some people say 'well Christ was just quoting the Psalms'. OK, well it is understandable that at this moment of great pain he would have recited Psalms which he had learned from an early childhood, but I cannot simply dismiss this passage as a quotation. Surely if he said this, then he meant it".

I was simply providing a synopsis of those statements. In them Christ is identified as true God from true God, always united with his Father, but nevertheless experiencing "the loss of God, the Divine absence, the spiritual death of separation from God." "No play acting". "If he said this, he meant it". Will that do?
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
This is getting frustrating for me. As far as I can see, father Gregory and I explained how we read Saint john the Chrysostom. Now Barnabas says I'm being isolated and that incontrovertible evidence has been put forth that St. John believed in vicarious atonement.

This is very frustrating. Richard says something about substitution, which is very very different than what Barnabas was saying, and suddenly I'm isolated.

[brick wall]

I give up [Razz]

Again!

Not as frustrating as the fact that you just ignore posts that you can't answer. You didn't even try engage with what Ireneaus says about the cross. Even though I addressed it directly to you. It says what it says and I say it; it says what it says and you avoid it. Who is more likely to be right?

[ 18. March 2008, 16:02: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Where?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
OK, found it. I made many posts in reply to your posts, so I guess that's hardly me avoiding your quotation.

Your last post on the issue was this

You asked:

"andreas, is the cross salvation and life to you?"

Yes. But not because the Cross was a meritorious act from Christ. It was not. There is no merit on the Cross, and our salvation is not founded on merit, it is not given out of merit.

Like I said, we do not disagree because the one side accepts some verses while the other side rejects those verses. We disagree because we have a different understanding of what the verses mean in the first place.

Unless you guys are going to take that into account, I don't find any point in continuing this discussion.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Richard Collins

I'm pretty much in agreement with your last two posts. You'll probably recall (a cazillion posts ago) that I started from the position that some belief in substitutionary (vicarious) atonement was to found all over mainstream Christendom and I've also said that I have problems with the P in PSA.

Both your posts were very thought-provoking and I'm doing some "swotting" before coming back on them. But I thought there was really good stuff there.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I'm leaving before I lose what's left of my sanity.

Richard says a substitution took place, we gave Christ our wounded nature, and He gave us incorruptibility in turn. Barnabas says he thought a substitutionary (vicarious) view of atonement exists in many Christians, and is happy to see Richard's post.

Oh well.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As Myrrh and Richard Collins suggest, it was because Christ was divine.

But neither have explained why / how that makes a difference!


It's been a while, but the usual Orthodox teaching centres on the event being Passover, not Yom Kippur. All 'atonement' theories are basically irrelevant. Passover is freedom from slavery for no other reason than God offers it to us. If you want, as did the some as noted in Hebrews, take this as sacrifice for sins, by all means do so - as long as the rescue this brings doesn't delay you too much before encountering Christ's God who requires no such thing. The Victory of the Cross is the Passover Lamb, in the new relationship with God who became fully human for us to show the way.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Richard Collins

Following andreas' farewell comments, I think it best to flag the posts to which I was referring - I think I missed one in the countback.

This post and this one.

I really did not mean to provoke a flounce and I'm sorry it happened. Although I find andreas' approach to dialogue to be markedly different to my own, I do respect his intentions and his energy in discussions. I hope to see him back.

[ 18. March 2008, 18:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Just listened to the first two talks by +Kallistos. Excellent stuff. Didn't realise I was quite so (O)rthodox. [Biased] [Eek!]

[ 18. March 2008, 19:24: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Me neither. But apparently I'm not, so that's OK [Biased]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A coherent gospel might not have appeared 'folly to the Greeks'.

C'mon Leo - have you forgotten where that quote comes from?

It is specifically 'Christ crucified' that is such folly ... not Christ crucified and risen ... in 1 Cor. 1 and 2 it is just the cross which is considered 'foolishness'.

Ummh. Where does CV fit into that?

It would be easy to make a case from 1 Corinthians that CV is an attempt to make the atonement coherent but actually PSA is being faithful to the charge of being a 'stumbling block'! (Applying the logic of your argument that is. [Biased] )

So thanks, I'm thinking of getting a sig. of "PSA - as officially approved by Leo" [Big Grin]

I would not be too quick to separate the cross from the resurrection - they are all part of the paschal event and all part of CV.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:

Of course, we all live in these 'inbetween times' where we are (present continous) learning to put off Adam and put on Christ, to become what we are, so there will be both processes at work. We still live in a fallen world, with fallen human will so Sin will continue to be present and will thus lead to consequences (and need to be 'deterred' by consquences) - this is a simple fact of interim 'containment', however AT THE SAME TIME the Kingdom of God is advancing, humans are learning to put on Christ, to exchange their wills and natures for His and so, in many places, Sin and Consequences can be reversed and (sometimes) overcome.

Certainly the sacrifical metaphors work very strongly in terms of understanding the basis of this ontological, substitutionary exchange (the pure one dies to destroy our impurity so that we might receive his purity) but I'm just not sure where the specific notion of 'punishment' fits into this.

This is the problem I have with specifically PENAL SA.

I think it is your analysis of the "in between" time that I find most compelling in this post. I would like to explore that further with you in the contexts of human learning, and human and divine justice.

There appears to me to be a preliminary logjam in discussing that justice issue, since both Myrrh and andreas have given me to understand that for the Orthodox, God is not just. (Quoting a saying of St Isaac the Syrian).

I'm going to return to Kallistos Ware (The Orthodox Way) which I have just discovered is a Googlebook. Here is an extract quoting St Nicolas Cabasilas, a 13th century Byzantine Saint, who says, basically what I believe, what I have always believed. That God is, inter alia "more just than any Ruler". Before proceeding further, is this your view as well? For in considering the whole issue of penalty in relation to substitution, we need, as Numpty has implied, some acceptable standard for what is just. There is a big difference between saying "God is more just than any ruler" and "God is not just".

We may find that we actually are in agreement about our reservations re the P in PSA. I've already said I have such reservations myself.

Even if it is not immediately clear why I ask the question, it would help me to know your opinion on the subject.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
PS Richard

This part of your post

quote:
(the pure one dies to destroy our impurity so that we might receive his purity)
I have taken that to be a paraphrase (and I think an effective one) of 2 Cor 5 v 21. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God". What Kallistos Ware calls the "expiatory" sacrifice (1 John 2 v 2). Sin is "wiped out" by Christ being made sin.

Again, I'm only checking carefully to ensure I understand you. If I do so, then you and I have have a very similar understanding about the nature of substitutionary atonement (rather than penal substitutionary atonement).

Also, if you want to use the term representative (rather than substitute), because of some of the verbal baggage associated with substitute that is fine with me. As in representative democracy, a representative is there "on our behalf". I'm following the advice of the excellent Jolly Jape in searching for language which does not light any of our blue touch papers.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Barnabas

God is just. But what we mean by just is not what God's justice means. There is a difference in meaning, and when we apply our human notions of justice to God, then we err, and God is not the way we portray him to be.

I see some mentioning God's justice as they speak against some people. If that was right, if God's justice could be held against some, then woe unto us all, because it would be held against us all. In my view, those people miss the point entirely, and the speak about a justice that is foreign to God.

Are you a fool, Andrew? Saint Isaac might have said. Do you not realize your own stubbornness and darkness and wickedness? How dare you call upon God's justice, when you yourself are The Sinner! Are you really that blind? And where exactly did you see that justice you speak of being enforced? When the Lord of Glory gets crucified? When the rain blesses the fields of both the wicked and the righteous? When the sun blesses us all? When the poor suffer and the rich enjoy their riches? When the innocent perish and the wicked flourish? Where does this justice you have in mind exist, besides your poor imagination?

Why do you speak of justice, the Saint might have said, when Christ proclaims mercy? Why don't you repent and accept the mercy he offers freely? Why don't you show mercy towards all, as the Lord showed and taught us to do?

Saint Nikolas Kavasilas is very right in what he says. At one point, in his work on Life in Christ, he says "if there is any virtue and justice in God, this is it, to give to everybody abundantly the goods that are in him, and the communion of blessedness."

It is in this sense that God's justice is to be understood. And not in human terms.

I didn't get frustrated because I don't like us discussing. On the contrary, I am grateful for our discussions, and you guys should know that I like you very much. It's more like this: We had a whole thread where I explained how I see Christ's cry on the cross (well, one of his cries, the one chanting the psalm), and I explained that I accept it as very literal and real.

And yet, I read here that Barnabas in accordance to Mark and Matthew takes it at face value, while I apparently aren't! I was disappointed to see that we haven't made progress. I just want it to be acknowledged that I accept as authoritative the same Scriptures you do. It's not a matter of verses, but a matter of interpretation.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Barnabas, forgive my approach on our dialog. I will try to change that, but it's not easy. Offer forgiveness and accept my apologies.

I found the part where St. Kabasilas spoke, metropolitan Kallistos quoted! It was hard to find! First I searched for vasil* trying to find that reference to King, and then, when I could not find it, I searched for dika*, trying to find the reference to justice. Couldn't find that either! Strange.

Then it occurred to me to search for fil*, for friend. And bang! I found it!

The verse bishop Kallistos translates as "more just than any Ruler" reads: "akrivesteron the tyrannon" which means "more precise than any turrant", and I think that tyrant can be translated as Ruler, but akriveia is not the same word with justice, dikaiosuni. Anyway, let's say it's the same. What does the passage say in context?

It's from Life in Christ, the fourth part, where he speaks about the divine communion, paragraph ninety five.

He speaks about Christ being sent by God to serve... and that the greatest thing here is that this does not only refer to the present world, where Christ was shown with human infirmity, and did not come to judge the world, but showed the servant's characteristics and hid all the characteristics of the Lord, but also to the world to come, when he will come in power, and he will be shown in the father's glory. He will wear his belt, and he will drop down and he will serve them, he through whom kings rule and rulers rule the earth.

This way he has taken the true and pure kingship and rule. "more affectionate than any friend, more just than any ruler, more loving than any father, more a part of us than our own limbs, more necessary to us than our own heart". For Him, to rule in fear or payment, that's no true rule.

Perhaps if anyone owns an English translation of the book might help us here, providing a longer translation. I hope my post helps a little.

[ 19. March 2008, 01:16: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Thank you Johnny.
Why was it necessary for Jesus to be fully human and fully God and why is that 'Godness' tied up with his death?

The issue as I see it, is that the authority of man to rule the earth, given to him by God, was ceded to Satan in the fall.

God's 'ownership' of creation being thus compromised, this precluded his direct intervention apart from staring again which would have meant destroying man. Instead he chose the path of redemption.

However, this necessitated a judicial wresting back of what Satan had persusded Adam to give him.
Paul waxes eloqent on this point in his many proofs that Christ, the Messiah, had to walk free from sin and offer himself as a sacrifice. Since no man could be found free from sin's taint to do this, God, in his loving providence became man himself, became sin himself, and did the job. In Christ and him alone we find the authority of man to rule, recaptured.

I guess in the end that a test of theology is whether it is practical. Can one walk free from guilt, sin, and even disease on the basis of one's atonement model?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
So I'm asking:

a) Why is this?
b) Why did the 'west' take the predominantly 'penal' line that it did?
c) Why are modern (conservative) evangelicals still so enamoured by a majority 'penal' explanation? Whence the Victor theme?

Okay, good questions. I'll think about them.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I would not be too quick to separate the cross from the resurrection - they are all part of the paschal event and all part of CV.

Now you're moving the goal posts.

I never said that we should separate the cross from the resurrection. My point was about trying to fit the different models together in a consistent and complementary manner.

You raised the 'folly' quote from Paul and I replied by drawing your attention to the fact that the 'folly' of which Paul spoke was specifically the death of Jesus and not the resurrection (in 1 Cor. 1).

i.e. It is essential that our atonement model has a 'death of Christ' component to it.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
However, this necessitated a judicial wresting back of what Satan had persusded Adam to give him.
Paul waxes eloqent on this point in his many proofs that Christ, the Messiah, had to walk free from sin and offer himself as a sacrifice. Since no man could be found free from sin's taint to do this, God, in his loving providence became man himself, became sin himself, and did the job. In Christ and him alone we find the authority of man to rule, recaptured.

Thanks - but you still haven't explained what it was about Jesus that meant that only he could do it, and only he could do it this particular way.

(Sorry about the triple post ... but it is hard to keep up with you guys down under.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Good to see you back, andreas. I accept your apology. Please accept my apologies and regrets in return. I had no intention of provoking you at all. My comment re Matthew and Mark was related to your comment re Metropolitan Kallistos, that his observation re the cry of dereliction did not quote from the Fathers. I know you are sensitive about any implication that you do not accept the scriptures and that we are indeed talking about interpretation. I am happy to accept that on this issue Kallistos Ware's interpretation of the scriptures is different to yours - and, incidentally, the same as mine. I do find his explanation of his interpretation simple and compelling - but then I suppose I would, wouldn't I.

I guess this means that you will not be able to weigh in the balance Kallistos' paradoxical pair of truths, because you see no paradox. Ah well. Perhaps you can see why he (and I) do see a paradox? Maybe that will have to do for now?

On justice. Thank you for your digging re St Nicolas. I've got no chance of commenting on the relative merits of translations, and actually I am quite happy to accept the word precise. Looking at the statue outside the Old Bailey in the UK, the sword, the blindfold and the scales all speak in their different ways of the ideal that the administration of human law and rule be precise, objective and fair. That ideal is presented as right, aimed at by the best practitioners, given lip service by the cynical, but not reached even in the best of human judicial practice, as any lawyer will tell you.

The word "precise" does raise the interesting question of the "imprecision" of earthly rulers, which St Nicolas uses here as a contrast, since God is more precise than they are. What are the effects of their imprecise earthly rule?

We wrestle with words of course. I think your illustration of the intention of St Isaac to encourage mercy is very fine, but the real conundrum for me is in your last para here.

quote:
Why do you speak of justice, the Saint might have said, when Christ proclaims mercy? Why don't you repent and accept the mercy he offers freely? Why don't you show mercy towards all, as the Lord showed and taught us to do?

I find lots of examples in the parables and teachings where the Lord explained mercy precisely, but in juridical settings. Perhaps the most arresting of all of these is his strong criticism of Pharisaic practice here in Matt 23.. He harks back of course to Micah 6 v 8.

"Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You give a tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy and faith. You should have practised the latter without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!"

Act justly, love mercy, walk humbly. The humble, faithful walk seems to involve the practice of justice and mercy. This is what the Lord requires of us according to Micah, and the absence of all three in the Pharisees leads to this powerful rebuke by Jesus.

So I'm not sure what to make of the message that we should set aside all human notions of justice because they are imperfect. All human notions of mercy are also imperfect. As are all human notions of faithfulness. We need Christ in us.

Coming from the ontological argument of Christ-likeness - and Richard Collins excellent "overlap" argument - as Christ is formed in us do we not need to learn truly what it means to be just, merciful and faithful, according to the unchangeable nature of God's justice, mercy and faithfulness? Is that not a more precise way of looking at this question?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Sorry, mixed up my metaphors - I meant Richard's "in between" argument.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Barnabus,

Thanks for the vote of confidence! (one does rather wear one's heart on their sleeve posting here and it's nice to know I'm not spouting nonsense!).

Is God 'Just'? hmmmm.....

If I say 'no' then others hear me saying God is 'unjust', but if I say 'yes' then I'm defining God...God IS such-and-such which I would want to be cautious about because God IS, well,....God! Yahweh is who He is and all things take their definition FROM Him without Him being defined by anything (if you get my drift?).

I think this is why I come back to the essence and energies way of thinking. As far as WE understand it God requires Justice (in every sense of the word) but so often our fallen humanity struggles to understand what 'justice' truly is. This is why Christ is so important, because he revealed (reveals) in the fullest way just what justice, and mercy, and love looks like. So when he says, 'turn the cheek', 'pray for those who persecute you', 'love your enemies' THEN we are starting to get a glimpse of what divine justice and love looks like. However this perspective feels at odds with our own instinctive sense of justice and 'fairness', where we seek retribution for wrongs and punishment for those who hurt us. This should be enough to send alarm bells ringing that perhaps, rather than allowing our sense of justice to be projected onto God, we should we allowing Christ's revelation of 'justice' to define our own thinking.

But not everyone has 'ears to hear', and so Sinful humans still 'need' (for the safety of humanity) some sort of containment.

I guess my concern is that Christians OF ALL HUMANS should be more 'on message' with what divine justice looks like and should be seeking to transform the world according to THIS revelation. By articulating atonement in terms of Christ 'satisfying' diving wrath, one is actually using the 'language' of the world to explain God which is the very thing we should be trying to 'overcome'.

Hence PENAL substitutionary atonement is actually NOT transformational in the way that, I believe, Christ intended for his Church.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Act justly, love mercy, walk humbly. The humble, faithful walk seems to involve the practice of justice and mercy. This is what the Lord requires of us according to Micah, and the absence of all three in the Pharisees leads to this powerful rebuke by Jesus.

So I'm not sure what to make of the message that we should set aside all human notions of justice because they are imperfect. All human notions of mercy are also imperfect. As are all human notions of faithfulness. We need Christ in us.

I agree with you here, Barnabas. But I guess that leads on to the question, "what is the nature of the justice towards which human notions of justice are pointing, and to what extent can they approach this divine justice?"

Firstly, I think that "justice" in a biblical sense, is a tent broad enough to encompass ideas other than the penal. I haven't done the word study, but my guess is that the overwhelming number of references to justice in the OT concern "doing righteously", that is, helping the poor, being hospitable to the alien, and so forth. This isn't so much a judicial view of justice, but rather a matter of identifying with the just nature of God. Like the parable of the workers in Matthew 20, it does seem that God is working to a paradigm which is significantly different to the "best" human model, so much so that we would be tempted to describe God's justice as "unjust" by worldly standards.

A further chunk of Old Testament references to justice could be described as "semi-penal". Here I am thinking about the vindication passages, where God is implored to rescue his peaple, and His judgement is called down upon their opressors. The reason I use the phrase "semi-penal" is because it is possible to view this as God executing judgement against the enemies of His people, but it is also possible to think of this as God executing judgement for His people. Is God's intent to punish "the nations" for their opposition to His people, or is the unpleasantness that happens to them the by-product, as it were, of the true intent of God to vindicate His chosen? Thus, in such references is justice necessarily penal? (Of course, there is then the question of whether the oppressing nations a type of the ungodly (ie, humans), or of the oppressing (spiritual) powers of sin and death.)

And, of course, we've got that verse Rom 3:25, which seems as close a definition of God's justice as we get, and furthermore sets a contrast between the human and the Divine point of view.

[ 19. March 2008, 10:17: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
As far as WE understand it God requires Justice (in every sense of the word) but so often our fallen humanity struggles to understand what 'justice' truly is. This is why Christ is so important, because he revealed (reveals) in the fullest way just what justice, and mercy, and love looks like. So when he says, 'turn the cheek', 'pray for those who persecute you', 'love your enemies' THEN we are starting to get a glimpse of what divine justice and love looks like. However this perspective feels at odds with our own instinctive sense of justice and 'fairness', where we seek retribution for wrongs and punishment for those who hurt us. This should be enough to send alarm bells ringing that perhaps, rather than allowing our sense of justice to be projected onto God, we should we allowing Christ's revelation of 'justice' to define our own thinking.

Cross posted with you, Richard. This is really excellent stuff. you've put in a few words what took me a few paragraphs, and with much more clarity! [Overused] [Overused]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thanks. Richard

I enjoyed the "diving" wrath typo! My reflections on the human images of justice did cause me to wonder whether human justice was indeed in some senses blindfold. But of course it is all mixed up here. The blindfold on the statue of justice has, I am pretty sure, a biblical basis. As Peter says in Acts 10, following the request from Cornelius "God is no respecter of persons (or as later translations have it) God does not show favouritism". That blindfold is intended as a warning against partiality.

Some of this actually does connect with the effects of the Fall. When we see goodness in human justice, we may have a view distorted by vengeance, but at least some of us have an inkling that human vengeance is wrong. So I accept very much your reluctance to do too much definition in this area! It's just that I'm pretty sure that not all of our inklings point in the wrong direction.

It is fascinating bringing up children. I well remember a conversation between my two sons which went as follows.

Younger: You must share!
Older: Why? Anyhow I don't want to.
Younger: Dad! He's not being fair! I share with him and he wont share with me!

A nice mixture of good and bad inklings there alright! So I think a purification of our understanding and practice which leads to a clearer, cleaner, purer take on both justice and mercy, seems pretty necessary! In the "inbetween" as you put it, we have stuff to learn, stuff to discard, ways to be and things to do.

I think for example that much of my aversion to the P in PSA is actually instinctive. I read about God's wrath in scripture, but I read a lot of other stuff as well. And I've thought about it a lot.

I have this "inkling" that PSA distorts a truth, even if it does approach something true. About three hundred posts ago Father Gregory implied that much really depended on how we understand hilaskomai, hilasterion, hilasmos (translated as propitiation). I think that is right.

On the other hand, I have this "inkling" that SA does not distort a truth. It is not complete without CV alongside it. And all of these models falls into disrepair unless embraced by the truths of the Incarnation and the Resurrection. I like your word representative. Jesus represents us in atonement. Odd how that word seems to sit somehow in between "substitutes for" and "identifies with". I'm still figuring that one out.

And here I am, a Christian for well over thirty years now, still talking about inklings! You'd think I'd know better by now. But I really don't. I'm with Kallistos all the way in his "safety in numbers" argument. I do know which atonement models speak most clearly to me. Not sure I've got the right to foreclose on the truth of any of the others for anyone else. So long as they don't become idols.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
So when he says, 'turn the cheek', 'pray for those who persecute you', 'love your enemies' THEN we are starting to get a glimpse of what divine justice and love looks like. However this perspective feels at odds with our own instinctive sense of justice and 'fairness', where we seek retribution for wrongs and punishment for those who hurt us. This should be enough to send alarm bells ringing that perhaps, rather than allowing our sense of justice to be projected onto God, we should we allowing Christ's revelation of 'justice' to define our own thinking.

At a human level there is no doubt that you are on to something. However, I still can't quite fit verses like Romans 12: 19 into this schema. Paul's ethic seems to be one of 'turning the other cheek' because we leave ultimate justice to God. Now what that justice is in any given instance we cannot know - so it may be forgiveness for all we know - but the point is that it is his justice.

There is something about vindication here. When Jesus says the 'first will be last and the last will be first', then (in some way) he has to reward the 'losers' and penalise (or whatever the opposite of reward is!?) the 'winners'. If he doesn't then it makes his statement meaningless... is this making any sense? [Paranoid]

If the penal element is completely removed from the atonement I'm wondering where the 'vindication' of God's way of living is?
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Thanks for that Barnabus, JJ and Johnny.

Johnny, you raise an interesting point. If I am hurt by someone and 'leave it to God' to vindicate me does this allow me to hope that they will be somehow 'punished' for their 'wrong' or should I actually beg God for their salvation and for him to show mercy? 'Forgive them for they know not what they do'?

I guess if it's a choice between my seeking vengence or 'leaving it to God' the latter is a better way. But the best way is surely to seek the restoration of the one causing me to pain?

This is truly a 'hard teaching' and I'm not saying that I follow it (heck, I'm fortunate if I get an inkling 1% of the time!), but I would suggest that God's 'vindication' is to work towards the restoration of the abuser, no?

However, I'm not an instinctive universalist. As much as I would have 'all men saved', I still believe in free will and the ability to choose to reject God which suggests that not all those who cause hurt (which includes me!) will allow God's restoration 'in'.

Again, I think pedagogy is important here. We all start at differing places and each have a personal journey to make, but IMHO finding the place where we allow our hurts and abuses to find their voice in 'forgive them for they know not what they do' is about the highest (and most pure) expression of the love, mercy and justice of God that I can imagine. Certainly it was the simple kindness of the earlier Christians even at the point of martyrdom which had such a transformational effect on the pagans.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If the penal element is completely removed from the atonement I'm wondering where the 'vindication' of God's way of living is?

I don't see that the penal element inherently either reinforces or contradicts God's vindication. If it is God's forgiveness and humility being vindicated (ie, that these are the characteristics wherein lie the most forceful manifestations of God's power, and that in sharing these values lies the way to Godly living), then a penal element would not be present.

[ 19. March 2008, 11:10: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:

I guess if it's a choice between my seeking vengence or 'leaving it to God' the latter is a better way. But the best way is surely to seek the restoration of the one causing me to pain?

Absolutely, I hope that my prayer would be your 'best way'.

quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:

However, I'm not an instinctive universalist. As much as I would have 'all men saved', I still believe in free will and the ability to choose to reject God which suggests that not all those who cause hurt (which includes me!) will allow God's restoration 'in'.

Precisely.

I'm not saying that our prayer should be, "let God sort them out later."

Surely our prayer is, "Lord, may they receive your mercy, forgiveness and restoration."

.
.
.

... but that still leaves what happens if they refuse to. [Frown] I'm not talking about revenge but about the vindication of God.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
If it is God's forgiveness and humility being vindicated (ie, that these are the characteristics wherein lie the most forceful manifestations of God's power, and that in sharing these values lies the way to Godly living), then a penal element would not be present.

[Confused] But what about those who refuse to accept his forgiveness and humility?

Those who continue to live in pride and bitterness are constantly demonstrating that Jesus was absolutely wrong - the first will always be first.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
... but that still leaves what happens if they refuse to. I'm not talking about revenge but about the vindication of God.
But surely, for God to bring about the transformation about which you speak would be the vindication of God. If His desire is that all should experience that transformation, then anything less than that would be an imperfect vindication.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... but that still leaves what happens if they refuse to. [Frown] I'm not talking about revenge but about the vindication of God.

Then they experience God as pain and suffering.

Lord have mercy on us all [Votive]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
If His desire is that all should experience that transformation, then anything less than that would be an imperfect vindication.

Only if you do not accept human free will at all.

I'm from a Reformed background so I think that complete freewill is an illusion, but I fully accept that some sense of freewill and volition is essential to our humanity.

I don't see how your comment above makes sense unless God completely over-rules our freewill in a way that not even 5 point Calvinists would consider.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
If it is God's forgiveness and humility being vindicated (ie, that these are the characteristics wherein lie the most forceful manifestations of God's power, and that in sharing these values lies the way to Godly living), then a penal element would not be present.

[Confused] But what about those who refuse to accept his forgiveness and humility?

Those who continue to live in pride and bitterness are constantly demonstrating that Jesus was absolutely wrong - the first will always be first.

Sorry, cross posted with you, John.

I suppose the Orthodox answer would be that in the new creation, the first cannot be first, and so they would continue to live in frustration, the River of Fire argument. For myself, I believe that God is able to square the circle of freewill vs determinism, that when the fallen nature is consumed by death, the resurrected nature will be able to see and apprehend what each one has longed for without knowing it, and respond gladly to the call of "welcome home". It would be a free choice, but that free choice would be to choose life. But I guess I'm transgressing my own embargo on the "U" word! [Hot and Hormonal]

[ 19. March 2008, 11:22: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Then they experience God as pain and suffering.

[Ultra confused] And how is that not punishment?


quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:

Lord have mercy on us all [Votive]

Christ have mercy.

[ 19. March 2008, 11:23: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Sorry, lots of X-posting here. [Hot and Hormonal]

Thanks JJ. I see how you square the circle ... even if it looks like U (shush! 'You know what') to me too!?
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
And how is that not punishment?

It is. But of the self-inflicted kind, which is what makes it so awful.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
It is. But of the self-inflicted kind, which is what makes it so awful.

I was with you, but this is where you lose me. It comes across like something out Civil Service speak. [Biased]

How is, "Repent and experience my forgiveness or you will experience pain and suffering" not like me saying to my children, "repent and experience my forgiveness or you will experience pain and suffering"? (of sorts ... I'm not that harsh with my kids [Eek!] )

I just can't see how you make it self-harming.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Perhaps you can see why he (and I) do see a paradox? Maybe that will have to do for now?

I can see why you see a paradox.

However, I don't see him seeing any paradox. After all, in lecture 2 he says that there is no separation between Christ and God the Father even when Christ says "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me". I think that he would have said so at that point if there was a paradox for him.

quote:
On justice. Thank you for your digging re St Nicolas.
No problem. What do you think about his definition of God's justice? If there is any virtue or justice in God, he says, this is it, to give to everybody abundantly the goods that are in him, and the communion of blessedness."

Isn't this very different than what you thought the quote from the Orthodox Way meant? Isn't this a different meaning of justice than what you were proposing? Which view does Saint Kabasilas seem to hold, the one I expressed in this thread concerning God's justice, or the one you had? I think it's worth clarifying what that Saint was saying.

quote:
"Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You give a tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy and faith. You should have practised the latter without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!"
I don't see that as "condemn those that are wicked, punish those that transgress" but as "give the widows their justice back, give the orphans their justice back" and so on.

We are to be just, in the sense that a) we are not to harm others to benefit ourselves and b) in the sense that we are to stand for other people's justice and give it back to them. Do justice has a very positive meaning, it does not have to do with condemnation and punishment.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
I think it's more like a Father saying to an alcoholic son, 'change your way of life or else this'll be the death of you'. The 'threat' is merely in the highlighting of consequences (which is how I suggested all 'law' functions). However I know enough about alcoholism both personally and professionally to also know that the person afflicted also requires almost a miraculous ontological change in nature to overcome this demon.

So this is Christ saying, 'you need to change your life, but you can only do this with the new life which I offer to you, do you believe?'.

Interestingly it was those most trapped by their own self-abusive behaviors (drunkards, thieves, prostitutes etc...) who responded.

These thoughts are coming to me as we discuss this topic, but I think you're right - we both believe in punishment, but my perspective leads me to see it as something we do to ourselves, whereas the PSA 'mindset' sees it as something God does to 'us'.

We have the same dots on the page but link them up differently.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
To put it differently, On That Day God will resurrect all and impart incorruptibility to all. What more is there for God to do? Nothing. But because some of us are self-centered, we will not let ourselves partake in God, and therefore, we will continue to be self-centered even then. Which state of being is described by the holy men as punishment.

Don't forget that we don't really know how the self centered will perceive their punishment. Mostly, it's from the holy men's perspective. And the holy men say that already some foretaste hell and some foretaste heaven. Already the holy men and women see people and weep over them for they live in darkness and wretchedness now.

What's possible for God to do to save all men, he will do. See why there is no punishment, no condemnation, no human justice in that?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Perhaps you can see why he (and I) do see a paradox? Maybe that will have to do for now?

I can see why you see a paradox.

However, I don't see him seeing any paradox. After all, in lecture 2 he says that there is no separation between Christ and God the Father even when Christ says "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me". I think that he would have said so at that point if there was a paradox for him.


I think that's a misread, andreas. If you look at my post here, he said both things in lecture 1 as well. "Now we may ask ourselves how could this be. We do not understand." He sees the paradox all right. I do not think he removes it by reiterating the union of Christ and the Father in lecture 2. That is not the full picture. Unless you wish to argue that he came to a different understanding between lecture 1 and lecture 2. Which seems unlikely.

I'm off out now and I'll comment more about the "justice means mercy" view of St Nicolas when I get back. A busy, buzzy morning.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
We don't know does not mean it's a paradox!

Anyway, I don't know what he means by that.

That said, I'd like to make a general comment:

I disagree with both the conservatives and the liberals in Western Christianity. I see the conservatives speaking of God's justice and our just punishment and the liberals reacting to that saying that God will, more or less, save us all eventually.

I think that both takes are mistaken and that they are based on a common ground. The common ground being that our salvation and our damnation depends on God alone. That God chooses to save or to damn, and that's a Big Mistake if you ask me.

The conservatives have a distorted image of God. The liberals have a distorted image of salvation.

While I would feel more comfortable among liberals, I don't think I would find salvation with either the liberals or the conservatives. Now, I'm not being combative here, I'm reflecting on myself. I see myself in Richard's terms. I feel the necessity of an ontological change, and I cannot find that in either conservatism or liberalism.

God does not punish, God does not condemn. Our God Is a Great God, Who Is Like Him? If he was to count inequities, who would be saved? And if he was to count inequities only for some but not for others, how is that not schizoid?

And if everybody is to be saved, how is that not superficial, how is that not overlooking the seriousness of human freedom, how is that not trivializing our lives here? This view is deeply problematic, and all the problems have been shown in the Origenistic controversies.

So, neither the one, nor the other. And a big no to the underlying basis for both these options.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
We don't know does not mean it's a paradox!

Anyway, I don't know what he means by that.


[Killing me] One of these years you might even admit I have a point!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:
On justice. Thank you for your digging re St Nicolas.
No problem. What do you think about his definition of God's justice? If there is any virtue or justice in God, he says, this is it, to give to everybody abundantly the goods that are in him, and the communion of blessedness."

Isn't this very different than what you thought the quote from the Orthodox Way meant? Isn't this a different meaning of justice than what you were proposing? Which view does Saint Kabasilas seem to hold, the one I expressed in this thread concerning God's justice, or the one you had? I think it's worth clarifying what that Saint was saying.


You have a point! Given that your quotes are representative of his total view, St Nicolas's view on justice is different to that one would get from reading the quotation in "The Orthodox Way".
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Thank you [Yipee]

Saint Nikolas Kabasilas is a very important Saint to me. His work is simply amazing, and in it I can see authentic Orthodoxy. He is part of a Byzantine Renaissance that unfortunately was disrupted by the fall of the Kingdom. I recommend highly his books. Much greatness is found in them. And they are short. I think there are English translations available for Life in Christ, and his explanation On the Liturgy. I like very much his speeches on Panagia as well. Hm... Perhaps I should read his Life in Christ from the original during Lent!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Yes, there are other brief quotes from him in the Orthodox Way that made me think he would be worth reading. Thanks for the recommendation, andreas. It doesn't look as though there is anything on line so it's the local library for me (first of all).
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
If only you knew Greek. There is a wealth of information available online in Greek!

I think I have spotted those two books, English translations, in amazon.co.uk, but the local library sounds better to me!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:

Johnny, you raise an interesting point. If I am hurt by someone and 'leave it to God' to vindicate me does this allow me to hope that they will be somehow 'punished' for their 'wrong' or should I actually beg God for their salvation and for him to show mercy? 'Forgive them for they know not what they do'?

I guess if it's a choice between my seeking vengence or 'leaving it to God' the latter is a better way. But the best way is surely to seek the restoration of the one causing me to pain?

This is truly a 'hard teaching' and I'm not saying that I follow it (heck, I'm fortunate if I get an inkling 1% of the time!), but I would suggest that God's 'vindication' is to work towards the restoration of the abuser, no?


I think this is a hugely important issue for the whole justice/mercy/love discussion. For sure they interrelate at the point of human response to being wronged.

I was having lunch with a (very nonconformist) friend today and we got to talking about this issue. He told me a story he had read about Christ leading out of a room deep, deep deep in the place of torment a man with a small moustache.

That made both of us wince. The principle of restoration, rehabilitation, of the offenders can be very costly for those who have suffered. We agreed together that the One who became the Suffering Servant for us was the One to be trusted to judge. I get to a place of relinquishment on this when I think of the Creed. This line.

quote:
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

Earlier, in an exchange with Myrrh, I observed that if the Fathers had wanted us to believe that justice and mercy were synonymous with love, they would have worded the creed differently. This way

quote:
He will come again in glory to have infinite mercy on the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

Maybe they were wise not to do that? Maybe we should not after all second guess them, no matter how much we rightly see that God is, at His heart, Love?
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Barnabas,

Certainly Christ judges, but we announce our own sentence.

As someone else said above it's the difference between those who will say to Christ 'thy will be done' and those to whom Christ will say 'thy will be done'.

Re: Hitler, if Christ can weep for the loss of this human (and God alone knows what happened between both of them in the final hours) then the 'hard teaching' is that we should too. No one is beyond forgiveness if they turn to Christ.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Barnabas,

Certainly Christ judges, but we announce our own sentence.

As someone else said above it's the difference between those who will say to Christ 'thy will be done' and those to whom Christ will say 'thy will be done'.

That "somebody" was of course me! It is a most helpful picture from C S Lewis, but it is only a picture. I'm with Kallistos Ware at the end of Oxford Railway station again. "Theologians, do not proceed beyond this point. Penalty, a long time of purification in the next life". Why not be simple and submit to the judgment of Christ the judge? Why is it necessary to know more than the Creed tells us? Do we really know anything more than that?

quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:

Re: Hitler, if Christ can weep for the loss of this human (and God alone knows what happened between both of them in the final hours) then the 'hard teaching' is that we should too. No one is beyond forgiveness if they turn to Christ.

I do agree with you. The deathbed conversion of Hitler, if it occurred, would be good news and give rise to joy among the angels in heaven. I'm not an elder brother, a ghost at such a feast. But that's not the only option.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Why not be simple and submit to the judgment of Christ the judge? Why is it necessary to know more than the Creed tells us? Do we really know anything more than that?

Barnabas

There are some people who say that God will judge the people, and they usually imply that God will judge all the others but them, all those they have a problem with but them.

God is just, and he will judge the gay, the liberal, the lady that took a place in the line before me, the lazy beggar that is bugging me for a few coins, the neighbor next door that cheats on his wife, Hitler, Satan, Catholics, and that heathen the Dalai Lama.

I repeat:

Si iniquitates observaveris, Domine; Domine, quis sustinebit?

It's a simple question Barnabas. We do not have the luxury of speaking of God judging, and sleeping safely thinking we will be among those that will be saved.

This is a huge barrier to a healthy spiritual life. If I think, even if I don't say so, that you will be deemed OK by the Judge, I have not even made the first step in my spiritual life, I have not yet made the first step towards God. No, I'm sleeping, deceiving myself and depriving myself of fellowship with Jesus Christ.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Why not be simple and submit to the judgment of Christ the judge? Why is it necessary to know more than the Creed tells us? Do we really know anything more than that?

Barnabas

There are some people who say that God will judge the people, and they usually imply that God will judge all the others but them, all those they have a problem with but them.


I'm not one of those. I'm told by my Lord not to be one of those. So far as your question is concerned, the Psalmist who asked it answered it for all of us.

Psalm 130
A song of ascents.

1 Out of the depths I cry to you, O LORD;

2 O Lord, hear my voice.
Let your ears be attentive
to my cry for mercy.

3 If you, O LORD, kept a record of sins,
O Lord, who could stand?

4 But with you there is forgiveness;
therefore you are feared.

5 I wait for the LORD, my soul waits,
and in his word I put my hope.

6 My soul waits for the Lord
more than watchmen wait for the morning,
more than watchmen wait for the morning.

7 O Israel, put your hope in the LORD,
for with the LORD is unfailing love
and with him is full redemption.

8 He himself will redeem Israel
from all their sins.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
If there is forgiveness, then why would Christ condemn some? How can you condemn those whom you have forgiven?

I think I have to elaborate a bit... The fathers were very right in the was they shaped the credo... because Christianity is about us repenting and getting saved (yes, actual salvation, not the conviction of salvation when there is no real salvation) in Jesus Christ. Christianity knows better than Universalism. This is why it is very critical that we do not give the wrong impression, that we don't teach that anything goes.

But this does not mean that Christ will actually observe sins. No, it doesn't mean that at all. That would be a false dilemma!

[ 19. March 2008, 20:05: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
If there is forgiveness, then why would Christ condemn some? How can you condemn those whom you have forgiven?


Well, I don't know. Oxford Railway station? It's still "judge" in the Creed, whatever we say.

Sorry andreas, I feel that is not very helpful, but it is pretty much all I've got. Eschatological theology is a fragile plant in any case, and definitely not my strong point.

Anyway, it has been good to have these exchanges today and I'm grateful for the heads up on St Nicolas. Every day there is a new mercy.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
I think it's more like a Father saying to an alcoholic son, 'change your way of life or else this'll be the death of you'. The 'threat' is merely in the highlighting of consequences (which is how I suggested all 'law' functions). However I know enough about alcoholism both personally and professionally to also know that the person afflicted also requires almost a miraculous ontological change in nature to overcome this demon.

How true.

And self-harmers often hurt themselves because they think that it will give them release.

We are both agreed on this miraculous ontological change that is necessary - it is other aspects of the atonement that are under discussion here.


quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
These thoughts are coming to me as we discuss this topic, but I think you're right - we both believe in punishment, but my perspective leads me to see it as something we do to ourselves, whereas the PSA 'mindset' sees it as something God does to 'us'.

We have the same dots on the page but link them up differently.

I can see that now. I'm just struggling to see whether or not it is possible to join them up your way, or whether there is a dot conveniently missed out.

As I've said before, I frequently point out to my children that if they choose to disobey they are, in effect, choosing their own punishment. It is not about me wanting to punish them, it is about them bringing down the consequences of their actions upon themselves... however, they are also old enough and smart enough to realise that this is only so because their parents have 'created their world' this way!?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
However, this necessitated a judicial wresting back of what Satan had persusded Adam to give him.
Paul waxes eloqent on this point in his many proofs that Christ, the Messiah, had to walk free from sin and offer himself as a sacrifice. Since no man could be found free from sin's taint to do this, God, in his loving providence became man himself, became sin himself, and did the job. In Christ and him alone we find the authority of man to rule, recaptured.

Thanks - but you still haven't explained what it was about Jesus that meant that only he could do it, and only he could do it this particular way.

(Sorry about the triple post ... but it is hard to keep up with you guys down under.)

What about the wisdom of God is foolishness to man argument?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I was having lunch with a (very nonconformist) friend today and we got to talking about this issue. He told me a story he had read about Christ leading out of a room deep, deep deep in the place of torment a man with a small moustache.

That made both of us wince. The principle of restoration, rehabilitation, of the offenders can be very costly for those who have suffered. We agreed together that the One who became the Suffering Servant for us was the One to be trusted to judge. I get to a place of relinquishment on this when I think of the Creed. This line.

quote:
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

Earlier, in an exchange with Myrrh, I observed that if the Fathers had wanted us to believe that justice and mercy were synonymous with love, they would have worded the creed differently. This way

quote:
He will come again in glory to have infinite mercy on the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

Maybe they were wise not to do that? Maybe we should not after all second guess them, no matter how much we rightly see that God is, at His heart, Love?

Thank God it's Christ's judgement ... [Smile]

Our instruction from Him is to be perfect as God is perfect; to love perfectly, to have infinite mercy, to forgive, to bless those who oppose us.

I can't see any reason to think Christ would change his mind about this..

..and this, as Andreas is getting very frustrated saying, is how the 'fathers' who are Orthodox in this understood and taught it.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Good to see you back, andreas. ....
We wrestle with words of course. I think your illustration of the intention of St Isaac to encourage mercy is very fine, but the real conundrum for me is in your last para here.

quote:
Why do you speak of justice, the Saint might have said, when Christ proclaims mercy? Why don't you repent and accept the mercy he offers freely? Why don't you show mercy towards all, as the Lord showed and taught us to do?

I find lots of examples in the parables and teachings where the Lord explained mercy precisely, but in juridical settings. Perhaps the most arresting of all of these is his strong criticism of Pharisaic practice here in Matt 23.. He harks back of course to Micah 6 v 8.

"Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You give a tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy and faith. You should have practised the latter without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!"

Act justly, love mercy, walk humbly. The humble, faithful walk seems to involve the practice of justice and mercy. This is what the Lord requires of us according to Micah, and the absence of all three in the Pharisees leads to this powerful rebuke by Jesus.

So I'm not sure what to make of the message that we should set aside all human notions of justice because they are imperfect. All human notions of mercy are also imperfect. As are all human notions of faithfulness. We need Christ in us.

You argue by quoting Micah and get juridical, how have you missed out mercy? It comes between acting justly and walking humbly.

What did Micah mean by 'acting justly'? The power to judge others and condemn them to punishment? Where is there mercy in that? Or does he mean for each himself to act justly, according to the Law? What is the Law of God? A courtroom where punishment is meted out or a guide on how to live decently and honourably?

Let me give an example of how the Jews interpret the Law in their 613 mitzvot within the Ten Categories:
quote:
(The Ten Thingies)

The mitzvah not to stand aside while a person's life is in danger fits somewhat obviously into the category against murder. It is not particularly obvious, however, that the mitzvah not to embarrass a person fits within the category against murder: it causes the blood to drain from your face thereby shedding blood.

What Christ complained about when arguing with the Pharisees is that they had removed themselves so far from God's Law in their man-made doctrines that keeping their laws broke the very commandments which God had given, and they saw no contradiction.

Christ taught that if we were to enter into life we should keep the Commandments - He didn't teach us to impose the Commandments on others or to judge others; He taught us to practice mercy and forgiveness, to the nth degree. He practiced what He preached, that's the Victory of the Cross, "Father forgive them.."

The best of Jewish laws in society is compensatory, no more than what is lost by the hurt, e.g. no more than the value of an 'eye for an eye', (but here I think the Irish Brehon Laws were better developed, the Jews ended up mixing in religious laws and sitting in judgement over, as our criminal laws, rather than sitting in judgement between two equal protagonists.)



quote:
Coming from the ontological argument of Christ-likeness - and Richard Collins excellent "overlap" argument - as Christ is formed in us do we not need to learn truly what it means to be just, merciful and faithful, according to the unchangeable nature of God's justice, mercy and faithfulness? Is that not a more precise way of looking at this question?
Well I have to agree here, Christ taught to judge, to discriminate - to tell the difference between good and evil - and he taught us how best to deal with the evil we find; for ourselves repentance, for others, forgiveness and mercy.


Myrrh

[ 20. March 2008, 01:42: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What about the wisdom of God is foolishness to man argument?

Sure, and ultimately we all fall back on this.

However, this thread is about discussing atonement models and if you are going to construct a model then I don't think this response is valid at this point.

[i.e. either say that the atonement is a mystery and be done with it, or (however much admitting to our own fallibility) try to construct a consistent model.]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What about the wisdom of God is foolishness to man argument?

Sure, and ultimately we all fall back on this.

However, this thread is about discussing atonement models and if you are going to construct a model then I don't think this response is valid at this point.

[i.e. either say that the atonement is a mystery and be done with it, or (however much admitting to our own fallibility) try to construct a consistent model.]

In the beginning was the word...and God raised him from the death he submitted to after he entered the human race. What other proof do you need he was special?

PSA is flawlessly consistent, scriptural and workable. Unfortunately, it is also offensive to some. How surprising is that to anyone?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
You argue by quoting Micah and get juridical, how have you missed out mercy? It comes between acting justly and walking humbly.

Myrrh, I regret it if my words left that impression. My intention was different - to point to the use of juridical illustrations in the teachings of Jesus. I think what I'm trying to do, inter alia, is to explore ontological/juridical differences between us in our respective theological understandings.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Coming from the ontological argument of Christ-likeness - and Richard Collins excellent "overlap" argument - as Christ is formed in us do we not need to learn truly what it means to be just, merciful and faithful, according to the unchangeable nature of God's justice, mercy and faithfulness? Is that not a more precise way of looking at this question?

Well I have to agree here, Christ taught to judge, to discriminate - to tell the difference between good and evil - and he taught us how best to deal with the evil we find; for ourselves repentance, for others, forgiveness and mercy.

I'm really happy about that. My argument was intended to support those conclusions - sorry if it got in the way instead. I''m glad we agree.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Thank God it's Christ's judgement ... [Smile]

Amen

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

Our instruction from Him is to be perfect as God is perfect; to love perfectly, to have infinite mercy, to forgive, to bless those who oppose us.

I can't see any reason to think Christ would change his mind about this..

..and this, as Andreas is getting very frustrated saying, is how the 'fathers' who are Orthodox in this understood and taught it.

Myrrh

Amen - ish! Flip to p11 of The Orthodox Way and read, in the sayings of the Desert Fathers, the "I do not know" of Abbe Joseph. The Suffering Servant Saviour returns as Judge and every knee will bow. How does that work out?

Earlier, I quoted the whole of Psalm 130. I also love its immediate companion.

quote:
Psalm 131
A song of ascents. Of David.
1 My heart is not proud, O LORD,
my eyes are not haughty;
I do not concern myself with great matters
or things too wonderful for me.

2 But I have stilled and quieted my soul;
like a weaned child with its mother,
like a weaned child is my soul within me.

3 O Israel, put your hope in the LORD
both now and forevermore.

Basically, I cannot fully integrate the teachings on how we should live with the teachings of last things. By all means let us try. But I am not really sure that anyone can safely do that without using pictures and forms which may push us towards error as well as illuminate further.

But I will put my hope in the Lord, both now and forevermore. That really is good enough for me. I guess that is my child's guide to life and eschatology, after close to 35 years on the journey. I hope to be growing up to be a child.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What other proof do you need he was special?

PSA is flawlessly consistent, scriptural and workable. Unfortunately, it is also offensive to some. How surprising is that to anyone?

Hey, I'm agreeing with you (about PSA anyway [Big Grin] )

To put it crudely only the perfect son of God can cancel out the sins of the world. However, the case needs to be made to show how this all fits into the atonement model.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Johnny S

Well, it's Maunday Thursday so in response to your recent posts, I thought I'd offer you Bishop Tom Wright's sermon from Maunday Thursday at Durham Cathedral last year. He says some challenging things about wrath, love and atonement models, and the foolishness of the cross.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

Our instruction from Him is to be perfect as God is perfect; to love perfectly, to have infinite mercy, to forgive, to bless those who oppose us.

I can't see any reason to think Christ would change his mind about this..

..and this, as Andreas is getting very frustrated saying, is how the 'fathers' who are Orthodox in this understood and taught it.

Myrrh

Amen - ish! Flip to p11 of The Orthodox Way and read, in the sayings of the Desert Fathers, the "I do not know" of Abbe Joseph. The Suffering Servant Saviour returns as Judge and every knee will bow. How does that work out?

We're back to how we individually experience God's love and mercy, as St Symeon the New Theologian (scroll on to page 17) or as enemy? God doesn't change.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I thought I'd offer you Bishop Tom Wright's sermon from Maunday Thursday at Durham Cathedral last year.

As you'd expect from Tom some great stuff here. I was rather surprised that he could only remember one half of the most famous verse in the Bible though.

Still, it is a bit much to expect a Bishop to recall the whole of John 3: 16 isn't it? [Biased]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
We're back to how we individually experience God's love and mercy, as St Symeon the New Theologian (scroll on to page 17) or as enemy? God doesn't change.

Myrrh

"See from this time onward you shall be my brother, my fellow heir and my friend". In our Calendar it is Maunday Thursday. I am very happy to leave our discussion at this point, with those words of faithful promise to someone who sought with his whole heart and was found. Thanks, Myrrh.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
PSA is flawlessly consistent, scriptural and workable.

It's not scriptural. If it was scriptural, it would be true, and the Orthodox Church would have no problem with it. The whole problem is that it is not scriptural. To take the letter of the Scriptures and then use philosophical methods to speculate on things Christian is not in accordance with the spirit of the Scriptures.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Amen - ish! Flip to p11 of The Orthodox Way and read, in the sayings of the Desert Fathers, the "I do not know" of Abbe Joseph.

You sure say quite a lot about God's Judgment and Justice for someone that does not know what the Scriptures mean [Razz]

quote:
The Suffering Servant Saviour returns as Judge and every knee will bow. How does that work out?
Remember St. Nikolas Kabasilas... The Suffering Servant remains the Suffering Servant... He does not change. He will wear his belt, bow down, and serve us even then!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

You sure say quite a lot about God's Judgment and Justice for someone that does not know what the Scriptures mean [Razz]

I don't know what some of the scriptures mean, andreas. An admission of particular ignorance is not an admission of total ignorance.

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The Suffering Servant Saviour returns as Judge and every knee will bow. How does that work out?

Remember St. Nikolas Kabasilas... The Suffering Servant remains the Suffering Servant... He does not change. He will wear his belt, bow down, and serve us even then!
Interesting. How do you interpret Phil 2:9-10 and Romans 14:9 and Rev 5:11-14?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I read the verses you mentioned. I think there is a problem here in whether Lordship comes with Power or with Powerlessness. Myrrh has been quite vocal about it for ages. Human lordship comes with power, but Divine Lordship comes with Powerlessness. Not like the princes and the kings of men...

I can't but think that for some the suffering servant is not enough. He *must* take Power eventually for him to be truly King... What he rejected while he was on earth, he must accept at some point.

No. This is who he is. Period. If things were different, he wouldn't be who he is, he wouldn't be the true God who is worthy of all honor, glory and worship.

Let me quote something from Cassiel's blog.

She writes about Forgiveness Vespers:

quote:
On reaching the front of the line, like everyone else, I made a prostration to my priest and he did likewise. This is not a bow, not even a profound bow, but a position with your knees and forehead on the floor. It is extremely humbling to find yourself in a full prostration, head-to-head with an Orthodox priest.

What can you say at that point? He asked my forgiveness and I asked his, though I could think of nothing specific he had done – in fact, that was true for all four priests. But as this first one, my spiritual father, told us in catechism on Thursday night, there is a sense in which each of us has failed simply by not being the person God designed us to be. All fallen, unless we are deified we sin – we miss the mark, and in doing so we fail each other as well as God. I have never been so conscious of all my failing as I am here, though strangely this doesn’t really result in the kind of serious low self-esteem one might expect. Yes, low self-esteem in a sense: how could I esteem myself less than when I realize that I fail so consistently to meet the mark God created me to reach? I feel it even more deeply when I realize how that affects other people, whether I realize it or not.

It is extremely humbling to find yourself in a full prostration, head-to-head with an Orthodox priest.

Imagine how humbling it is to find yourself in the presence of Jesus Christ, who, fixing his belt so that his clothes won't get in the way, bows down to serve you. Horror. Peter, before the Pentecost, was unable to let Him do that. You? The Teacher? The Lord? Yet what did Christ reply? Yes, I, the Teacher, the Lord. And if I do it, you are to do it as well.

Imagine Peter after the Pentecost, finding Jesus Christ once again willing to serve him. Now he knows, now he understands. What will he do? Wont he bow down as well to serve his Lord and Teacher and his fellow servants? Won't every knee bow down? Not because of power. Far be it from God to want such prostrations. But because of powerlessness. This is why the gospel is foolishness to the Gentiles and scandal to the Jews. Because the God of the Gospel if the All-Powerless One, the All-Loving One, the All-Merciful One, the Humble Servant, and not like the powerful kings we want for rulers.

Every knee shall bow. But not because of power.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
This was news to me, andreas. So do you think words like Omnipotent and Almighty are wrong to apply to God?

You have to remember I'm a nonconformist. We don't have much time for earthy potentates, indeed one of our predecessors had much to do with unseating a King of England. But we've never had any problems for example in singing hymns such as "Crown Him with Many Crowns". You know, the one with the last verse which goes like this.

"Crown Him the Lord of Years
The Potentate of Time"

It seems true that the signs of the Suffering Servant will certainly be visible eternally. We sing from the same hymn

"Those wounds yet visible above
In beauty glorified".

And of course, in Handel's Messiah, there is the wonderful final chorus based on these scriptures from Rev 5

"Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. Blessing and honour, glory and power be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne and to the Lamb for ever and ever Amen".

I don't know enough about your hymnody and sacred music, but such themes are threaded ubiquitously through church music in our tradition. Which as I say is wary of earthly potentates. (And is also in general quite hot on church leaders being servant leaders, following Christ.)

Thank you for explaining these things. I hope our nonconformist tendency to thumb the nose at the earthly powerful and only bow the knee to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords doesn't come across as too schizoid?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
It's like what Richard was saying before... To say "Do not call God just" does not mean that God is unjust, or that it is OK for others to say I think "God is not just"...

God is omnipotent and almighty. But how are we to understand those words? Is God an arrogant almighty or a humble almighty? You will agree that he is humble. How humble? Will he not lose his temper at some point? No, he wont. He is so humble that he lets humans to crucify him, and when they do, not only he does not regard the deed, but he blesses them on top of that!

He is so humble that he does not ask for worship. He does not create us so that we are his servants, but so that we will be his friends. He wants us to be his friends. He is in love with us.

And because he is who he is, we become humble when we realize his humility. We want to love him back when we realize his love. Let us love him because he loved us first.

He is King. That's for sure. But not the kind of king the Jews expected or modern pop culture assumes he is.

One more thing, on Judgment. It is crucial that we have Judgment before our eyes, not because he will punish us, but because we can turn out incapable of partaking in him.

[ 20. March 2008, 17:04: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thanks andreas - I get it now. There is a modern song we sing, entitled Humble King, which expresses these things.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jamat:
[qb]PSA is flawlessly consistent, scriptural and workable.

It's not scriptural. If it was scriptural, it would be true, and the Orthodox Church would have no problem with it. The whole problem is that it is not scriptural. To take the letter of the Scriptures and then use philosophical methods to speculate on things Christian is not in accordance with the spirit of the Scriptures.
I take it you have read the entire thread?

So I'll just say one thing.

It is not the Orthodox church that determines how scripture must be interpreted. It is the Holy Spirit, who, when last I looked, indwells every believer, not a monolithic institution or any denominational gropup for that matter.

It is Easter. Consider that Christ, our passover, was sacrificed for us.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Jamat

I don't accept the dichotomy, the dilemma, between "all believers" and "monolithic organization". For me, it's not an issue of "I choose to believe in God, and this means that the Holy Spirit comes and inspires me". The Holy Spirit is not given to me because I wish so. The acquisition of the Holy Spirit is a goal, not a given.

So, I will repeat what I said. If it's scriptural, it's true. I don't accept it because it is not scriptural, and not because "I'm offended by it".

I'm not saying that all Orthodox are led by the Holy Spirit, while none non-Orthodox is. I am saying, however, that for the Orthodox Church, what you wrote "it's scriptural but some find it offensive" is not even on the table. That's no option for the Orthodox Church.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Having come back from a Good Friday service - all I can say is how awesome and amazing the cross is.

Another 10,000 posts on this thread could never do it justice! (er... or is that 'do it love'? [Hot and Hormonal] )
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
[
quote:
QUOTE]Originally posted by andreas1984:
[qb] Dear Jamat

I don't accept the dichotomy, the dilemma, between "all believers" and "monolithic organization". For me, it's not an issue of "I choose to believe in God, and this means that the Holy Spirit comes and inspires me". The Holy Spirit is not given to me because I wish so. The acquisition of the Holy Spirit is a goal, not a given.

Thank you for your comment. You are obviously a sincere and committed Christian. My point is that there is life outside the Orthodox fishbowl. As a born Catholic and converted Pentecostal, I understandably am not inside your mind set. However, I do know Christ died for my sins and I no longer have to bear them. Thus, my understanding of the atonement is experiential not merely theoretical.

Regarding the Holy Spirit, He was given on the day of Pentecost. He is to therefore be obeyed and enjoyed, not attained to.

[ 21. March 2008, 05:51: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Having come back from a Good Friday service - all I can say is how awesome and amazing the cross is.

Another 10,000 posts on this thread could never do it justice! (er... or is that 'do it love'? [Hot and Hormonal] )

I have very similar thoughts this morning, following a late-ish night and very moving Maunday Thursday service. "Lost in wonder, love and praise."

We have daily services of worship during Holy week, and I'll be going to another today.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
I think it's more like a Father saying to an alcoholic son, 'change your way of life or else this'll be the death of you'. The 'threat' is merely in the highlighting of consequences (which is how I suggested all 'law' functions). However I know enough about alcoholism both personally and professionally to also know that the person afflicted also requires almost a miraculous ontological change in nature to overcome this demon.

The difference is that alcoholism is not the son's experience of the father - it is simply the son's experience of his own behaviour. The implication, I suppose, might be that the son cannot then stand the presence of his father because of the son's alcoholism - but this seems to be a minor contributor to his suffering.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I think that it was father Gregory who said that hell won't be their perception of God, but their own brokenness while they perceive the goodness they cannot partake in...

To speak in terms of Richard's illustration, imagine that broken man being given his father's palace. He will still be broken despite living in the palace with his father. He will be living there, but he wont be partaking in what his father makes available for him. His hell will be his own brokenness.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

To speak in terms of Richard's illustration, imagine that broken man being given his father's palace. He will still be broken despite living in the palace with his father. He will be living there, but he wont be partaking in what his father makes available for him. His hell will be his own brokenness.

You are stretching the illustration way too far here.

I can think of several people whom I love but are now dead. My relationship with them is now, at best 'latent', and I miss them, but I wouldn't describe it as 'hell'.

Therefore there must be something more than just a refusal to enter into the relationship with the Father. Even your illustration speaks of privation which means an active punishment and not just letting him be.

You are wriggling in your attempt to make words mean what they do not mean. There is some elasticity here but you are stretching them beyond breaking point.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Johnny

Much of andreas' thinking re the next life is explained if you read River of Fire, from which andreas gave some extracts earlier.

I didn't like its polemic. The Augustinian argument has been done to death on these boards and it as as misleading as all partial truths are. We believe that God is good.

I'm gradually getting a handle on this. The hinge pin for River of Fire appears to be the quotations from the Fathers. But if you look at it closely, a very great deal depends on the understanding of the impassibility of God.

There is a clue in there in the assertion that the Eastern Orthodox are the true inheritors of Israelitic thought. A somewhat unconvincing and circular argument. In order for that to be true, the Israelitic thoughts expressed throughout the OT, of a God who is faithful in His wrath as well as His love, need to be washed. Oh, I have no doubt that one can find reformist thoughts along these lines which might be prayed in aid. But there is a lot of the other to be found as well. God in the OT is not pictured as impassible. That is not the way He comes across to me.

Actually, I incline to the view that there are a number of distinctive pictures of God in the OT, but it's hard to see impassibility in any of them unless you decide to place particular emphases on some texts to the exclusion of others. The beautiful Servant of the Lord passages talk of a God who is "burdened with their sins and wearied with their offences" (Isaiah 43:24). How is that impassible in the sense argued in River of Fire?

So I think the real clue is to found in the outworking of the impassibility of God. God is the same, yesterday, today and forever. He does not change. He is good. These ideas are welded with a particular understanding of impassibility to produce an understanding of God within which it is impossible for there to be wrath in Him.

At its heart, this is the assertion. And of course one needs to have an interpretation of last things which fits that assertion. The result is what we see. It is consistent. But it is a picture which, if examined in detail, produces all the problems of pictures pushed too far which Tom Wright and Kallistos Ware point out in their considerations of the Cross. All models are small imperfect versions of the Real Thing. Which will be a judgment, if the Creed means anything at all. Not a self-judgment. An active judgment of all by the highly exalted Suffering Servant.

It seems good to me at this point to repeat this hymn from the Orthodox Holy Saturday liturgy

"Let all mortal flesh keep silence
and with fear and trembling stand;
ponder nothing earthly-minded,
for with blessing in his hand
Christ our God to earth descendeth,
our full homage to demand."

"Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." Psalm 85:10

Tomorrow, we will cry out in our millions.

"Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again!"

Today I will think of these things in silence. Tomorrow I will shout with joy for and to the whole world around me!
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
To speak in terms of Richard's illustration, imagine that broken man being given his father's palace. He will still be broken despite living in the palace with his father. He will be living there, but he wont be partaking in what his father makes available for him. His hell will be his own brokenness.

But that still seems different to experiencing his Father's presence as hell. His father's presence in the illustration just doesn't help - but it isn't a cause of suffering in that man.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Johnny

Much of andreas' thinking re the next life is explained if you read River of Fire, from which andreas gave some extracts earlier.

Yep, I'm out of my depth here - some Orthodox shipmates have warned me off this as incompatible with Easter Orthodoxy - I don't know much about it. All a brief google turned up for me was that River of Fire is:

a) Contraversial in Orthodox circles.
b) very popular among Protestants converting to EO.

What conclusion one might want to draw from these two observations I shouldn't like to say. [Biased]

[ 22. March 2008, 10:44: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
While I trust my typo above is obvious to all, I must say that it has a seasonal / liturgical appropriateness to it. [Hot and Hormonal]

[ 22. March 2008, 10:47: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
From my experience of self-abusive people the presence of pure love and kindness tends to increase the self-torment the person experiences. Their abuse, not only to themselves, but to others also intensifies. Darkness really can not abide the Light and squirms in the presence of it.

This is why such people need an ontological change, something which allows them to receive love and healing. They can't achieve that my mere force of moral will, nor can anyone impose such a change on them (which is one of the things that breaks my heart the most as a GP, relatives come begging for help but often the person concerned is wholly unable to receive such help).

I guess it's been my life exposure to such complexities of human self delusion and abuse that resonated so strongly with me when I started to read Orthodox theology concerning human sinfulness and God's atonement.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
mdijon,

Yes it is!

God will restore all. But some are selfless and some are self-centered. When the selfless are restored they will partake in God who is also selfless. When the self-centered are restored, they will remain self-centered, which is their hell, and they will nor partake in God, who is the salvation of all.

Dear Barnabas.

a) you are making more of the river of fire than I intended to convey. It's good in so far it contains what the fathers wrote. It's not good in so far it has some rough points that stem from a peculiar ecclesiology (as Leetle Masha tried to say).

b) You are making the same mistake you accuse the Orthodox of making. You read the Old Testament thinking it speaks of a certain kind of God, and you see that all over the place. The problem is your assumption of how we are to read the Old Testament, and that assumption is far from being a given.

In other words, you think you can understand the Scriptures on your own, a big mistake that ancient abba you mentioned earlier did not make. You think that the Scriptures explain themselves. But is this the case?

Perhaps we should discuss about whether God changes or not. Like all good modern people, you imply that that's a Greek philosophical thought the Orthodox Christians took from the philosophers, only to change the pure ancient faith. Dan Brown-ism is more widespread than one would have though. Even among non-conformists [Razz]

If I may make a suggestion, I suggest reading the Divine Names*, by Saint Dionysius the Areopagite. One will need to read them many times. And then, read the five keys to the bible by father Johne Romanides, here. That will serve as an introduction to a difficult issue. But it will only be an introduction for someone wanting to get initiated further.

c) "at heart this is the assertion". No, we don't begin with philosophical thoughts. At heart lies the experience of God we in the Orthodox Church have (or have the potential of having). We do not know another God than the one we worship.

*I don't know how good a translation that is but still, it's free and it's online...
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
p.s.

I've never read the 'River of Fire' so don't know what it says. My own thoughts derive from a mixture of my reading of Scripture, the Fathers, Orthodox Liturgy as well as 'mainstream' Orthodox writers (like +Kallistos Ware) along with a dose of life experience and a core aversion to PSA (which was there right from the start but I learned to not ask awkward questions of either myself of my leaders [Biased] )
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I haven't read it before these boards either. I think I read it after fr. Gregory linked to it at some point. Anyway, can't remember. I quoted a few paragraphs from that paper, which were Orthodox. To jump from that to "andreas thinks the whole thing is the authentic voice of Orthodoxy on judgment day" is a bit... well... superficial. If you guys want that much for me to make an assessment of that text, I would say that it has a rough side and this rough side is incompatible with Orthodoxy.

Don't read more into my posts than what I am saying...
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Johnny

Much of andreas' thinking re the next life is explained if you read River of Fire, from which andreas gave some extracts earlier.

I didn't like its polemic. The Augustinian argument has been done to death on these boards and it as as misleading as all partial truths are. We believe that God is good.

The polemic of the River of Fire is precisely that believing God good does not make the God described actually good.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas, I'll reply more fully, on Monday, but I was talking about eschatology, not ecclesiology. Is your eschatological understanding different to that spelled out in "River of Fire".

I'm not arguing that the Orthodox have a philosophical understanding of impassibility, BTW. I don't "do" Dan Brown at all.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Johnny

Much of andreas' thinking re the next life is explained if you read River of Fire, from which andreas gave some extracts earlier.

I didn't like its polemic. The Augustinian argument has been done to death on these boards and it as as misleading as all partial truths are. We believe that God is good.

The polemic of the River of Fire is precisely that believing God good does not make the God described actually good.

Myrrh

Oh I appreciate it is about the different descriptions of God. Here is Bishop Tom Wright doing a good job of summarising my understanding. You can say such a God is not good in your understanding if you like - but we would disagree.

quote:
Face it: to deny God’s wrath is, at bottom, to deny God’s love. When God sees humans being enslaved – and do please go and see the film Amazing Grace as soon as you get the chance – if God doesn’t hate it, he is not a loving God. (It was the sneering, sophisticated set who tried to make out that God didn’t get angry about that kind of thing, and whom Wilberforce opposed with the message that God really does hate slavery.) When God sees innocent people being bombed because of someone’s political agenda, if God doesn’t hate it, he isn’t a loving God. 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 doesn’t speak of a God of generalized benevolence.
(From his Maunday Thursday sermon of 2007, link provided on p51 of this thread in a post from me to Johnny S)

But I suppose Bishop Tom doesn't know how to interpret OT (or NT) scripture, either?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
andreas, I'll reply more fully, on Monday, but I was talking about eschatology, not ecclesiology.

Ecclesiology affects everything. If one is part of the Church, then one is expected to have a closer to God understanding than one who chooses to remove himself from the church and accuse the church of apostasy. The latter is led by a different spirit and it would be no surprise if his views are somehow not that accurate.

quote:
I'm not arguing that the Orthodox have a philosophical understanding of impassibility, BTW. I don't "do" Dan Brown at all. [/QB]
I think you do. Because, you said this:

quote:
A final point. I am personally not sure that impassibility conveys accurately the nature of God as we see it in scripture. I think it is a philosophical concept.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I suppose Bishop Tom doesn't know how to interpret OT (or NT) scripture, either?

If he does, then I am mistaken for not being a Protestant [Razz]

And yes, I don't accept the view he expressed about God in that passage you quoted.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I appreciate it is about the different descriptions of God. Here is Bishop Tom Wright doing a good job of summarising my understanding. You can say such a God is not good in your understanding if you like - but we would disagree.

quote:
Face it: to deny God’s wrath is, at bottom, to deny God’s love. When God sees humans being enslaved – and do please go and see the film Amazing Grace as soon as you get the chance – if God doesn’t hate it, he is not a loving God. (It was the sneering, sophisticated set who tried to make out that God didn’t get angry about that kind of thing, and whom Wilberforce opposed with the message that God really does hate slavery.) When God sees innocent people being bombed because of someone’s political agenda, if God doesn’t hate it, he isn’t a loving God. 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 doesn’t speak of a God of generalized benevolence.
(From his Maunday Thursday sermon of 2007, link provided on p51 of this thread in a post from me to Johnny S)

But I suppose Bishop Tom doesn't know how to interpret OT (or NT) scripture, either?

Well, we'll have to disagree. As I read that sermon I became more and more sick at heart at the 'righteous anger' generated. Christ was explicit - God loves perfectly. God's love goes out to the evil equally as it goes out to the good. In God's love there is no fear. That is the perfection we have to strive for.

Myrrh
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
God's love goes out to the evil equally as it goes out to the good. In God's love there is no fear. That is the perfection we have to strive for.

I think it's simplistic to see Bishop Tom's writings as oppossed to those sentiments.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
From that sermon:

quote:
Precisely out of his fathomless love the creator God sent his own Son not simply to share in the mess and muddle of our human existence, but to take upon himself the task of being the place where God would pass judicial sentence upon sin itself, sin as a fact, sin as a deadly power, sin as the poisonous snake whose bite means death itself.
You guys are still speaking of judicial sentences.

N.T. Wright becomes very paternalistic when he says "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." It's my way or the highway. It does not even occur to him that there can be other interpretations of the cross, that Paul might have meant something different than what he means when he said "For 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."

You are perishing, that's why you don't agree with me. I can't believe this man!

[ 22. March 2008, 14:13: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
mdijon

Regrettably, that's the issue so often. Both ways. In fact every which way. The initial "off-put" prevents any serious look at the follow-through. It's as JJ said a couple of pages back. I tend to put it this way. Sometimes we have to hold our noses to get to the roses.

But I show my ecumenical scars.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:


You are perishing, that's why you don't agree with me. I can't believe this man!

Anyone so sure about the judgment of God on others that they can make such a statement must be wrong.

andreas you've just said that we are perishing because we disagree with you. Have you suddenly become God? Have a little rethink. Learn to hold your nose. This sort of over-reaction is hardly helpful.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
N.T. Wright becomes very paternalistic when he says

Change paternalistic for patronizing.

Anyway, we didn't get that far, did we? He is saved, and since I reject his position I am perishing and I find the Cross to be my stumbling block.

Suddenly, in just one sermon, all my prejudices against Western Christianity got justified. How very odd.

Barnabas, That's what NT Wright is implying! He is using that verse by Paul against those who have a different view than he does. He takes for granted that he and Paul view the Cross the same way, and goes on from that. His premise is faulty. Very faulty.

[ 22. March 2008, 14:20: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
God's love goes out to the evil equally as it goes out to the good. In God's love there is no fear. That is the perfection we have to strive for.

I think it's simplistic to see Bishop Tom's writings as oppossed to those sentiments.
He is utterly, completely, opposed to Christ's teaching about God. This is a perfect example of how Augustine's doctrine have created a God which pretends to goodness with clever argument, but which actually presents the God against Christ's own teaching, teaching the opposite.

This is a profound difference, simple, but not simplistic.

quote:
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.
Is not Christ's teaching. Is not what Christ died for.

God's love goes out to the evil equally as it goes out to the good, is Christ's teaching. This preacher is not teaching it.

This is the point the River of Fire is making. There is such a distorted view of God in the West because of Augustine, whose God as he described and proved in this sermon has made evil appear good, and is incompatible with Orthodox thinking on the subject.


Myrrh
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Anyone so sure about the judgment of God on others that they can make such a statement must be wrong.

I don't know what's stranger here. That you linked to an article that basically says I'm perishing because I don't follow NT Wright's view on the Cross, or that you are saying Paul has no right to write (pun intended) that sentence in the first place.

Or that you didn't get I was referring to what the sermon was saying, to which I replied "I can't believe that man!".

Very strange indeed.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas

Thanks for the clarification - I did misread you. I really thought you'd flipped and I'm very glad you haven't! It would have helped me if you'd included the phrase in quotes which you thought summarised his sermon. My misunderstanding was genuine, but probably based on too hasty a reading. (We've got dinner guests this evening and I'm helping my wife with meal preparation, so I'm kind of dodging in and out.)

And Tom Wright is certainly not saying that anyone will perish for disagreeing with his theology of the cross. Your assertion that that is what he believes is a mistake. He doesn't believe he is God any more than you do.

It has got a bit out of hand. I summarise one of the objective differences between us as this.

View of God 1. There is wrath in God against sin and it is consistent with his love of all humankind.

View of God 2. There is no wrath in God for He is love. But sinners experience as wrath His love of all humankind because of their impurity.

Can we get back to discussing such things in a more measured way? (Even if you have to hold your nose?)

I should have kept to my earlier resolve to keep silence today! [Hot and Hormonal] Back tomorrow eve/Monday morning.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And Tom Wright is certainly not saying that anyone will perish for disagreeing with his theology of the cross. Your assertion that that is what he believes is a mistake.

My assertion is different. Not that we will perish for disagreeing with his view on the cross. But that we disagree with his view on the cross because we are perishing.

It would do some injustice to him, to add the Orthodox in that "we" that are perishing. He is not talking against my view on the Cross. No, that's under his radar, because his audience is very specific, so he does not address my view on the Cross, although he does address other views and contrasts them with his view in that manner, equating his view and Apostle Paul's view.

Anyway.

I don't know who holds View 2, so I will just insert a third view:

View 3: God is love. God will restore all. Some will remain in their selfishness though and experience their own darkness. This is Hell.

[ 22. March 2008, 15:13: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
This argument makes no sense to me. The whole notion of Christus Victor implies that there is some kind of conflict struggle between light and dark. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it. The wrath of God is manifested in the victory of Jesus Christ over the powers of sin and death, in the harrowing of hell.

Now I can see the argument against a straight PSA understanding of the wrath of God being manifested in the death of Jesus. (Personally I think the darkening sky and the temple veil being torn are signs that God was Not Happy about what was done to His Boy.) But to say that God loves the good and evil indifferently is just bizarre. Presumably I imagined the stuff in the New Testament where Jesus calls people whited sepulchres, vipers, liars, murderers and children of the devil? What about all that stuff about the Synagogues of Satan, the Whore, the Great Beast and the rest of it? What about Chorazin and Bethsaida and the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
But to say that God loves the good and evil indifferently is just bizarre.

It's more than bizarre. It's scandalous [Biased]

Glory be to God Who loves us all without discriminating between the (self-)righteous and us wicked ones.

Anyway, I am not for the Christus Victor model. In fact, I think that while as imagery it is OK, as a philosophical explanation it's heretical. Or deeply inadequate. Or whatever.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is the point the River of Fire is making. There is such a distorted view of God in the West because of Augustine, whose God as he described and proved in this sermon has made evil appear good, and is incompatible with Orthodox thinking on the subject.


Myrrh

The problem is not only with Augustine's doctrines, but with the God he sets up from which his doctrines flow.

"if God were to say, ‘never mind, I love you all anyway’, he is neither good nor loving."


I'm at a complete loss to understand how you're able to understand Christ's words when you follow teachers who call themselves Christian but baldly state that Christ's God isn't good and present the 'evil father' of those Pharisees he argued against as if this were Christ's good God.

This is still the same argument Christ had with those of his time who presented a God opposed to Christ's and the answer to this preacher is the same. Instructions to us:

Matthew 5:44-46 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.


Luke 6:34-36 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



34And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

36Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

For this they sought to kill Him and succeeded. The Victory of Cross is Christ's faithfulness to the bitter end; God is ever merciful, ever forgiving. This is what is meant by God is love.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It's more than bizarre. It's scandalous [Biased]

Andreas you are confusing patience with indifference. The scriptures are replete with references to God's patience (long-suffering) but nowhere is he described as being indifferent to evil.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm at a complete loss to understand how you're able to understand Christ's words when you follow teachers who call themselves Christian but baldly state that Christ's God isn't good and present the 'evil father' of those Pharisees he argued against as if this were Christ's good God.

Yes we can all read the Sermon on the Mount. [Roll Eyes] That would be the bit that ends with Jesus telling a story about what will happen to those who do not obey his words - the rain will fall and destroy their houses. Is God not sending that rain in chapter 7?

(Either this 'just happens' as Freddy said - natural consequences - or it comes as the active will of God. Either way round your reading of the Sermon on the Mount falls apart.)
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm at a complete loss to understand how you're able to understand Christ's words when you follow teachers who call themselves Christian but baldly state that Christ's God isn't good and present the 'evil father' of those Pharisees he argued against as if this were Christ's good God.

Yes we can all read the Sermon on the Mount. [Roll Eyes] That would be the bit that ends with Jesus telling a story about what will happen to those who do not obey his words - the rain will fall and destroy their houses. Is God not sending that rain in chapter 7?

(Either this 'just happens' as Freddy said - natural consequences - or it comes as the active will of God. Either way round your reading of the Sermon on the Mount falls apart.)

Happy Easter!


One of many examples where Christ admonishes the people to turn them from doing evil in a society which had been given the commandments on Mt Sinai and so knew what was good and what was evil and saw themselves as singled out as a nation to keep those commandments in a special relationship which gave them all a fresh start once a year at Yom Kippur, all sins forgiven.

Jewish teaching is that God is always forgiving, He can't be anything else because that is His nature, but to access that forgiveness requires a move on the part of the sinner; to make up with those offended before coming to God for forgiveness. Christ didn't teach anything different from this in general, but to his followers he was more specific; to become like that Jewish God who is ever forgiving and is ever merciful, because he loves all equally.What are His instructions to his followers? From that we know what Christ's God is like.

Myrrh
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think God can love human kind equally and still use a whip to drive money-changers out of the temple. Of course Jesus still loved them as he was doing it. Equally, if Jesus said he didn't mind about the money-changing and showed no anger, that wouldn't be loving towards those who needed correction and towards those they were exploiting.

There's no contradiction.

[ 23. March 2008, 12:10: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
And so Augustine's reasoning, that it's right to physically abuse someone who has left the Church in order to force them to return, because it's for their own good...

Shrug. I can only repeat. Christ taught us to strive to be perfect as He said God was perfect; to love all equally as God loves - not to judge, not to condemn. When some apostles wanted to show God's power of destruction against those refusing hospitality to Christ, He admonished them firmly - telling them they didn't understand which spirit they were of - He had come to save lives not to destroy them. You can believe in a God who sits in judgement over his creation and metes out punishment for infractions against him as if they are criminals even though we none of us have had a say in the creation of ourselves, I prefer to view it differently. I see nothing worth emulating in a God who has already punished his creation by estrangement for a sin they didn't commit, ymmv.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
And so Augustine's reasoning, that it's right to physically abuse someone who has left the Church in order to force them to return, because it's for their own good...

Augustine was hardly innovating in that direction. St Gregory of Nazianen was happy enough to applaud the Edict of Theodosius, particularly since Theodosius was happy enough to depose the Arian bishop of Constantinople on his behalf. And it was the Empire of Constantinople which closed the Academy and the Lyceum which had been the intellectual lighthouses of Europe since the days of Plato and Aristotle.

To pretend that Augustine somehow uniquely legitimised coercion in human relations whilst ignoring your own dubious past is somewhat hypocritical.
 
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It's more than bizarre. It's scandalous [Biased]

Andreas you are confusing patience with indifference. The scriptures are replete with references to God's patience (long-suffering) but nowhere is he described as being indifferent to evil.
I am not sure that you two are using this word "indifferent" in the same sense.

"Indifferent" can mean without any emotional reaction. E.g. I may be indifferent about watching one of two specific TV programs because I like them equally little - I have no emotional investment in watching either of them. So "indifferent" can mean "lack of emotional investment" - "don't care".

"Indifferent" can also mean something more like "impartial", an objective equality. Christ loves all of us impartially - he does not have "teacher's favourites" or "pets". In this sense, Christ is "indifferent" to us and *to our deeds* - for while we were yet sinners (and were really unlikeable in any subjective sense), he died for us. Christ on the cross could beg forgiveness for the people who were crucifying him. He looked beyond their deeds to see them as objects of redemption. He did not let how he felt about being the victim of their torture obscure his vision of what he wanted to give them (namely redemption).

Does Christ get righteously angry with a child molester, or does he see that person as someone to redeem, to die for? The world certainly hates the child molester, and believes that it is entitled to be as mean as possible to such people.

Christ did attack hypocrisy: the person who claims to present God's will but who perverts it (e.g. the Pharisees in the Gospels). He drove out the money changers - but tells the robber on the cross that he will be in Paradise. So it seems that He was not driving out the money changers because they were dishonest (Zacchaeus had also been dishonest, and Christ chose to eat at his house) - rather he drove out the money changers because the Jewish leaders were (by allowing the money changers) depicting God as a venial money grabber, and presenting God's house as a sordid money-grubbing dive. The people responsible for proclaiming the love of God were perverting the message.

Christ acted to correct false images of God - he was a teacher, the upholder of truth. His action in the temple was teaching - God is not after your money like a selfish huckster, for he loves you and pours out himself for you. His anger always seems to be with the false presentation of God's love, not with sinners who were (so to speak) plain unhypocritical do-badders - including even torturers.

Anyway, that is my attempt at understanding this debate.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And so Augustine's reasoning, that it's right to physically abuse someone who has left the Church in order to force them to return, because it's for their own good...

I don't think that's a necessary conclusion to what I said. I certainly don't think it's a consequence of Christ's driving the money-changers from the temple.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Does Christ get righteously angry with a child molester, or does he see that person as someone to redeem, to die for?

Both, I think. Why is it either/or?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Personally I think the darkening sky and the temple veil being torn are signs that God was Not Happy about what was done to His Boy.)


I think St John Chrystostom agrees with you.

Some interesting descriptions of His (nonexistent) wrath in action. No doubt this is a protestant misread. What is obvious is not obvious.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
St Gregory of Nazianen was happy enough to applaud the Edict of Theodosius, particularly since Theodosius was happy enough to depose the Arian bishop of Constantinople on his behalf.

[Projectile]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
And so Augustine's reasoning, that it's right to physically abuse someone who has left the Church in order to force them to return, because it's for their own good...

Augustine was hardly innovating in that direction. St Gregory of Nazianen was happy enough to applaud the Edict of Theodosius, particularly since Theodosius was happy enough to depose the Arian bishop of Constantinople on his behalf. And it was the Empire of Constantinople which closed the Academy and the Lyceum which had been the intellectual lighthouses of Europe since the days of Plato and Aristotle.

To pretend that Augustine somehow uniquely legitimised coercion in human relations whilst ignoring your own dubious past is somewhat hypocritical.

Granted, I used Augustine not merely out of habit, but because the whole line of thinking about God in the West is from his beliefs. But I was referring, to remind, specifically to the idea that God's love includes punishment, that punishment to the extreme is an expression of God's love. We do not have the 'fathers' as some last word on the subject, but what happened with Augustine in the West was these off the rail ideas became dogma and this created a different relationship to God entirely from that which we have retained by continual emphasis on God is love is ever merciful, ever forgiving and our ontological relationship in this.

To justify these ideas, that God punishes because he loves, from any of the 'fathers' by giving such examples as imprimatur to Christ's teaching is to as irrational as believing God good and then believing he authorised the genocide of the Canaanites.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Personally I think the darkening sky and the temple veil being torn are signs that God was Not Happy about what was done to His Boy.)


I think St John Chrystostom agrees with you.

Some interesting descriptions of His (nonexistent) wrath in action. No doubt this is a protestant misread. What is obvious is not obvious.

What is known about Chrysostom is that he jumped onto the anti-Jewish bandwagon of the Roman age and his description of the tearing of the veil of the Holy of Holies has that impetus forming it (Chrysostom played a big part in violently separating the Christian community from its Jewish roots - against Paul's warning of this). While his references to this being like the exile to Babylon and so on are not in contravension of Jewish history as they themselves understood it his "but declaring them to be unworthy even of His abiding there" is his own interpretation since, for example, we have the teaching that the Mother of God entered the Holy of Holies when as a child She was dedicated to the Temple; so our teaching is that Christ tore the veil of separation from the Most High for all - it's about direct access to God for each of us, not limited to place and so on.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And so Augustine's reasoning, that it's right to physically abuse someone who has left the Church in order to force them to return, because it's for their own good...

I don't think that's a necessary conclusion to what I said. I certainly don't think it's a consequence of Christ's driving the money-changers from the temple.
OK, so He could be a bad-tempered git..

Myrrh
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What is known about Chrysostom is that he jumped onto the anti-Jewish bandwagon

So I am given to understand, but I have never checked it out, so I do not know the truth of it. (It may be a slander for all I know).

What exactly has his suggested antisemitism to do with the "wrath in God" issue? I mean, if you discount this homily - or this part of this homily - on such general grounds, does that mean you throw out all his homilies? Or some of them? Or bits of them?

I don't regard Patristic tradition as authoritative myself, but I thought Chrysostom was regarded as an authoritative voice. Am I wrong?

Let me be clear. I don't mind at all if it is common practice amongst the Orthodox (or some Orthodox) to apply critical and selective criteria to the texts of the Patristic Tradition. Based either on the quality of exegesis or the character of the Fathers or both. Is that what you are saying?

Or is it just Chrysostom?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Going back to earlier posts on this thread, believers in PSA sometimes talk of 'paying the price'.

This payment needn't mean paying God the debt we owe.

Classic Christus Victor envisaged paying the devil. As up to date view of his is in a book by an RC priest:

…the neutralization of evil is not without a price. These who do good in the face of evil pay that price, for sin and its effecs of ten demand a martyr’s death before they are undone. The prophetic tradition in Israel, the life of Jesus, and the case of contemporary martyrs—Mahatma Ghandi, John and Robert Kennedy, Martin L ther King, Anwar Sadat, Oscar Romero, and other unknown millions who die be because of human injustice—bear witness here. Spiritual Development: An Interdisciplinary Study - Daniel Helminiak
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas

I'm going to have to reply piece meal to your various points - this covers only some of them and may still be too long for comfort!

I had never heard of River of Fire until this post from you. The excerpts you quote deal with the two issues we have been discussing at some length (wrath in God and the nature of Divine justice), I take it that you agreed with the quotes i.e. they represented your own thoughts. Given that both quotes came from more general arguments on the nature of God and eschatology, I took the small liberty of assuming that you might well be in general agreement with these more general arguments. Perhaps that was an unreasonable assumption? If so, I am happy to withdraw it.

On impassibility, I confirm that there was no intention on my part to accuse Orthodox theology of being philosophical, but I can understand why you might have thought that from what I said, because I said less than I meant. The problem is that, in my understanding, impassibility is both

1. a philosophical conception which I believe pre-dated Christianity (maybe going as far back as Aristotle's unmoved mover and subsequent speculations) and

2. a label for a theological principle, evidence for which can be found in scripture and tradition.

It is certainly to be found in Anselm's writings, but I am sure the Orthodox take is characteristic of itself and it would be wrong to assume any other philosophical or medieval model as representative of Orthodoxy.

My comments were actually formed in part by the Patristic quote by St Anthony, which I found in "River of Fire. I'll repeat it here. It is well worth repeating, since it is very fine.

quote:
God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honor Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God's goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind.
What I am saying is not meant at all as a blanket criticism of that saying at all, for it says much that seems to me to be right. Such thinking is bound to have influenced the Orthodox understanding of eschatology.

My concern is that the particular "dispassionate" view it expresses is not the only one which can be derived from the biblical material. I do not find the word dispassionate to be very helpful. The God of scripture seems to me in various descriptions to be "dispassionate, compassionate and passionate".

Of course there is a need to recognise the anthropomorphic tendencies and limitations inherent in these words, as we struggle to come to terms with the ineffable. But I believe Him to be more than "dispassionate". Human passions are obviously not wrong in themselves though they may lead us astray. {In your anger do not sin (Eph 4:26)}.

If indeed there is passion and compassion in God, then the best illustrations of it in Christ surely point to something in the Father? And Jesus was both passionate and compassionate. Passionate in the cleansing of the temple; compassionate over Jerusalem. Passionate in his condemnation of those Pharisees who laid heavy burdens while not lifting a finger to help. Compassionate over Zaccheus, Mary and Martha, countless others.

So while I think St Anthony's saying says much that is good, that is not all there is to say about goodness and righteousness in God. It is by no means obvious to me that the view that God is loving and merciful to sinners and angry about sin produces a schizoid picture of God. Neither of those dimensions seems right without the other.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

What exactly has his suggested antisemitism to do with the "wrath in God" issue? I mean, if you discount this homily - or this part of this homily - on such general grounds, does that mean you throw out all his homilies? Or some of them? Or bits of them?

Barnabas, I was replying to the comment you made to Callan about Chrysostom could be agreeing with him about the veil and gave this homily as an example - of what is obvious and what isn't as the wrath of God.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Callan:
Personally I think the darkening sky and the temple veil being torn are signs that God was Not Happy about what was done to His Boy.)


I think St John Chrystostom agrees with you.

Some interesting descriptions of His (nonexistent) wrath in action. No doubt this is a protestant misread. What is obvious is not obvious.


I was replying to the veil example. Whatever the reasons for Chrysostom saying "but declaring them to be unworthy even of His abiding there" is not Orthodox teaching about the rent veil, so this 'obvious God's wrath' is as illusory as other examples of God's anger when Christ is quite clear that God responds with kindness to those who are evil.

You read everything with the "wrathful God", as Bishop Tom described, as a given, in this everything you read you make fit to the principle of this concept, as we do to our concept of God. First choose your God. Christ is explicit in his descriptions of how we are to be to become as perfect as God is perfect, and being wrathful and punishing those who offend us isn't in the brief.


quote:
I don't regard Patristic tradition as authoritative myself, but I thought Chrysostom was regarded as an authoritative voice. Am I wrong?
According to some Orthodox the whole Church is built on their authority... [Smile]


quote:
Let me be clear. I don't mind at all if it is common practice amongst the Orthodox (or some Orthodox) to apply critical and selective criteria to the texts of the Patristic Tradition. Based either on the quality of exegesis or the character of the Fathers or both. Is that what you are saying?

Or is it just Chrysostom? [/qb]

Far as I know, in general practice the 'fathers' are little known, that sums up their importance. There are bits of them, Chrysostom's (Paschal Homily) especially and he has importance as a large figure in the Church on doctrine (and the form of the liturgy), but we are not taught to leave our critical faculties behind when reading his or any other work.


Myrrh

[ 23. March 2008, 17:42: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
HEY

LEAVE MY FATHERS ALONE [Razz]

Barnabas

Myrrh is very right in putting the Faith before any individual person, no matter who that is. The Orthodox Faith comes first, and persons follow. We don't have Popes, we don't have Magisterium.

So, IF the Chrysostom had a different view of God than Orthodoxy, then the Chrysostom would not be listened to.

HOWEVER, the Chrysostom is perfectly Orthodox in these things, and it's only YOUR READING of him that does injustice to the Saint.

And just like we don't discard the Bible because other churches make all kinds of things with it, so we don't discard Chrysostom, when the same is done to him. Are you listening, Myrrh?

And if anyone want to have hatred towards the Saint, and say he was anti-semitic I want to have nothing to do with that person. [Razz]

And if anyone tries to ascribe lowly motives to Saint Gregory the Theologian, one of the three persons whom the Church honored with the name of the Theologian, that magnificent and beautiful icon of Jesus Christ, that person shows who his real fathers are.

What will we hear next? Don't you have any idea at all who these men were? It makes me wonder!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Myrrh and andreas

Forget I'm a protestant! This is just about the obvious meaning of words. These words about darkness and cleft rocks.

quote:
.. for that darkness was a token of His anger at their crime. For that it was not an eclipse, but both wrath and indignation, is not hence alone manifest, but also by the time, for it continued three hours, but an eclipse takes place in one moment of time, and they know it, who have seen this; and indeed it has taken place even in our generation.
Anger, wrath, indignation, all applied to God.

and these

quote:
For He that cleft rocks asunder, and darkened the world, much more could have done these things to them, had it been His will. But He would not, but having discharged His wrath upon the elements, them it was His will to save by clemency.
Which says, NOT that God was without wrath, but it was His will, despite His wrath, to stay his hand against people.

I'm not being a Protestant here, just a reader looking at text. What exactly is my error in saying that the text says what it says? Spell it out for me.

Please don't give me the "spiritual milk" argument again. I dealt with that many posts ago. "Spiritual milk" means elementary principles, elementary truths, according to the author of Hebrews. Not "misleading" imagery.

There is no disrespect for any author, Patristic or otherwise, in saying, "this is what I see in what they say". I don't think I have expressed any disrespect for any Patristric author throughout these discussions.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My concern is that the particular "dispassionate" view it expresses is not the only one which can be derived from the biblical material.

Barnabas, Barnabas.

From the beginning of this discussion, you are trying to do your best. You are trying to make sense of a different position, and to engage with it. You are trying to speak with clarity about your views, so that we can come into mutual understanding. You hope for union, and if union cannot be achieved, you strive for charity as the very least.

I quoted that little sentence out of a long post, to say a few things about the way we "do theology".

The Great Anthony did not arrive at that conclusion by thinking on the biblical material. This is what that small story you mentioned earlier, from the desert fathers, means. We cannot arrive at truth by thinking over what the scriptures say. And as far as I know, you guys are doing just that.

What Saint Anthony did was to keep as hard as he could the commandments of Christ. He became a great ascetic, and his theology stems not from human syllogisms but from personal experience of the living God, experience that came with communion, which came through ascesis and not through thoughts.

Man is created to come into communion with God, but this cannot be done until we get purified from our passions first, and get enlightened by God then. Human reason cannot by itself understand scriptures. And when we do not have direct view of God, we are left with our natural capacities, of which human reason is one. And we try to do theology using our reason.

As far as I can tell, Protestants generally try to make sense of the Bible through their reason. And Reason plays a great role in Catholicism as well. Remember the speech the Pope gave in Germany...

While reason is respected highly in Orthodoxy, it is not seen as enough to make sense of the Scriptures. The meaning of the Scriptures is ontological, and one has to live it to really understand it.

This all plays an important role in our misunderstandings. I don't appeal to Great Anthony because he was a great thinker and he understood the Scriptures better than others through reason. No doubt he made a great use of his reason, but he was still the boy that didn't like the letters and preferred to spend time at home than go to school. He is the boy that left everything at age eighteen, the boy that did not attend the Academy and did not learn from the great teachers of his times. He learned theology in the cave, in the grave, in communion with God. And because God showed his light throughout the Ecumene, because God was pleased in Anthony and glorified him, I listen to what he is saying. With the potential of actually living what he said, as I put to death my ego, which is the most hard thing to do.

How do we do theology? I reckon there is a difference between the way Orthodoxy is supposed to promote, and the way you might be accustomed to.

What do you think? I hope you don't see this as combative. I'm trying to make a contribution and explain why in my view we have a problem.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Andreas1984 said:We cannot arrive at truth by thinking over what the scriptures say.
[Killing me]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
andreas, that is indeed very helpful. And thank you for your recognition of what I have been trying to do.

You are entirely right in pointing to the limits and dangers of reason when revelation is central. Which truth also points to the limits of dialogue.

Here is a phrase which I have heard more than once in my own tradition, and have used myself in sermons. "We should not give ourselves airs. I am a beggar, seeking to tell other beggars about bread I have found".

(For all I know, it originates with a Desert Father. But I have always found it valuable)
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
It reminds me of the story Plato said, about the cave and a man getting out of the cave and then upon seeing the world and the light of the sun he thinks it's a pity to have that all by himself, while his fellow men are in the cave, so he returns and tries to tell them about what's outside the cave and that they are seeing shadows while outside is a whole world, but upon returning it's difficult for him to adjust back to the shadows and the others mock him that he has lost his mind and that he has lost even the limited vision he had while with them and they don't want to follow him.

Personally, I agree with St. Seraphim of Sarov. Change yourself and thousands will get saved. Or something like that.

Which reminds me...

Do you want to read this great story about Saint Seraphim and another person with a difficult name I can't spell? Here: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/wonderful.aspx
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I will read it. It has been snowing in Norfolk today and the fields have been white. Thank you.

Christ is risen. He is risen indeed! Hallelujah!
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
He is truly risen!

I remembered that discussion between the Saint and his friend because we said something about the acquisition of the Holy Spirit, I think it was in this thread, and it fits in how we do theology, just to get a glimpse into what the Saints live and what being saved means... Saint Seraphim is a great Saint... and he appears to other Saints, that lived after he died, so he is rather active, and I thought I'd share.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
HEY

LEAVE MY FATHERS ALONE [Razz]
....

And just like we don't discard the Bible because other churches make all kinds of things with it, so we don't discard Chrysostom, when the same is done to him. Are you listening, Myrrh?

[Smile] I'm not discarding Chrysostom, but if you read his homilies against 'the judaisers' and his put down of James in favour of Peter then one can't help but think one detects a bias in some of what he writes, as I think shows in his quote about the veil - though he was a bit worried of going too far - House of God and all that..


quote:
And if anyone want to have hatred towards the Saint, and say he was anti-semitic I want to have nothing to do with that person. [Razz]
I don't have any hatred towards him, but I don't have any illusions that the Orthodox Church is somehow a pristine continuation of the Church Christ organised, I just think we did better than some at keeping the core relationship with God intact as a teaching.

He played a very big part in trying to break our connection with the Jews by building up Christianity as a something differently superior to what went before by saying what went before should be dicarded, hence his homilies against those who attended both synagogue and church. In this I think he was in gross error, and Paul warns against such an attitude of those who think themselves superior to the branch they're grafted onto; Chrysostom took this to the extreme and with his 'golden mouthed' diatribes against those being both Jew and Christian became something unrecognisable to the first council and changed the Church through this. And that's quite besides the effect his words have had in the persecution of the Jews since.

Myrrh
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think that's a necessary conclusion to what I said. I certainly don't think it's a consequence of Christ's driving the money-changers from the temple.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
OK, so He could be a bad-tempered git..

But the money-changers were experiencing the same loving man as a bad-tempered git, presumably?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Myrrh and andreas

Forget I'm a protestant! This is just about the obvious meaning of words. These words about darkness and cleft rocks.

quote:
.. for that darkness was a token of His anger at their crime. For that it was not an eclipse, but both wrath and indignation, is not hence alone manifest, but also by the time, for it continued three hours, but an eclipse takes place in one moment of time, and they know it, who have seen this; and indeed it has taken place even in our generation.
Anger, wrath, indignation, all applied to God.

and these

quote:
For He that cleft rocks asunder, and darkened the world, much more could have done these things to them, had it been His will. But He would not, but having discharged His wrath upon the elements, them it was His will to save by clemency.
Which says, NOT that God was without wrath, but it was His will, despite His wrath, to stay his hand against people.

I'm not being a Protestant here, just a reader looking at text. What exactly is my error in saying that the text says what it says? Spell it out for me.

Please don't give me the "spiritual milk" argument again. I dealt with that many posts ago. "Spiritual milk" means elementary principles, elementary truths, according to the author of Hebrews. Not "misleading" imagery.

There is no disrespect for any author, Patristic or otherwise, in saying, "this is what I see in what they say". I don't think I have expressed any disrespect for any Patristric author throughout these discussions.

OK, I read this a little earlier, but the stone outbuilding I have my computer in was too cold to stay in, too many gaps to bother trying to heat it, and can't think of anything that hasn't already been said. It still comes back to how we see God; in the majority in the West as a wrathful judge who sits in authority [i]over[i] us and who punishes for sin (and from OS, has already done so which is the final split in which everyone is damned to estrangement from God, except Christians) and without free will to turn to God and for us, who have never had such a teaching, a relationship with God as continuation from Adam and Eve, who remained in friendship with God, and through the God of Abraham and Isaac a relationship in active free will in the very nature of God's being (our creation in image and likeness).

So, our doctrines are not all about salvation as some place to achieve membership, but of salvation as becoming the perfect nature of God, as by theology we mean knowing God as personal experience of God as we come closer to that as we work to be one with God as Christ prayed for us. This is the basic doctrine of the Orthodox, for man to become God.

Perhaps this is a key difference between us, one of authority. We don't relate to a God who has authority over us...

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think that's a necessary conclusion to what I said. I certainly don't think it's a consequence of Christ's driving the money-changers from the temple.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
OK, so He could be a bad-tempered git..

But the money-changers were experiencing the same loving man as a bad-tempered git, presumably?

My original point was the use of such to extrapolate to a God who punishes because he loves. Christ was reacting to the den of thieves the Temple had become, he was fully human, the selling of God and so on in his Father's House, and I'm with the fig tree which refused to fruit out of season for him.. [Smile] What he taught about God's nature is perfectly clear, and well known, ever forgiving, ever merciful etc. We can't discount Christ's actual teaching to us on the Nature of God because we're having problems with the descriptions used by some, even by Him, on the consequences of sin; he also said 'as you sow so shall you reap' and 'neither did this man do anything wrong neither did his parents', these do not nullify Christ's teaching on God's nature to which perfection we're supposed to aim for. Individual sins are not important to us in this, as important as they are in our day to day relationships, sin for us is missing the mark of this perfection.

A God who damns us, punishes us, for missing this or punishes us for individual sins when we had no say in the creation of ourselves is a prat, and not one I care to strive for oneness with...

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Barnabas, I've got an early start tomorrow, and my bed was comfy and warm..

I won't belabour the Augustine connection, but what the mindset of 'Western' Christians became is down to his understanding and (mis)interpretation of Scripture, you've ended up with a wrathful God full of anger against sinners to the extent that you think such sermons as above are about the true love of God. How can you possibly read the parable of the Prodigal Son and agree with the bishop that a God who says 'never mind I still love you' is neither loving nor good?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
One of many examples where Christ admonishes the people ...

You haven't answered my question - which is it? (Either (according to you) God doesn't actively send the rain in both the unjust and just or he actively sends the rain as judgment on those who disobey the words of Jesus.)


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Jewish teaching is that God is always forgiving

Have you got any evidence for that? What Jewish teaching? (Orthodox / Reformed / Liberal / Old Testament Israelite?)

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug. I can only repeat. Christ taught us to strive to be perfect as He said God was perfect; to love all equally as God loves - not to judge, not to condemn.

Except when you raised this last time I pointed out your inconsistencies in how you handle the Sermon on the Mount. [brick wall]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
I am not sure that you two are using this word "indifferent" in the same sense.

"Indifferent" can mean without any emotional reaction. E.g. I may be indifferent about watching one of two specific TV programs because I like them equally little - I have no emotional investment in watching either of them. So "indifferent" can mean "lack of emotional investment" - "don't care".

"Indifferent" can also mean something more like "impartial", an objective equality. Christ loves all of us impartially - he does not have "teacher's favourites" or "pets". In this sense, Christ is "indifferent" to us and *to our deeds* - for while we were yet sinners (and were really unlikeable in any subjective sense), he died for us. Christ on the cross could beg forgiveness for the people who were crucifying him. He looked beyond their deeds to see them as objects of redemption. He did not let how he felt about being the victim of their torture obscure his vision of what he wanted to give them (namely redemption).

Yes, and that is precisely why I used the word 'patience'. I know what you mean by Christ being impartial (he has no favourites) but surely that does not mean that he looks at everyone in exactly the same way? (i.e. As he looked at those crucifing him he felt pity and forgiveness, but as he looked at his mother and disciples he would feel a different sense of love.)

Otherwise he would be indifferent (not caring) about how we be behave.


quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Does Christ get righteously angry with a child molester, or does he see that person as someone to redeem, to die for? The world certainly hates the child molester, and believes that it is entitled to be as mean as possible to such people.


As others have said, why does it have to be either / or?

I would suggest that the person who does not get righteously angry about injustice is indifferent to it. I have have seen many, many people die (some of them horribly) from cancer - at times I get angry at what is wrong with the world. I'm not setting myself up as a great example, but don't get angry because I care? Now, we all have different temperaments and so not everyone will express their emotions or their anger in the same way. I'm not prescribing a certain reaction - merely commenting that rightly expressed anger demonstrates an active hatred of evil and, as such, is a good thing.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
you've ended up with a wrathful God full of anger against sinners to the extent that you think such sermons as above are about the true love of God. How can you possibly read the parable of the Prodigal Son and agree with the bishop that a God who says 'never mind I still love you' is neither loving nor good?

Myrrh

Anger at sin and overwhelming love for, and forgiveness of, sinners are not incompatible. That is the differences between us. Psalm 45 for the wedding of the King, announces that God has set the King above his fellows because he has loved righteouness and hated wickedness. They are simply opposite sides of the same value coin.

The parable of the Prodigal is silent about the Father's view of the the sin of the Prodigal and the sin of those who led him astray. But other sayings and parables of Jesus are distinctly noisy on that subject.

The whole series of parables of the lost in Luke 15 illustrates the unbridled joy in heaven over the lost being found. Do you really believe any of us deny that fundamental truth, or what it says about the heart of God? Simply because we have a different understanding to you over the relationship of these values to love?

Note the word "unbridled". The Father of the Prodigal is not dispassionate in His love. He is passionate in the extreme. He "runs" towards the returning son, he "throws his arms" around His son, he "kisses" him, he urges his servants to be "quick" to get the lad re-clothed and prepare a feast and a celebration. His joy knows no bounds! This is the passion of child-centred, Fatherly love. I truly believe that captures something absolutely central about the real nature of God's love for us. Why should you believe I see differently to that?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
But Barnabas, this isn't what the bishop is saying. He says God hates the sinner, not only the sin. He says that a God who says "I love you all anyway" (focusing in a bit more) is not a good or loving God. In the prodigal son he is saying that the father stopped loving the son.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Johnny, maybe I didn't read or understand your posts about this, I'll have another look at them and come back to you.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I know that is what you think he is saying! I think he is saying that God says "I love you anyway, but I do mind the sin"!

But I appreciate that is the way his words will come across to you. I guess the issue is that I've read a lot of Tom Wright - sufficient to catch his overall understanding on this. Which is not what you say.

My wife and I were discussing this issue of interpretation about our local church pastor, who we've known for 20 years. Sometimes his homiletic style gets the better of him and we've had folks come up to us, give a reasonable interpretation about what he's said, and say "did he really mean that?". Often we say "No!" then try and explain. It can get messy. Our pastor is very typical!

That is a bit like what is going on in the exchanges between andreas, you and me re St John Chrysostom. I really understand the issue of misrepresentation, which is why when I draw textual conclusions from the actual words, I know my conclusions are provisional and never tell the whole story.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Christ was reacting to the den of thieves the Temple had become, he was fully human...

Are you saying he got it wrong here?

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
A God who damns us, punishes us, for missing this or punishes us for individual sins when we had no say in the creation of ourselves is a prat, and not one I care to strive for oneness with...

Doesn't this negate free will? Are you suggesting that since we have no responsibility for sin, we shouldn't be punished for it?

I thought Orthodox hell existed. If so, doesn't it come to the same thing? Whether or not it is a consequence of anger, isn't God still a prat for creating such a situation?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I know that is what you think he is saying! I think he is saying that God says "I love you anyway, but I do mind the sin"!

Alright, that's what think you think he's saying, but I'm reading his words, that God does not love you anyway. To hate the sin not the sinner is Orthodox teaching, it's become a stock response from the Orthodox in the West in encounters with non-Orthodox thinking.


quote:
But I appreciate that is the way his words will come across to you. I guess the issue is that I've read a lot of Tom Wright - sufficient to catch his overall understanding on this. Which is not what you say.

My wife and I were discussing this issue of interpretation about our local church pastor, who we've known for 20 years. Sometimes his homiletic style gets the better of him and we've had folks come up to us, give a reasonable interpretation about what he's said, and say "did he really mean that?". Often we say "No!" then try and explain. It can get messy. Our pastor is very typical!

If I may be so bold, I think you could be re-interpretating to suit a different view from what has been the 'Western' view of God for centuries since Augustine. God wrath against and his hatred of sinners and punishment of them by excluding them from his presence is the foundation of OS. I think it's so deeply ingrained in the mindset of both RCC and Protestant Christians that even with the explosion of thinking in the last hundred years it's still comes out in the passion of this sermon, and perhaps accounts for you having to continually defend what others have seen as this from your own pastor who is, as you say, very typical...

Myrrh
 
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As others have said, why does it have to be either / or?

I would suggest that the person who does not get righteously angry about injustice is indifferent to it.

But Christ had plenty of other cases of injustice before him: e.g. the two thieves on the crosses, Zacchaeus, etc. And he doesn't seem to go about looking for injustices either. He wasn't some kind of crime hunter. I am sure that there were plenty of bad things going on in the back alleys and dark places of Jerusalem (and we know there were robbers about in Palestine society), but he doesn't take a whip to them.

The cases he seems to attack are the ones that are committed by people responsible for propagating the truth about God, who misrepresent that truth. It seems to be lies about God, rather than injustice per se, that he attacks.

Jesus does not seem to show anger at the masses of unhypocritical sinners, but rather at the hypocrites who misrepresent God. He did not come into the world with the avenging sword, but with the light (truth about God, which he expressed in his care for the sick, the mad, the grieving, etc).

By showing up the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders, who were supposed to be shepherding the Chosen People in the way of righteousness, he was certainly setting himself on a collision course with them. But I can't see that he set about on a campaign against injustice in general, except insofar as he called those who responded to his gospel to eschew injustice in their own lives ("Be salt, leaven. Show your good works.").

As far as I can see, the problem with the money changers was not so much injustice at all, but blasphemy. By turning the temple courts into a den of thieves they were corrupting the very "face" (presentation) of God in the central place of worship of the entire Jewish world. The charge that Jesus lays against them is about turning the house of prayer (worship of the Eternal God) into a "den of thieves". They are profaning the temple, and the powers that be are turning a blind eye to that. God is being mocked in the central place of divine worship, winked at by those whose calling is to lead the Covenant People of God.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
MSHB - we can argue over exactly what was going on at the temple cleansing if you want to ... but the point still remains that:

1. Jesus was angry.
2. Jesus was angry with people.
3. He expressed that anger at people.

Which one of those do you take issue with?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I know that is what you think he is saying! I think he is saying that God says "I love you anyway, but I do mind the sin"!

Alright, that's what think you think he's saying, but I'm reading his words, that God does not love you anyway. To hate the sin not the sinner is Orthodox teaching, it's become a stock response from the Orthodox in the West in encounters with non-Orthodox thinking.
To try and link this up with what you've been discussing with Andreas. This is a 'half-way' house as an Orthodox response, as I see it. In encountering the sheer volume of "righteous anger" from Christians in the West and this directed at the person and justified by calling this hate, love, we see a complete destruction of God's perfect love.

God's love, for us, is not something that he dishes out to those who please him directing his hate against those who don't, love is His very nature. As before the history of the term, we call this an uncreated energy of God - it is what God is. If there is any hate in that it is not perfect, is not God, is not God's love. So, directing to hate the sin not the sinner is a step in the right direction because first the sinner is taught that God loves unconditionally, regardless of how evil the sin, because it's impossible for God to be other than his nature, he does not change.

Myrrh
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I have been listening to a lecture from marshillchurch.org, following the link at Professor Kirke's signature. The speaker is representative of the kind of thinking I described earlier.

I won't argue about all these things, how he starts by praying that he will do justice to the Bible (instead of the Living God), how he thinks we can provide each other with verses that are to be read and taken at face value and then we make a valid point, how it doesn't even occur to him that that's philosophical in nature, even though he rejects philosophical approaches to theology, how he sees theological positions coming in pairs, in a dialectic antithesis, and so on.

I will insist on one point. He says that if God forgives all then all go to Heaven and none goes to Hell. He also says, at another point, that Christ died to forgive our sins.

This is very problematic. "I find that profoundly disturbing". And I would like to ask you guys if you believe that as well. Is that view widespread?

As far as I can see, it's equally problematic with universalism, because they both are based on the same premise, that God saves those whom he want, he saves those whom he forgives, that salvation depends upon God alone. So, the dialectical antithesis exists because they are both founded upon the same premise, they have common ground!

Except that it doesn't work like this. God forgives us all, and does not need of meritorious works to offer forgiveness through, in which sense the crucifixion is not the cause for our forgiveness. Christ does not die to forgive, but because he forgives. And although he forgives all people, and although he wills that all get saved, and although he will restore all, imparting incorruptibility to all, and will shine upon all as the sun shines upon all, not all will partake in God's goodness, because it's a dialog and not a monologue.

So, we are back where we started from. Who is God? What is salvation? How do we get to learn the answers to these questions? How are we to respond to Jesus Christ? What are we to make of the Scriptures? What happened on the Cross? What happened at Easter? How can I get saved?

And while that pastor, seems to me to be of a good disposition, while there is something I find profoundly moving in what he says (when, at the end, he speaks of theology becoming biography and then doxology), I question his way of doing theology. You will need time to think through this, he said. It took me fifteen years to reach these conclusions, he said. But theology for me is not the result of human thought, but the result of beholding God as He Is. Human thoughts come into play when we lack this direct view of God and when we don't realize that we lack this beholding of God.

Now, I didn't contribute much with this post, so, sorry if you found it profoundly boring.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
To hate the sin not the sinner is Orthodox teaching, it's become a stock response from the Orthodox in the West in encounters with non-Orthodox thinking.

In fairness, Myrhh, it's pretty much stock protestant (for want of as better word) teaching too, and I would guess, it also figures pretty highly in Catholic circles. +Tom is, in fact, pretty careful not to say what you accuse him of saying. Now, as it happens, I pretty much identify with what I think you are saying with regards to God's (ie the Trinity's) attitude towards all who he has created. I agree that, if He were to exhibit wrath (in your definition of the word) towards sinners (that is irrevocable, non-redemptive and realised punishment) that would indeed be in contradiction of what we know (through the usual channels, the Scriptures, (H)oly (T)radition, the ministry of the Holy Spirit, etc) of Jesus, and would make God less than He is. But that isn't what +Tom is saying, certainly not in the link, as far as I can understand him. What he is saying is that God exhibits His wrath against sin, so much so that His nature demands that it be totally destroyed. The outworking of that total destruction would be the elimination of sin, and thus liberty for the sinner, not the destruction of the sinner. As I understand it, +Tom is unwilling to speculate as to how God will achieve that end, (ie how the component parts of God's sovereignty, mans free will, and so on, mesh together) but it seems to be fundamental to his thinking that He can, in fact, do so. I think there are plenty of targets within the non-Orthodox communities at which it would be much better to tilt. +Tom is one of the good guys, as I ( a sympathiser with Orthodox thought) would see it. And a fine and gracious man, to boot.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
[qb] Christ was reacting to the den of thieves the Temple had become, he was fully human...

Are you saying he got it wrong here?
Perhaps this is a discussion for kerygmania, if I ever get the time. It's a similar thing to that happening among us Orthodox at what is our 'holiest' spot at our most holy time, in Holy Week, at the Church of the Resurrection (the Church of the Holy Sepulchre) where the Armenian Patriarch contrary to well known and proved tradition began claiming the opposite, the Greek Patriarch ended up shoving him as Armenian tried to force his way in to a spot only the Greeks traditionally entered, I think both he and Christ could have handled it differently if it was a simple matter of losing temper, but we can't know for sure in either case.

MSHB has captured the difference in the post above, and it does seem that this collision course Christ was on with those he accused of not teaching rightly (you travel the world to make one proselyte and make him twice the child of hell you are yourselves) from which he continually escaped their anger almost had to be brought to a head for events to unfold as they did - bringing this to their home territory Temple in such an act as to force them to do something.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
[qb]A God who damns us, punishes us, for missing this or punishes us for individual sins when we had no say in the creation of ourselves is a prat, and not one I care to strive for oneness with...

Doesn't this negate free will? Are you suggesting that since we have no responsibility for sin, we shouldn't be punished for it?

I'm saying God has no right to punish us if we have been given free will.

Myrrh

quote:
I thought Orthodox hell existed. If so, doesn't it come to the same thing? Whether or not it is a consequence of anger, isn't God still a prat for creating such a situation?

 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Oops, pressed send while I was looking for something else.

Christ says he does not judge (though if he did his judgement would be true). I was looking for a story from the desert fathers to check how well I remembered it, as far as I remember monk X died and was being taken up to heaven by the angels who told him they were taking him up to the throne of God for judgement, he replied that God taught us not to judge so he couldn't be judged by God either.

Will try and find it, but here's another from the desert fathers:

Do Not Judge

One day Abba Isaac went to a monastery. He saw a brother committing a sin and he condemned him. When he returned to the desert, an angel of the Lord came and stood in front of the door of his cell, and said, "I will not let you enter." But he persisted saying, "What is the matter?" And the angel replied, "God has sent me to ask you where you want to throw the guilty brother whom you have condemned." Immediately he repented and said, "I have sinned, forgive me." Then the angel said, "Get up, God has forgiven you. But from now on, be careful not to judge someone before God has done so." From the Desert Fathers


Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I have been listening to a lecture from marshillchurch.org, following the link at Professor Kirke's signature. The speaker is representative of the kind of thinking I described earlier.

I'm a big fan of Mark Driscoll but I wouldn't put him up as an example of 'nuanced' theology. The large size of Mars Hill Church is mostly due to his popularist appeal. (BTW I think that there is a tangential issue here - what is the point of a profound understanding of the cross if we can't explain it simply?)

Therefore if you want to interact with Driscoll please do so acknowleding that this was not a 'lecture' but a a Christian sermon aimed at a wide-cross section of people with differing academic ability and Christian background (many with no Christian background at all.)

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I will insist on one point. He says that if God forgives all then all go to Heaven and none goes to Hell. He also says, at another point, that Christ died to forgive our sins.

This is very problematic. "I find that profoundly disturbing". And I would like to ask you guys if you believe that as well. Is that view widespread?

As far as I can see, it's equally problematic with universalism, because they both are based on the same premise, that God saves those whom he want, he saves those whom he forgives, that salvation depends upon God alone. So, the dialectical antithesis exists because they are both founded upon the same premise, they have common ground!

Except that it doesn't work like this. God forgives us all, and does not need of meritorious works to offer forgiveness through, in which sense the crucifixion is not the cause for our forgiveness. Christ does not die to forgive, but because he forgives. And although he forgives all people, and although he wills that all get saved, and although he will restore all, imparting incorruptibility to all, and will shine upon all as the sun shines upon all, not all will partake in God's goodness, because it's a dialog and not a monologue.

All you have done here Andreas is rehearse the Arminian vs. Calvinist (and their predecessors) arguments of the past 500 years or more.

You are right there is a whole 'freewill in tension with God's Sovereignty' thing going on here. Protestants have been pondering these issues for a while as well.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Then the angel said, "Get up, God has forgiven you. But from now on, be careful not to judge someone before God has done so." From the Desert Fathers

(Italics mine.)

Well done Myrrh. You have given us an example of God's judgment rather than one against. [Roll Eyes]

The above example would be embraced by all sides - CV, PSA, Orthodox, Protestant...

The whole point is what happens when God judges.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
All you have done here Andreas is rehearse the Arminian vs. Calvinist (and their predecessors) arguments of the past 500 years or more.

Why are you saying that? Isn't the "Christ died to forgive our sins" and "those whom God forgives do not go to Hell" accepted by both the Calvinists and the Arminians? Isn't the view that Christ had meritorious works common? Because I reject this view, and by rejecting this common ground I express my disagreement with both Arminianism and Calvinism.

ETA: And since we are remembering stories from the desert fathers...

There was this monk who was lazy and wasn't that ascetical. When he got seriously ill and he was about to die, the fathers asked him how he feels, as is usual for these cases. He replied that he felt wonderful. Aren't you afraid of Hell? You haven't been that zealous in your religious duties... No, there is no Hell for me. Have you ever heard me condemning another person? Speaking ill of anyone? I have never passed judgment upon another person. Therefore I too will not be put under judgment, in accordance with the Scriptures.

[ 24. March 2008, 23:20: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Then the angel said, "Get up, God has forgiven you. But from now on, be careful not to judge someone before God has done so." From the Desert Fathers

(Italics mine.)

Well done Myrrh. You have given us an example of God's judgment rather than one against. [Roll Eyes]

The above example would be embraced by all sides - CV, PSA, Orthodox, Protestant...

The whole point is what happens when God judges.

I began by saying Christ said he didn't judge.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

I thought Orthodox hell existed. If so, doesn't it come to the same thing? Whether or not it is a consequence of anger, isn't God still a prat for creating such a situation?

[/QB][/QUOTE]

Didn't mean to leave this hanging without reply, but a bit difficult to answer. Orthodox don't have the plethora of doctrines about hell as in the West, the emphasis is always on our own work to forgive, not to judge and so on, I really can't imagine a priest delivering a sermon threatening us with hell fire if we don't repent.. mind boggling. The bottom line I suppose is that hell for us is separation from God's love, but this isn't something God does to us as punishment, but, as in our reading of the Prodigal Son, we choose to move away from that, our own misery.

Is God a prat for creating such a situation, whatever the explanation? Good question, what do you think?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Isn't the view that Christ had meritorious works common? Because I reject this view, and by rejecting this common ground I express my disagreement with both Arminianism and Calvinism.

We already know that. My point was that the tension between God's sovereignty and our freewill is a given on this thread (or so I thought from the discussion so far) what would be helpful is to move the debate forward with suggestions how the tension could be resolved.


quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

ETA: And since we are remembering stories from the desert fathers...

There was this monk who was lazy and wasn't that ascetical. When he got seriously ill and he was about to die, the fathers asked him how he feels, as is usual for these cases. He replied that he felt wonderful. Aren't you afraid of Hell? You haven't been that zealous in your religious duties... No, there is no Hell for me. Have you ever heard me condemning another person? Speaking ill of anyone? I have never passed judgment upon another person. Therefore I too will not be put under judgment, in accordance with the Scriptures.

Back to the Sermon on the Mount. [Roll Eyes]

The opening verses of Matthew 7 alluded to here are immediately followed by verses that make it clear that Jesus is concerned with hypocrisy here (not in making judgements / discernment per se) and then the odd verse about pearls before swine ... I'm not sure exactly what Jesus means here but the one thing that is certain is that Jesus is encouraging his followers to exercise discernment ... to judge.

Therefore, to be charitable [Razz] , I will assume that your story above was given to illustrate that Monks are not great at interpreting the Bible.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I began by saying Christ said he didn't judge.

And?

What was the point of the story then?

... is God not like Jesus then?
 
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I began by saying Christ said he didn't judge.

And?

What was the point of the story then?

... is God not like Jesus then?

Both questions may be answered:

(a) Jesus prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

(b) Peter asked, "Should I forgive my brother 7 times?" Jesus answered, "No, seventy times seven."

(c) Christ taught them to pray, "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us."

(d) Jesus said to the woman caught in the act of adultery, "Has no one condemned you? Neither do I."

I certainly hope that the Father is like the Son.

I think of the story of the weeping prostitute who washed his feet, and the many other instances of his compassion towards wrong doers.

I don't remember him even condemning the thief on the cross who bad mouthed him and never repented (as far as we know). I can't imagine Jesus not forgiving that man - he expects us to forgive such people, when they behave badly to us.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
MSHB - no one doubts Christ's willingness to forgive.

We've been through this before on this thread. The argument is over whether said forgiveness is conditional on repentance or not.

Was the cleaning of the temple an example of his forgiveness?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
he is saying is that God exhibits His wrath against sin, so much so that His nature demands that it be totally destroyed. The outworking of that total destruction would be the elimination of sin, and thus liberty for the sinner, not the destruction of the sinner. As I understand it, +Tom is unwilling to speculate as to how God will achieve that end, (ie how the component parts of God's sovereignty, mans free will, and so on, mesh together) but it seems to be fundamental to his thinking that He can, in fact, do so.
I take it you agree with this JJ. ie that he can in fact do so. Unfortunately you have never been able to state precisely how on the basis of a CV reading either....

Now I could show you a more perfect way....
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I began by saying Christ said he didn't judge.

And?

What was the point of the story then?

... is God not like Jesus then?

The point of each story is to be worked out knowing that a) Christ is God, b) Christ said he does not judge and c) Christ is the final judge.


Myrrh

[ 25. March 2008, 08:05: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:


b) Christ said he does not judge and
c) Christ is the final judge.


Ah .... I see. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:


b) Christ said he does not judge and
c) Christ is the final judge.


Ah .... I see. [Ultra confused]
Yes, so contradictory:
quote:
John 12:47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.
Yet He also says, in the same gospel:
quote:
John 9:39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.”
Isn't Jesus really just explaining the nature of judgment?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Therefore, to be charitable [Razz] , I will assume that your story above was given to illustrate that Monks are not great at interpreting the Bible.

So, do not judge and you will not be judged does not mean do not judge and you will not be judged because Jesus said we are to have discernment which means to judge... There is a difference between discernment and judging others. And I see the monk taking Christ very seriously.

Anyway, the life of the desert fathers is completely alien to us, so it's like talking about people from another galaxy. Many of them were whole, we are so broken... And we have the nerve to be talking about hell. I don't know about you, so I will change that to: and I have the nerve to be talking about hell! Very ironic.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't Jesus really just explaining the nature of judgment?

Pleeeease. This is John's gospel we're talking about here. A much more plausible harmonisation is that Jesus did not come this time to judge, he came to save, but he will return to judge the world.

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgement is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me."

John 5: 24-30
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
There is a difference between discernment and judging others.

And yet the Greek word is used interchangeably in the gospels - e.g. Luke 7: 43.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:


b) Christ said he does not judge and
c) Christ is the final judge.


Ah .... I see. [Ultra confused]
Yes, so contradictory:
...

Isn't Jesus really just explaining the nature of judgment?

As I've said, first pick your God. The instructions are to become as perfect. We teach that God is ever merciful, ever forgiving, ever loving - because that is God's nature and God cannot be anything else, this is Christ's teaching as it's come down to us. By this we judge the content of Scripture, we don't use Scripture to create a God for ourselves.

Myrrh
 
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
MSHB - no one doubts Christ's willingness to forgive.

We've been through this before on this thread. The argument is over whether said forgiveness is conditional on repentance or not.

Was the cleaning of the temple an example of his forgiveness?

The problem I have with this is: Jesus did not say on the cross that he was willing to forgive his persecutors if they repented. He called out "Father, forgive them" not "Father, if they repent, forgive them" nor "Father, wait and see if they repent..."

The cleaning out of the temple was not an example of his forgiveness. Neither was his falling asleep in the back of a boat crossing the Sea of Galilee. It is one thing to say an act wasn't about forgiveness, and quite another to say that it was about *not* forgiving. As I see it, cleaning out the temple was *not* about punishing the money changers, nor yet a campaign against "injustice". It was more like "you cannot make an omelette without cracking eggs" - he was turning the temple back into a house of prayer, removing a source of profanity. He did not rush off into the market place to attack all the other cheats and fraudulent traders (which I am sure existed, if they also were to be found at the temple). He did not have to travel up to Jerusalem, nor yet go into the temple, if all he wanted to do was condemn injustice.

The point wasn't to go after injustices, but to show up how far the temple authorities (the shepherds of Israel, so to speak) had let the place turn into its opposite. In a sense, he was acting out his own teaching: "If your eye offends you, pluck it out". Israel - called to be the Elect People of God - had closed their eyes to their own corruption of that calling. Christ was calling them prophetically to repent. That is different to saying that they had to repent to be forgiven. Indeed, in Zacchaeus's case I would say that he repented because he had been forgiven already.

Just before Good Friday, Jesus said that he had often wanted to take Jerusalem "under his wing" ... "but they would not". They rejected him; he did not reject them. So, after Good Friday and Easter Sunday had taken place, He pours out his Spirit on his disciples in the midst of that same Jerusalem - the apostles' mission began with the very people who had crucified him. He was still there, holding out his hand to a rebellious nation. Still the same Prodigal Father, looking up the road hoping that his wayward son will come home.

I don't see it as "willingness to forgive", as though the forgiveness is still in the future, is something being held back. Christ has forgiven. But he hasn't stopped the sin from having its consequences for the sinner (just as he hasn't stopped the sin from having its consequences for the victims). And in the case of the money changers - they were in the wrong place at the wrong time (like the people who were there when a tower fell over in Jerusalem and were killed). The money changers were blind to the holiness of the temple, but they were tolerated by those (the temple priesthood) who were supposed to reveal the light to Israel, not muddy it. It was time for some prophetically acted out teaching - the winking of the eye at the profaning of the temple had to be "plucked out". The issue was not whether the money changers had been forgiven, the issue was whether Israel could see where it had fallen to ("You have turned the house of prayer into a den of thieves").

If I shout at you for putting a metal fork into a powerpoint, I am not punishing you or condemning you. I am trying to get you to understand how seriously you could hurt (kill) yourself. I am trying to get you to stop being blase about something that I know is much more dangerous than you realise. It has nothing to do with forgiveness or its being conditional upon repentance. So too Christ at the temple: He was calling out "Wake up Israel - You are like somebody who is trying to put acid drops in their eyes - you are turning the very sign of the presence of God in your midst into a den of profanity - you are blinding yourselves as to who God is in the most fundamental way".
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
In fairness, Myrhh, it's pretty much stock protestant (for want of as better word) teaching too, and I would guess, it also figures pretty highly in Catholic circles.

My impression is that when we Orthodox speak of hatred with regards to sin, we mean our own sin and not the sin of someone else, it is about us realizing our wickedness and thus being sincere with ourselves. We don't go around hating other people's sins.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My point was that the tension between God's sovereignty and our freewill is a given on this thread

I don't see a tension, but I'd like to ask something:

Is sovereignty a scriptural term? Could you point me to where the Scriptures use that word, so that I can read for myself the ancient Greek text and see what you mean by that. English is not my native tongue, so I would find it useful if I knew what the scriptural term for that word is.
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
The King of the Kingdom is the Sovereign. Christ the King. Sovereignty.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Myrrh

Clearly I must clean up my way of saying things! The illustration from my pastor was meant to point to the dangers of reading too much into a single phrase in a sermon. He extemporises (typical of nonconformist preachers) sometimes muddles his words to either comic or confusing effect (I've seen a fair bit of that elsewhere as well) and as a result visitors may misunderstand what he is seeking to say. He needs an interpreter from time to time (and knows it! The office staff pull his leg over his "howlers").

JJ is right, + Tom is a good and gracious priest.

I'm pretty sure I'm not being revisionist re protestantism in general, also as JJ says. What I can certainly confirm is that the way I put it is pretty much the way it was explained to me 35 years ago as a new convert at the church where I still worship. (If I close my eyes, I can still see the flannelgraphs.)
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
OK I'll take on board your explanations about the good Bishop Tom [Smile]

I did a quick trawl on the phrase and found several complaining about its use, 'lately' 'cliche', and so on; (Cliche), I have to say I'd rather have no God at all and this wrathful one hating me for being what he created..

Johnny, are you still waiting for a reply from me? If you are I'll get back to this over the weekend.


Myrrh

[ 25. March 2008, 19:55: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
he is saying is that God exhibits His wrath against sin, so much so that His nature demands that it be totally destroyed. The outworking of that total destruction would be the elimination of sin, and thus liberty for the sinner, not the destruction of the sinner. As I understand it, +Tom is unwilling to speculate as to how God will achieve that end, (ie how the component parts of God's sovereignty, mans free will, and so on, mesh together) but it seems to be fundamental to his thinking that He can, in fact, do so.
I take it you agree with this JJ. ie that he can in fact do so. Unfortunately you have never been able to state precisely how on the basis of a CV reading either....

Now I could show you a more perfect way....

Hmmn, the point I was really making was that +Tom was not saying what he was accused of saying, and so I filled in a little bit of what I understand his position to be.

In actual fact, I don't, as it happens, agree with what +Tom is saying on this narrow issue. I think he is wrong to draw a stark polarity between "impassivity" (which protestants tend to see as "indifference") and wrath (which Orthodoxen see as contrary to the nature of a God who loves all that He created). To my mind, there is a third option, not impassivity or wrath, but rather, compassion: not being outraged or offended at sin, but rather getting His metaphorical sleeves rolled up and setting about fixing things.

Now I'm no Greek scholar, but my understanding of the word that we translate into English as "wrath" is nearer in meaning to "indignation" than to anger. It is, if you like, God saying "It should not be!". and of course, because it is God saying it, this becomes "It [bold]shall[/bold] not be!". It is, if you like, the flip side of the creative word, "Let it be!". And, if the creative word was realised by the eternal Word, then this, the "uncreative word" (better the "re-creative word" )was as well. The atonement is that re-creative word.

I'm not sure whether or not I've answered your question, Jamat, partly because I'm not really sure what your question is, but I think I have laid out a coherent and scriptural schema.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
he is saying is that God exhibits His wrath against sin, so much so that His nature demands that it be totally destroyed. The outworking of that total destruction would be the elimination of sin, and thus liberty for the sinner, not the destruction of the sinner. As I understand it, +Tom is unwilling to speculate as to how God will achieve that end, (ie how the component parts of God's sovereignty, mans free will, and so on, mesh together) but it seems to be fundamental to his thinking that He can, in fact, do so.
I take it you agree with this JJ. ie that he can in fact do so. Unfortunately you have never been able to state precisely how on the basis of a CV reading either....

Now I could show you a more perfect way....

Hmmn, the point I was really making was that +Tom was not saying what he was accused of saying, and so I filled in a little bit of what I undersatand his position to be.

In actual fact, I don'tn as it happens, agree with what +Tom is saying on this narrow issue. I think he is wrong to draw a stark polarity between "impassivity" (which protestants tend to read as "indifference"), and wrath (which Orthodoxen see as contrary to the nature of a God who loves all that He has created). To my mind, there is a third option, not impassivity or wrath, but rather compassion: not being outraged or offended at sin, but rather getting His metaphorical sleeves rolled up and setting about fixing things.

Now I'm no Greek scholar, but my understanding of the word that we translate into English as "wrath" is nearer in meaning to "indignation" than to anger. If is, if you like, God saying "It should not be!" And, of course, because it is God saying it, this becomes, "It [bold]shall [/bold]not be!" It is, if you like, the flip side of the creative word, "Let it be!" And, if the creative word was realised by the Eternal Word, then this, the "un-creative word" (better, the "re-creative" word) was as well. The atonement is that re-creative word.

I'm not sure whether or not I've answered your question, Jamat, in part because I'm not really sure what your question is, but I think I have set out a coherent and scriptural schema.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Oops, double post. Sorry!
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:

Israel - called to be the Elect People of God - had closed their eyes to their own corruption of that calling. Christ was calling them prophetically to repent.

As it happens I agree with your interpretation of the cleansing of the temple.

However, I cannot see how you take that line of interpretation and see Christ's action as a prohpetic warning of further judgment on Israel's cultic system - i.e. the temple.

Indeed, isn't that exactly why Mark sandwiches the temple cleaning between the cursing of the temple. The warning is clear - produce fruit in keeping with repentance or you will judged / cursed!


quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
If I shout at you for putting a metal fork into a powerpoint, I am not punishing you or condemning you. I am trying to get you to understand how seriously you could hurt (kill) yourself.

This is where Freddy and I do not see eye to eye. ISTM that you can't have it both ways. If you are going to use a physical 'cause and effect' analogy then there is no room for grace. It becomes, "If you put the fork in there then you will be electrocuted." Electricity knows no mercy and cannot forgive. I trust in the grace and mercy of a God who is not bound by laws of nature!
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
I'm not sure whether or not I've answered your question, Jamat, in part because I'm not really sure what your question is, but I think I have set out a coherent and scriptural schema.
I like the distinction you draw though I don't quite understand how compassion sits neatly between wrath and impassivity.

I also like the concept of wrath as indignation though don't see how wrath/anger is precluded. One can be intensely angry as a result of indignation.

However, I am curious as to your thinking atonement is a 'recreative' concept. What I presume you mean is atonement is a reconciliation tool, (which works well for either model).

I still have my basic beef with CV as nebulous in how it actually deals with evil and see PSA or a derivative of ransom theory as a more practical workable concept for your average soldier of the faith. We are able to thereby see how the devil is defeated and how our sins are forgiven at one fell stroke.

Truth to tell, mate, I was baiting you a bit with the question but you, always the gentleman responded with dignity.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
If you are going to use a physical 'cause and effect' analogy then there is no room for grace. It becomes, "If you put the fork in there then you will be electrocuted." Electricity knows no mercy and cannot forgive. I trust in the grace and mercy of a God who is not bound by laws of nature!
I'm interested in the idea, not of physical laws but spiritual laws.

if we see smething called the 'law of faith' operating, then we should see mountains moved.

I'm interested in Grace too and understand you are juxtaposing grace with law in your discussion. However the concept of something like a 'law of gravity' metaphor in the spiritual realm is fascinating. Is there such a law. Immutable .. something you can stumble on that always works. I've heard preaching on 'sowing and reaping' that seems to make such claims at times. jesus said for instance give and it will be given' and Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in heaven.'

By the wy , is there an Orthodox take on that stuff?

Another red herring I know: feel free to ignore.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, I cannot see how you take that line of interpretation and see Christ's action as a prohpetic warning of further judgment on Israel's cultic system - i.e. the temple.

Oops! That should read: "... and not see Christ's action as a prophetic warning of future judgment ..." [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I'm interested in Grace too and understand you are juxtaposing grace with law in your discussion. However the concept of something like a 'law of gravity' metaphor in the spiritual realm is fascinating. Is there such a law. Immutable .. something you can stumble on that always works. I've heard preaching on 'sowing and reaping' that seems to make such claims at times.

My point is that is that the bible seems to put it both ways:

1. There is 'reaping and sowing'. A drunk teenager drives home and kills himself in a ditch.

2. Sometimes we don't reap what we sow. A drunk teenager drives home and nothing happens. God is merciful and gracious.

The life of King David seems to be full of examples of both of these principles.

I think the gospel only works if we have general principles (like proverbs) but ones that God, in his mercy, can still over rule.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Johnny S

What is your take on "hate the sin, love the sinner"? Don't mind spelling mine out, which is that God hates sin, loves sinners. I know that not all of scripture says that, but that is where I get to, after weighing all the contrasts. I'm an ex-prodigal son who thinks he has a prodigal-loving father. Who loved me before I ever got out of the pigsty, or even recognised the pigsty. We love because He first loved us.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Johnny S

What is your take on "hate the sin, love the sinner"? Don't mind spelling mine out, which is that God hates sin, loves sinners.

My take is that it is useful at a kind of soundbite level, but is rather reductionistic.

At one level it is undoubtedly true ... as you rightly say ... it was while we were still sinners that Christ died for us.

However, this sums up my struggle with CV. I like it as a medical metaphor depicting sin as a disease which God hates and us as victims of that disease whom God loves. So far so good. And yet, that seems to remove our responsibility for sin ... we are not 'victims'... sinning as much sinned against.

So, John 3: 16-18, beloved of the good Bishop [Biased] , is worth reflecting on. At one level it agrees with 'hates the sin, loves the sinner' ... but still leaves us with all those who reject the son standing condemned. I think God still carries on loving them, but surely that love must be qualified in some sense or the word becomes meaningless.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

At one level it is undoubtedly true ... as you rightly say ... it was while we were still sinners that Christ died for us.


I suppose, after 35 years on the road, I believe it is actually the deepest level I can get to. But you're right, it certain can appear reductionist. Did to me at one time.

As you know I embrace CV and SA as saying something together that neither really says on its own. It's probably more a matter of resonance than a worked-out theology.

In my earlier years as a Christian, I spent far more time working out theology than I did following Jesus as best I knew him to be. That changed - I think it changed me for the better. The both/and balance is better now. I'm a lot gentler as a result of seeking to live it out more. (My wife says so and as you know our wives are always right about such things).

My theological understanding is probably a good deal less tidy than it was in my "young turk" days, but I find that bothers me a lot less than it used to!
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I'm not sure whether or not I've answered your question, Jamat, in part because I'm not really sure what your question is, but I think I have set out a coherent and scriptural schema.
I like the distinction you draw though I don't quite understand how compassion sits neatly between wrath and impassivity.
Fair point Jamat. I possibly phrased it wrongly. It's not so much that compassion sits between impassivity and anger, but rather that it seems to me a better way of describing God's attitude to His compromised creation. I basically don't agree with +Tom that any approach to evil which does not incorporate anger at that evil is somehow morally compromise. I think that someone who uses all their energy to fight, to heal, to mend the effects of evil does not need to be angry about it. Anger is a sign of frustration, of powerlessness. As the saying goes, it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness. But, of course, a lot depends on how we define anger.

quote:

I also like the concept of wrath as indignation though don't see how wrath/anger is precluded. One can be intensely angry as a result of indignation.

Well this is, of course, true, but because something is not precluded, it doesn't mean it is inherently present. I was just trying to point out that the word translated "wrath" is not a perfect synonym for anger; maybe we can think of God as having wrath against sin, but not having anger against sin. That may be a position with which our Orthodox brethren would be happy.
quote:

However, I am curious as to your thinking atonement is a 'recreative' concept. What I presume you mean is atonement is a reconciliation tool, (which works well for either model).

Yes, that's pretty much it, though I think that, whilst reconciliation is always at the heart of the Atonement, there is more than reconciliation going on (or maybe biclical reconciliation is a richer concept than we, at first reading, appreciate). I had in mind the cosmic dimension to the Atonement, whereby God initiates in the here and now the new heaven and the new earth that will finally be consummated at the Second Coming. Whilst I agree that this cosmic dimension is present in both CV and PSA schemas, I think it is more prominent under CV. But I guess that you would argue that personal responsibility is more significant under PSA, so I wouldn't make too much of an issue of it. More significant is whether or not the primary human problem is judicial guilt or the ontological effects of sin.

quote:
I still have my basic beef with CV as nebulous in how it actually deals with evil and see PSA or a derivative of ransom theory as a more practical workable concept for your average soldier of the faith. We are able to thereby see how the devil is defeated and how our sins are forgiven at one fell stroke.
Fair enough, though I've always found people understand the concepts expressed in, say, Romans 7, quite readily; and of course, we can preach new life under either PSA or CV schemas.

quote:

Truth to tell, mate, I was baiting you a bit with the question but you, always the gentleman responded with dignity.

Why, thank you Jamat, for your kind words.

[ 27. March 2008, 00:05: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Kester (# 13537) on :
 
I was raised on "Substitutionary Atonement" and found "Christus Victor" to be balm to my soul. "Substitutionary Atonement" made me think of myself (I'm a teacher) giving students a test which A) they could never pass and B) wouldn't matter if they got everything right because they had already failed because their dad had failed the same class. As Tolstoy said:
quote:
Your faith teaches that Adam committed all sin in my stead and for some reason I must make payment for him. But later Christ fulfilled all virtue in my stead and I can but sign a receipt for one and the other.
A Japanese pagan said something similar:
quote:
You preach the most senseless faith. As though God became enraged with all men for one foolish act of Eve and afterwards executed His Son, Who was entirely innocent, and only then would He be pacified.
Thus, I much prefer the Christus Victor theory, in which Christ comes to rescue us from the Enemy rather than from His Father. As the Orthodox prayer states:
quote:
Christ has risen
Trampling death by death
And to those in the tomb
Bestowing life.

A little used, but truly fantastic, Easter hymn does a really good job of conveying this message. It's by Wipo of Burgundy:

Christians, to the Paschal victim
offer your thankful praises!

A lamb the sheep redeemeth:
Christ, who only is sinless,
reconcileth sinners to the Father.

Death and life have contended
in that combat stupendous:
the Prince of life, who died,
reigns immortal.

Speak, Mary, declaring
what thou sawest, wayfaring:

"The tomb of Christ, who is living,
the glory of Jesus' resurrection;

"Bright angels attesting,
the shroud and napkin resting.

"Yea, Christ my hope is arisen;
to Galilee he will go before you."

Christ indeed from death is risen,
our new life obtaining;
have mercy, victor King, ever reigning!
Amen.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Hi Kester - a great place for your first post ... well, I think so.

quote:
Originally posted by Kester:
Thus, I much prefer the Christus Victor theory, in which Christ comes to rescue us from the Enemy rather than from His Father.

What is that enemy?

As we have discussed on this thread if you make the enemy to be Satan then you have constructed a platonic dualistic world view. However, if death or sin is the enemy (and completely alien to humanity) then we are left wondering why God created them in the first place.

(Surely any theodicy must make sin and death an essential part of humanity ... and thus for God to get angry (whatever that means [Roll Eyes] ) with sin must, in some sense, involve him getting angry with humanity?)


quote:
Originally posted by Kester:
Christ, who only is sinless,
reconcileth sinners to the Father.

Another thing that needs qualifying. Why do sinners need reconciling to the Father if he is not their enemy? Again, as we have discussed on this thread, for CV to work God is our enemy without us having to be God's enemy. However, the 'reconcileth' above implies a two way process.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Hi kester.

Both/and rather than either/or?

Christ came , sent by the Father to defeat sin (which he hates, disempower the Devil (who has usurped mans authority) and rescue us, (whom he loves,) whom sin has/had in thrall.

It seems that all champions of the CV view share a deeply hurtful experience at the hands of exponents of PSA or ransom theory. Surely this is the fault of the singers not the song.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

It seems that all champions of the CV view share a deeply hurtful experience at the hands of exponents of PSA or ransom theory. Surely this is the fault of the singers not the song.

Not all. I think there are lots of us who can see ransom and substitution and victory in both the NT and the various traditional explanation. And it is possible to argue that all of the theories (models, pictures), whatever their basis or antiquity, tend to come apart if you press them too far. There is mystery in the history which I think cannot be completely resolved. It seems better to me to accept both the value and the lack of complete adequacy of any of the models on their own. But YMMV.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Johnny, is this the question you mean?

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm at a complete loss to understand how you're able to understand Christ's words when you follow teachers who call themselves Christian but baldly state that Christ's God isn't good and present the 'evil father' of those Pharisees he argued against as if this were Christ's good God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes we can all read the Sermon on the Mount. That would be the bit that ends with Jesus telling a story about what will happen to those who do not obey his words - the rain will fall and destroy their houses. Is God not sending that rain in chapter 7?

(Either this 'just happens' as Freddy said - natural consequences - or it comes as the active will of God. Either way round your reading of the Sermon on the Mount falls apart.)

I don't see any contradiction here. Christ describes God's perfect love as rain which falls on the just and unjust alike, i.e., as we have it, a constant force as an uncreated energy of God (actually God) which is given to all regardless of their status, giving love to those who do good as well as to those who do evil - so who are those whose houses survive? Those who have built their houses on solid rock and that solid rock is the relationship with the perfect God in the becoming like God. To be true children as in the examples, those who actively do good in response to evil. The force is love, a reaction of hate to such love is self-destruction, here we are the builders of our own houses. As in the example of the elder son in the Prodigal Son, having his full inheritance and not apart from perfect love he injured himself by his jealousy and resentment on his brother's return; God's love for him hadn't changed.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Hi Kester - a great place for your first post ... well, I think so.

quote:
Originally posted by Kester:
Thus, I much prefer the Christus Victor theory, in which Christ comes to rescue us from the Enemy rather than from His Father.

What is that enemy?

As we have discussed on this thread if you make the enemy to be Satan then you have constructed a platonic dualistic world view.

Only if you make the two equal.


quote:
However, if death or sin is the enemy (and completely alien to humanity) then we are left wondering why God created them in the first place.
The alienation of matter from God is Gnosticism.


quote:
(Surely any theodicy must make sin and death and essential part of humanity ... and thus for God to get angry (whatever that means [Roll Eyes] ) with sin must, in some sense, involve him getting angry with humanity?)
Only in such as the OS doctrine which creates a separation between God and man with God having final authority over man as a lesser and robotic creation with only pretence to free will as God's actual decision with regard to his creation is to give only one choice, to obey or disobey in a mechanical universe.


quote:
Johnny
quote:
Originally posted by Kester:
Christ, who only is sinless,
reconcileth sinners to the Father.

Another thing that needs qualifying. Why do sinners need reconciling to the Father if he is not their enemy?
For those who perceive God as their enemy because of doctrines such as OS Christ reconciles to the Father in Himself; as before, in not judging, not condemning, the perceived conflict of sinners v God as enemy is resolved.

quote:
Again, as we have discussed on this thread, for CV to work God is our enemy without us having to be God's enemy. However, the 'reconcileth' above implies a two way process.
Sure it does, give up thinking God is enemy and judge, hating and condemning to eternal torture all those not coming up to his exacting standard..

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I don't see any contradiction here. Christ describes God's perfect love as rain which falls on the just and unjust alike,

Yep this is the bit.

You are picking and mixing when you want to use literalt rain or when you want to use it as a metaphor of God's love.

Either:

1. Jesus is speaking about literal rain falling on the just and unjust alike ... but then we have to say that he sends the rain to water the crops AND the flood to drown people.

or

2. Jesus is speaking metaphorically ... but then being a metaphor it begs the question of how to apply the metaphor. (Contrast / comparison)

Either way, you have not proved your point.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:


quote:
As we have discussed on this thread if you make the enemy to be Satan then you have constructed a platonic dualistic world view.
Only if you make the two equal.
Right, so we can wave goodbye to any ransom models which see Satan as the one being 'bought off'. There is no 'deeper magic' which gives the White Witch an inherent right to Aslan's sacrifice.


quote:
The alienation of matter from God is Gnosticism.
My point entirely. So to separate sin entirely, as a concept, from sinners is Gnostic. Therefore to say that God 'hates' sin without feeling any animosity at all towards sinners must be Gnostic too.


quote:
(Surely any theodicy must make sin and death and essential part of humanity ... and thus for God to get angry (whatever that means [Roll Eyes] ) with sin must, in some sense, involve him getting angry with humanity?)
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Only in such as the OS doctrine which creates a separation between God and man with God having final authority over man as a lesser and robotic creation with only pretence to free will as God's actual decision with regard to his creation is to give only one choice, to obey or disobey in a mechanical universe.

[Confused] I thought my point depended on human responsibility?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

You are picking and mixing when you want to use literalt rain or when you want to use it as a metaphor of God's love.

Either:

1. Jesus is speaking about literal rain falling on the just and unjust alike ... but then we have to say that he sends the rain to water the crops AND the flood to drown people or

2. Jesus is speaking metaphorically ... but then being a metaphor it begs the question of how to apply the metaphor. (Contrast / comparison)

Either way, you have not proved your point.

The Sermon on the Mount is spread over 3 chapters and any determination to use this story to prove God hates sinners and will destroy them if they don't shape up to some rigorous standard he's set is taking this out of context of the whole, beginning in Chapter 5, in which he gives the way to act in the perfection of God's love which he describes as rain falling on the just and unjust alike.

Christ's teaching is all about being non-judgemental, acting justly with regard to others (keeping the commandments and so on), loving mercy and walking humbly with God (the law and the prophets), what he gives here are examples of how to do this in pure light of this God who loves sinners and good alike against a corrupted teaching about God, to hate, to justify loving some and hating others.


The sermon is about our actions and relationship to thisGod, Christ's God, about trusting that relationship and changing ourselves in its practice, which effort includes the possibility of persecution for spreading this teaching. Why should we strive to practice the perfection of this God, to love our enemies, to be merciful, to actively aid regardless of the cost and so on, if God then fell short of this perfection?


24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

The rock which stops our house from being swept away in the storms of false prophets teaching other gods is the solid foundation of hearing, understanding, Christ's description of God and in putting being that into practice, in becoming that.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The rock which stops our house from being swept away in the storms of false prophets teaching other gods is the solid foundation of hearing, understanding, Christ's description of God and in putting being that into practice, in becoming that.

Myrrh, this is getting tedious.

What about the foolish man? What happens to him? How can the words of Jesus be anything but a threat to those who disobey his words?

Now, again [Roll Eyes] , you have two options:

1. The threat concerns the natural consequence of people receiving bad stuff happening to them from Satan, others etc.

or ...

2. The house falling flat is the judgment of God.


Now ... and this is going to be the last time I'm going to try to explain this since I've got to go to bed and I've said it three times now already [Disappointed] ... I presume you want to go with 1 - God does not make the house fall flat. However, if you do that, then it somewhat undermines your claim that God sending the rain indiscriminately speaks of his love. For since rain can both bring life and death, how can you say God is actively standing behind the good stuff and not the bad?

To answer all these questions we would have to go to other parts of scripture. However, all I'm saying is that there is NO WAY you can try to make the Sermon on the Mount say unilaterally what you are trying to make it say. The Sermon on the Mount is much more nuanced than you are making out.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The rock which stops our house from being swept away in the storms of false prophets teaching other gods is the solid foundation of hearing, understanding, Christ's description of God and in putting being that into practice, in becoming that.

Myrrh, this is getting tedious.

What about the foolish man? What happens to him? How can the words of Jesus be anything but a threat to those who disobey his words?

Now, again [Roll Eyes] , you have two options:

1. The threat concerns the natural consequence of people receiving bad stuff happening to them from Satan, others etc.

or ...

2. The house falling flat is the judgment of God.


Now ... and this is going to be the last time I'm going to try to explain this since I've got to go to bed and I've said it three times now already [Disappointed] ... I presume you want to go with 1 - God does not make the house fall flat. However, if you do that, then it somewhat undermines your claim that God sending the rain indiscriminately speaks of his love. For since rain can both bring life and death, how can you say God is actively standing behind the good stuff and not the bad?

To answer all these questions we would have to go to other parts of scripture. However, all I'm saying is that there is NO WAY you can try to make the Sermon on the Mount say unilaterally what you are trying to make it say. The Sermon on the Mount is much more nuanced than you are making out.

And you're missing the nuances. This is first and last a teaching about Christ's God, understanding what that means is essential to hearing Christ.

What you propose is that Christ teaches us to strive for the perfection of God's love as he describes it, which is eternal love for both sinner and saint equally, and then you say he reverts back to describing a God who can't live up to his own standards, who doesn't love mercy.

We're back to the Pharisees of his day whose practices thought nothing of breaking the commandments as they held their own doctrines up to be those of God's and enslaved the people to their hell. What your doctrines teach is that of a 'heathen' God who rules with absolute authority over creation and the various doctrines created from this; demanding blood sacrifices of humans before he'll forgive sins and judging disobedience such an affront to his dignity that he punishes with eternal torture and so on. For example, to this day the RCC ignores its own hypocricy in claiming to teach Christ while judging each of its members guilty of damnation for mortal sin (and God's punishment for venial sin even after God has forgiven them - Christ's teaching about being non-judgemental and forgiving obviously doesn't apply to their priests and creation of doctrines in which they hold their people in thrall and to this end they can find all manner of verses to justify the correctness of their view, as you're doing. Calling your view of God, Christ's, doesn't make it so. First choose your God, Christ's or a.n.other's.

God's judgement is mercy, unto the ages of ages world without end.

Sleep well.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Barnabas, I've got an early start tomorrow, and my bed was comfy and warm..

I won't belabour the Augustine connection, but what the mindset of 'Western' Christians became is down to his understanding and (mis)interpretation of Scripture, you've ended up with a wrathful God full of anger against sinners to the extent that you think such sermons as above are about the true love of God. How can you possibly read the parable of the Prodigal Son and agree with the bishop that a God who says 'never mind I still love you' is neither loving nor good?

Myrrh

How can you reconcile the fact the the parable of the prodigal son would never have been told unless Jesus had been born to die on a cross to atone for your sins? You seem to think that the parable exists in a Christless vacuum which is why your soteriology in sub-Christian. The parable does not present a crossless soteriology because the one who told it is one who who bore our sins in his body on the tree. The fact that the parable is true rests on Christ's work on the cross, not in spite of it. Only Jesus could tell that parable because only Jesus makes the parable true. Only because of Christ's death on the cross is it possible to return to God the Father. His death ratifies the parable and purchases it's meaning.

[ 29. March 2008, 14:20: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Barnabas, I've got an early start tomorrow, and my bed was comfy and warm..

I won't belabour the Augustine connection, but what the mindset of 'Western' Christians became is down to his understanding and (mis)interpretation of Scripture, you've ended up with a wrathful God full of anger against sinners to the extent that you think such sermons as above are about the true love of God. How can you possibly read the parable of the Prodigal Son and agree with the bishop that a God who says 'never mind I still love you' is neither loving nor good?

Myrrh

How can you reconcile the fact the the parable of the prodigal son would never have been told unless Jesus had been born to die on a cross to atone for your sins?


I don't believe in a God that requires sacrifice for sins (Isaiah, Jeremiah), I believe in a God who is eternal love and mercy, i.e., it's not my God that required a perfect human sacrifice to atone for my sins.

The story of the Prodigal would stand just as well for me if Christ had died of old age.

Our teaching is of God becoming fully human, the emphasis of all teaching goes back to the incarnation as God's inextricable entry into creation within the apparent Creator/created reality of us being created in the image and likeness of God.


quote:
You seem to think that the parable exists in a Christless vacuum which is why your soteriology in sub-Christian. The parable does not present a crossless soteriology because the one who told it is one who who bore our sins in his body on the tree. The fact that the parable is true rests on Christ's work on the cross, not in spite of it. Only Jesus could tell that parable because only Jesus makes the parable true. Only because of Christ's death on the cross is it possible to return to God the Father. His death ratifies the parable and purchases it's meaning.
That parable has always been true in Jewish teaching of God's mercy and forgiveness - the prodigal repented and returned, it wasn't his father who was condemning him to separation.

Myrrh

[ 29. March 2008, 14:45: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
 
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Barnabas, I've got an early start tomorrow, and my bed was comfy and warm..

I won't belabour the Augustine connection, but what the mindset of 'Western' Christians became is down to his understanding and (mis)interpretation of Scripture, you've ended up with a wrathful God full of anger against sinners to the extent that you think such sermons as above are about the true love of God. How can you possibly read the parable of the Prodigal Son and agree with the bishop that a God who says 'never mind I still love you' is neither loving nor good?

Myrrh

How can you reconcile the fact the the parable of the prodigal son would never have been told unless Jesus had been born to die on a cross to atone for your sins?


I don't believe in a God that requires sacrifice for sins (Isaiah, Jeremiah), I believe in a God who is eternal love and mercy, i.e., it's not my God that required a perfect human sacrifice to atone for my sins.

The story of the Prodigal would stand just as well for me if Christ had died of old age.

Our teaching is of God becoming fully human, the emphasis of all teaching goes back to the incarnation as God's inextricable entry into creation within the apparent Creator/created reality of us being created in the image and likeness of God.


quote:
You seem to think that the parable exists in a Christless vacuum which is why your soteriology in sub-Christian. The parable does not present a crossless soteriology because the one who told it is one who who bore our sins in his body on the tree. The fact that the parable is true rests on Christ's work on the cross, not in spite of it. Only Jesus could tell that parable because only Jesus makes the parable true. Only because of Christ's death on the cross is it possible to return to God the Father. His death ratifies the parable and purchases it's meaning.
That parable has always been true in Jewish teaching of God's mercy and forgiveness - the prodigal repented and returned, it wasn't his father who was condemning him to separation.

Myrrh

The reason you think - falsely by the way - that the parable of the prodigal son could be true without Christ is because you do not understand truth. Christ is the truth. The parable is only true because the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ makes it true. If Christ had not lived for us and died for us the parable would be meaningless sentimentality.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
That parable has always been true in Jewish teaching of God's mercy and forgiveness - the prodigal repented and returned, it wasn't his father who was condemning him to separation.

Myrrh

The reason you think - falsely by the way - that the parable of the prodigal son could be true without Christ is because you do not understand truth. Christ is the truth. The parable is only true because the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ makes it true. If Christ had not lived for us and died for us the parable would be meaningless sentimentality.
There is nothing PSA in that parable, unless you want to rework it so the father kills the older son instead of a lamb to welcome the prodigal home.

Fundamentally, I think all at this table (even this late-coming snarky kid on the booster seat) agree to the idea that Christ "living for us and dying for us" gives a resonance to that parable that wouldn't otherwise be present. But Christ's teachings were never "This is how your Father will be--this is how He will love you, after I've died". They were always an indication of an unchanging, welcoming love--the father throwing the front door open before his son can edge in through the back.

For my money, Christ lives (and dies) the truth always present in that parable: he doesn't buy that truth with his blood.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The parable is only true because the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ makes it true. If Christ had not lived for us and died for us the parable would be meaningless sentimentality.

The parable is yer bog standard Jewish teaching, repent and no matter how bloody your stains Daz couldn't make you whiter.


16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

This was the teaching of St John the Forerunner, actively putting the washing away of sins at repentance into practice. This is what Christ built on, Isaiah and John in the same line of prophets.

This is OT understanding of the relationship with God, that no matter how great the sins all it takes is repentance, a change of mind and direction, and all is forgiven.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is OT understanding of the relationship with God, that no matter how great the sins all it takes is repentance, a change of mind and direction, and all is forgiven.

I think we all recognise that we come from different traditions. It is clear that both sides of the debate import their theological background into the texts we discuss. That is a given.

I don't think we are going to make much progress here unless we engage with each other. I'm not trying to convince you (for the moment at least [Biased] ) that my reading of scripture is correct just that it is consistent with the passages we discuss.

So for example:

1. Sermon on the Mount - I'm not asking you to agree with my position just to see that plenty of Jews hearing the 'Wise man and the Foolish man' would hear the warning of the Last Judgment ... entirely consonant with JtB BTW.

2. Parable of the Prodigal - when we last discussed this passage on this thread (about a year ago [Roll Eyes] ) I never claimed that you can draw PSA directly from this parable. All I asked was that we deal fairly with the issues the parable raises....

e.g. the context of Luke 15 which is all about God seeking 'the lost'. The story of the prodigal (where the Father waits passively for the return of the Son) is obviously to be contrasted with the parables of the sheep and the coin where the 'Father' actively seeks for that which was lost. In other words the parable of the prodigal is about repentance and the willingness of the Father to welcome back repentant sinners. To read any atonement model into the parable is extremely suspect.

Saying that the parable of the prodigal demonstrates no need for SA is a bit like concluding from the sheep and the coin that repentance is not necessary!

Instead the sheep and the coin parables raise the question of 'what does God do on his side to bring us sinners back to himself?' Now, none of this proves PSA, all it does it raise the questions, legitmately from the text I believe [Biased] , which I think PSA answers.

It is at this level, of the text, that I think we engage. If all we do is say, 'Well I see the whole system differently' then we are doomed to this impasse. [Frown]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is OT understanding of the relationship with God, that no matter how great the sins all it takes is repentance, a change of mind and direction, and all is forgiven.

I think we all recognise that we come from different traditions. It is clear that both sides of the debate import their theological background into the texts we discuss. That is a given.

I don't think we are going to make much progress here unless we engage with each other. I'm not trying to convince you (for the moment at least [Biased] ) that my reading of scripture is correct just that it is consistent with the passages we discuss.

So for example:

1. Sermon on the Mount - I'm not asking you to agree with my position just to see that plenty of Jews hearing the 'Wise man and the Foolish man' would hear the warning of the Last Judgment ... entirely consonant with JtB BTW.


Yes it's a given that we come from different traditions, my argument here is that Christ's teaching isn't any different to that taught in the OT about the nature of God. I'm not saying that the above can't, wasn't or shouldn't be read as 'last judgement', I'm saying that by emphasing this as 'God's final judgement on the wicked' by the exclusion of God's nature as Christ taught it one ends up creating a different nature for God and then to read this nature into everything else we have in Scripture compounds the error and the simplest explanation is then missed.

To 'love mercy' in the OT is essentially the same as John's "Let us love one another; for love is God and everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. If we love one another God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us." God is likewise mercy, and as we practice to love mercy God is perfected in us.

Christ's use of 'fool'[*] here is no different from other times he uses it, for example as in the virgins and lamps they are those unprepared for the situation they find themselves in. Here the foolish are those who are unprepared for the storms which hit them because they haven't prepared by practising Christ's words; by not being solidly grounded in them by making them fully their own they get pummelled and swept away in any bad storm which comes along.

Myrrh

[*] How many times did Christ put himself in danger of hellfire..? [Smile]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Yes it's a given that we come from different traditions, my argument here is that Christ's teaching isn't any different to that taught in the OT about the nature of God. I'm not saying that the above can't, wasn't or shouldn't be read as 'last judgement', I'm saying that by emphasing this as 'God's final judgement on the wicked' by the exclusion of God's nature as Christ taught it one ends up creating a different nature for God and then to read this nature into everything else we have in Scripture compounds the error and the simplest explanation is then missed.

Right, and that is why I'm enjoying this discussion. I am always open to the charge that I'm reading this stuff back into the scriptures. However, we can only proceed if you also admit that you might be doing the same.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Christ's use of 'fool'[*] here is no different from other times he uses it, for example as in the virgins and lamps they are those unprepared for the situation they find themselves in. Here the foolish are those who are unprepared for the storms which hit them because they haven't prepared by practising Christ's words; by not being solidly grounded in them by making them fully their own they get pummelled and swept away in any bad storm which comes along.

[Confused] I do find it bizarre the way you keep accusing me of reading my systematics back into the text and then proceed to quote me an example which proves my point and undermines yours!

If there is any doubt about the 'wise and foolish builders' then there is none about the parable of the wise and foolish virgins. The three parables in Matthew 25 very clearly are about the return of Christ and the Last Judgment ... see Matthew 25: 46 for the punchline there.

You are quite right - one of us is reading our theology back into the text. [Biased]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Interesting post from MT on the 'Can God get angry?' thread:

quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:

I'm not sure God (or we) can get angry at injustice. Injustice is not a thing, it is not an action, it is not a person. It is an abstraction, a concept. God (if She does get angry) can get angry at a person, at a thing a person does, at perhaps (this may or may not be too abstract) a relationship (in the mathematical sense).

Injustice is a word that grammatically stands as a holding place for a set of situations, or persons, or actions. It's not a thing.



I agree with MT and it sums up my unease with some of the CV stuff. I like the ideas but it tends to view God's anger directed at injustice rather than at people.

I'm not sure if can fully articulate my concerns but I think that CV (on its own) treats us as subhuman ... and not truly as 'persons'.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Yes it's a given that we come from different traditions, my argument here is that Christ's teaching isn't any different to that taught in the OT about the nature of God. I'm not saying that the above can't, wasn't or shouldn't be read as 'last judgement', I'm saying that by emphasing this as 'God's final judgement on the wicked' by the exclusion of God's nature as Christ taught it one ends up creating a different nature for God and then to read this nature into everything else we have in Scripture compounds the error and the simplest explanation is then missed.

Right, and that is why I'm enjoying this discussion. I am always open to the charge that I'm reading this stuff back into the scriptures. However, we can only proceed if you also admit that you might be doing the same.
Well of course, we're both going through this from the viewpoint of our own very different traditions. My argument here is not that you're reading your tradition back into Scripture, but by doing so you do damage to the nature of Christ's God, by not following through on Christ's specific teaching about this you end up with an imperfect God by the criteria He set for us to judge our own perfection. I say I'm interpreting it in light of Christ's teaching on God and have been stressing that it is not reasonable to hold your view in that God can't be anything less than what Christ instructs us to aim for in becoming as perfect.

What you are saying in effect, if reaching the perfection of God is our aim, is that we should strive to love our enemies and do good to them until such time as our righteous anger gets the better of us and then we should inflict punishment on them, that in our final judgement if they don't change we'll destroy them. I don't think it reasonable to say one loves another perfectly and that inflicting pain on him is an expression of that love.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Christ's use of 'fool'[*] here is no different from other times he uses it, for example as in the virgins and lamps they are those unprepared for the situation they find themselves in. Here the foolish are those who are unprepared for the storms which hit them because they haven't prepared by practising Christ's words; by not being solidly grounded in them by making them fully their own they get pummelled and swept away in any bad storm which comes along.

quote:
[Confused] I do find it bizarre the way you keep accusing me of reading my systematics back into the text and then proceed to quote me an example which proves my point and undermines yours!

If there is any doubt about the 'wise and foolish builders' then there is none about the parable of the wise and foolish virgins. The three parables in Matthew 25 very clearly are about the return of Christ and the Last Judgment ... see Matthew 25: 46 for the punchline there.

You are quite right - one of us is reading our theology back into the text. [Biased]

You've missed my point. That Christ's use of 'foolish' is of those 'unprepared', and the context of the foolish builders is changing ourselves to the perfection Christ teaches.

More a subject for Kergymania, but in our tradition the kingdom is already established and we don't have a God with authority over us.

Myrrh

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Interesting post from MT on the 'Can God get angry?' thread:

quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:

I'm not sure God (or we) can get angry at injustice. Injustice is not a thing, it is not an action, it is not a person. It is an abstraction, a concept. God (if She does get angry) can get angry at a person, at a thing a person does, at perhaps (this may or may not be too abstract) a relationship (in the mathematical sense).

Injustice is a word that grammatically stands as a holding place for a set of situations, or persons, or actions. It's not a thing.



I agree with MT and it sums up my unease with some of the CV stuff. I like the ideas but it tends to view God's anger directed at injustice rather than at people.

I'm not sure if can fully articulate my concerns but I think that CV (on its own) treats us as subhuman ... and not truly as 'persons'.

I think a concept is a thing, but that injustice as a concept comprises of its parts and those parts are gathered into the concept by choice. There's a world of difference in the concept of justice if one chooses to go with justice meaning mercy, as Andreas has detailed here, and justice meaning a juridical system in which some can be judged guilty and the guilty then punished.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
My argument here is not that you're reading your tradition back into Scripture, but by doing so you do damage to the nature of Christ's God, by not following through on Christ's specific teaching about this you end up with an imperfect God by the criteria He set for us to judge our own perfection.

That sentence doesn't seem to make sense - are you accusing me of reading my tradition back into scripture or not?


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

What you are saying in effect, if reaching the perfection of God is our aim, is that we should strive to love our enemies and do good to them until such time as our righteous anger gets the better of us and then we should inflict punishment on them, that in our final judgement if they don't change we'll destroy them.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that we are called to love our enemies no matter what, but as we do so to trust that God will act justly (with mercy) at the Last Judgment.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
You've missed my point. That Christ's use of 'foolish' is of those 'unprepared', and the context of the foolish builders is changing ourselves to the perfection Christ teaches.

Unprepared for what? Unprepared for the Last Judgment - that is the conclusion of Matthew 7 and 25. I take no pleasure in pointing this out, I'm just as amazed as you are that you can't see what I think is very plain in the teaching of Jesus.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
My argument here is not that you're reading your tradition back into Scripture, but by doing so you do damage to the nature of Christ's God, by not following through on Christ's specific teaching about this you end up with an imperfect God by the criteria He set for us to judge our own perfection.

That sentence doesn't seem to make sense - are you accusing me of reading my tradition back into scripture or not?
Sorry, I see I've referred back to something and hadn't made that clear, let me try again. I'm saying we're both of us doing this, reading through the lens of our respective traditions, but in maintaining your position you are having to disregard Christ's own specific teachings about God as he has instructed us to strive for, and which we both can read regardless of our traditions, and in doing so you create a God less perfect because that God does not come up to the standard He set us to achieve.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

What you are saying in effect, if reaching the perfection of God is our aim, is that we should strive to love our enemies and do good to them until such time as our righteous anger gets the better of us and then we should inflict punishment on them, that in our final judgement if they don't change we'll destroy them.

quote:
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that we are called to love our enemies no matter what, but as we do so to trust that God will act justly (with mercy) at the Last Judgment.
And this is an example where you have created for yourself a God less perfect. If we believe that God's perfection is in the instructions of Christ for ourselves, to love our enemies and returning good for evil and so on, then hoping that God will be merciful to them at the Last Judgement is redundant because perfection is in always loving our enemies and always returning good for evil. If that's the perfection we strive for then God can't stop doing that, his nature can't stop being ever merciful, to think otherwise is to move the goal posts. God must continue to be merciful at the Last Judgement.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
You've missed my point. That Christ's use of 'foolish' is of those 'unprepared', and the context of the foolish builders is changing ourselves to the perfection Christ teaches.

quote:
Unprepared for what? Unprepared for the Last Judgment - that is the conclusion of Matthew 7 and 25. I take no pleasure in pointing this out, I'm just as amazed as you are that you can't see what I think is very plain in the teaching of Jesus.
I used it as an example of 'unpreparedness' meaning 'foolishness' as Christ uses 'foolish'. Taking this meaning, unprepared, back to the Sermon on the Mount and putting it in context of what is said over those chapters which includes clearly describing what we have to do to reach God's perfection which, as I've described above, must be the definite goal post that God is always merciful, always forgiving, does not judge, does not condemn and so on. So, your understanding of the Final Judgement is going to be different from mine since you continue to impose your idea of God's justice on it, for whatever reason, because your idea includes the possibility that God can stop being merciful, for example, that God can, even for a moment, cease returning good for evil.

Either, why should we bother with striving for a perfection even God junks when the mood takes him, or, a God which is less than non-condemning at the final judgement is not the perfect God Christ instructs us to become.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
So, your understanding of the Final Judgement is going to be different from mine since you continue to impose your idea of God's justice on it, for whatever reason, because your idea includes the possibility that God can stop being merciful, for example, that God can, even for a moment, cease returning good for evil.

I'm not imposing anything, I'm struggling to put all the pieces of scripture together. I repeat, how on earth do you fit Matthew 25: 46 into your schema?

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
So, your understanding of the Final Judgement is going to be different from mine since you continue to impose your idea of God's justice on it, for whatever reason, because your idea includes the possibility that God can stop being merciful, for example, that God can, even for a moment, cease returning good for evil.

I'm not imposing anything, I'm struggling to put all the pieces of scripture together.
Well let me rephrase that. By constant reference to your view, that at some point God imposes judgement where some are saved and some not, you're putting forward a change in the nature of God (if God's perfection is as Christ instructs us, etc.), that, for example, God stops returning good for evil, stops loving, stops forgiving.


quote:
I repeat, how on earth do you fit Matthew 25: 46 into your schema?

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

The same way I fit in Matthew 5:

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

It seems that all champions of the CV view share a deeply hurtful experience at the hands of exponents of PSA or ransom theory. Surely this is the fault of the singers not the song.

Not all. I think there are lots of us who can see ransom and substitution and victory in both the NT and the various traditional explanation. And it is possible to argue that all of the theories (models, pictures), whatever their basis or antiquity, tend to come apart if you press them too far. There is mystery in the history which I think cannot be completely resolved. It seems better to me to accept both the value and the lack of complete adequacy of any of the models on their own. But YMMV.
PSA doesn't come apart logically or theologically. It is totally symmetrical. It also accords well with Scripture. In a sentence, It states that: 'God judged himself because he loved me'. The fact that this needed to happen for our acceptance is the sticking point for many. It isn't for me. TMM it is a cause of celebration, good news in fact.

The objections to it are, it seems to me, interpretive, perhaps extra-biblical, almost inevitably based in someone's hurtful and damaging church experience. Which leads to a reaction against a so-called 'angry' God whom it is quite convenient to see as the opposite to a 'loving' God. Inevitably, the reaction becomes "I want nothing to do with such a bloody- minded vengeful being."
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
So, your understanding of the Final Judgement is going to be different from mine since you continue to impose your idea of God's justice on it, for whatever reason, because your idea includes the possibility that God can stop being merciful, for example, that God can, even for a moment, cease returning good for evil.

Again, I'm not imposing abstract philosophical concepts onto the cross, all I'm doing is using the very language the NT does. In his first letter John specifically sees the cross as an appeal to God's faithfulness and justice / righteousness. (And I have never said that God stops being merciful either.)

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

(1 John 1: 9)

Interesting that you see it an 'imposition' to speak of God's justice and yet the great Apostle puts all his trust in precisely this 'imposition'.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

The objections to it are, it seems to me, interpretive, perhaps extra-biblical, almost inevitably based in someone's hurtful and damaging church experience. Which leads to a reaction against a so-called 'angry' God whom it is quite convenient to see as the opposite to a 'loving' God. Inevitably, the reaction becomes "I want nothing to do with such a bloody- minded vengeful being."

We're ALL interpreting. We're all extra-biblical when it comes to understanding bits in the Bible that seem to contradict other bits--and I think we've prooftexted enough for that the question of whether there are such bits is rather a non-starter.

I've had no such hurtful and damaging church experience, and I don't know that others are claiming it, either.

And my reaction to PSA is fundamentally, "I just don't think that's the being we're dealing with."
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:

I've had no such hurtful and damaging church experience...

... yet. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
So, your understanding of the Final Judgement is going to be different from mine since you continue to impose your idea of God's justice on it, for whatever reason, because your idea includes the possibility that God can stop being merciful, for example, that God can, even for a moment, cease returning good for evil.

Again, I'm not imposing abstract philosophical concepts onto the cross, all I'm doing is using the very language the NT does. In his first letter John specifically sees the cross as an appeal to God's faithfulness and justice / righteousness. (And I have never said that God stops being merciful either.)

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

(1 John 1: 9)

Interesting that you see it an 'imposition' to speak of God's justice and yet the great Apostle puts all his trust in precisely this 'imposition'.

Johnny, how did John understand that? My argument here is against the imposition of a juridical relationship with God which John didn't have. What he meant by righteousness was the OT relationship with a personal God as close as 'father', I Am thy God. A relationship with God in which righteousness didn't just mean keeping the commandments but acting with compassion in the society, taking care of the widow and orphan, showing mercy to those offending one, keeping anger in check and looking for a peaceful solution to a problem and so on and so on. A synergistic relationship with the living God, in which forgivess was always forthcoming and what it took to receive it was repentance, an act of free will which re-established the relationship as with a son to a loving father, and a loving father cannot bear to see his son hurt, no matter what he has done, or he does not love. Legalistic, the juridical relationship, is what the Pharisees of the day were imposing on this. John the Forerunner was re-emphasising the traditional teaching, the personal journey in a synergistic relationship which Christ taught again and again. Repent and forgiveness is there and forgive if you want to be forgiven is a living relationship with God as life itself, righteousness is about the quality of life with [i]this[i/]God.

What Augustine did with his doctrines was to throw all the OT out and promote the juridical relationship of the Pharisees of sins as crimes against God, every one deserving punishment and damnation. This is the century after century view of God in the West, a wrathful God who punishes sinners for disobedience to his rules and regs. Calling such a God 'father' is an affront to parenthood, and in its turn as a twisted ideal it promoted the 'pater with absolute rule over his children' within the family, but that's a digression.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
God is faithful and just in His forgiveness. I can see the potential dangers of linking "just" with some sort of severe judge or Victorian "pater" figure but the language and context doesn't imply that and we don't have to go there. It's just that He is faithful and just. Forget about the overtones; it is what He is.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
I certainly don't want to go there.. However, the stark reality is that 'justice' from a predominently legalistic relationship with God does affect the way Scripture is read. If anything is the 'bedrock' of the Jewish relationship with God in the OT, and which immediately explains Christ's teaching, it is that encapsulated in the word "righteousness".

Although containing elements of 'justice' in a legal sense it is so very much more, so much so that the word came to mean "charity" out of the practice of righteousness. Righteousness is all about morality.


To take John's words as 'repent, you'll be forgiven, and you're legally OK with God' is to miss what this word meant to him as its use developed within the Jewish nation.

quote:

Hosea marks another step in the evolution of the concept of righteousness. He would have righteousness potentialized by "ḥesed" (love, or mercy). Social justice as a matter merely of outward conduct,and manifest only in public adjustments of institutions and conditions, will not bring about the rejuvenescence of the nation. Inner repentance, spiritual consideration of one's neighbor and brother, yielding love, not mechanical justice alone, are the components of righteousness (vi. 1-4, x. 12).


(Right and Righteousness by Emil G Hirsch)

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Just to make my last post clearer, righteousness is justice:

quote:
In Hebrew the word for "charity" is "tzedaka", which is more correctly translated as "justice." We do not look at giving to the less fortunate as something beyond the call of duty, we perceive it as simple justice. Hence we can understand why the Torah prohibits a Jewish farmer from eating the produce of his own field until he has given tithes to those without land of their own. He is not being asked to be extra nice, he is being commanded to be just.

(

Meaning of Justice)[/quote]


It just happened to come from a page on dietary law, but neatly puts what John would have had in his background understanding of justice and righteousness.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Myrhh we can discuss the precise meaning of 'righteousness' if you want to but my point was just that John uses this as his basis here and not mercy.

I'm not saying that they exclude one another just that John is quite happy to call upon God to express his 'justice' in salvation.

Likewise when we see God's righteousness expressed in terms of covenantal faithfulness (which is changing Hebrew terms but I'm happy to run with it) then we again see that God's mercy is bound up with him 'keeping the covenant' - i.e. acting justly.

Interestingly in the verse beforehand (1 John 1: 8) John has just said that 'anyone who claims not to have sin is a liar' - i.e. even Christians are sinners and his point in verse 9 is precisely that we are forgiven and accepted into the community of Christ because of the atonement / propitiation of Christ ... in 1 John 2: 2.

So, yet again, I have to say, while I agree that words like 'righteousness' do have the other connotations you mention, that the PSA / SA handling of 'justice' seems to be much closer to what the Apostle was talking about.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

The objections to it are, it seems to me, interpretive, perhaps extra-biblical, almost inevitably based in someone's hurtful and damaging church experience. Which leads to a reaction against a so-called 'angry' God whom it is quite convenient to see as the opposite to a 'loving' God. Inevitably, the reaction becomes "I want nothing to do with such a bloody- minded vengeful being."

We're ALL interpreting. We're all extra-biblical when it comes to understanding bits in the Bible that seem to contradict other bits--and I think we've prooftexted enough for that the question of whether there are such bits is rather a non-starter.

I've had no such hurtful and damaging church experience, and I don't know that others are claiming it, either.

And my reaction to PSA is fundamentally, "I just don't think that's the being we're dealing with."

If you take a post modern approach to text, then you are right. That in itself is a window of iterpretation. If for instance you iterpret text as something the author merely transmits then it is the context of the reader that determines its meaning. The Jews actually did this in a way in their 'midrashic' approach to prophecy. It is 'pattern' rather than a 'prediction'fulfillment model.

However, for the Christian, it is the Holy Spririt who acts on the Scripture to bring revelation.

What happens on this basis is that we all start claiming that our particular reading is the annointed version.

To this end then one must go back to the principles of hermeneutics that are time -honored. One of these is harmony, consistency if you like.

Now Paul wrote 2Cor 5:21. "He made him who knew no sin to become sin.."
John wrote "He himself is the propitiation for our sine and those of the whole world."
Peter wrote "Christ died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust in order that he might bring us to God havin been put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit." and the Hebrews writer, wrote.."Christ throught the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God."

Now on the basis of consistency harmony and reason, surely, surely, these texts on balance teach the fundamentals of an atonement doctrine we know as PSA.

Now feel free to offer your interpretation, but to me it is a bit too facile to fall back onto the explanation 'Oh but we are ALL interpreting' !!
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
Well put, Jamat, and I appreciate it. I'm not sure how best to engage with your points, but I am considering them.

Fundamentally, I think I see the Scriptures through lenses that may not be a close enough match to yours for a profitable conversation on the topic at hand.

quote:
If for instance you iterpret text as something the author merely transmits then it is the context of the reader that determines its meaning.
I see things in a much stickier way than that. I believe that the Bible is a historical product, speaking to us now about how people at the time understood God. I think it shows how the Spirit, however you define that, moved through those people in a way that made sense to them, just as we ask the Spirit to do for us now. Given that, it can't just be "my context" that determines a passage's meaning--I have to look at their contexts, as well.

I also understand much of the Bible as metaphor--as having a meaning that is more than literal. When, for example Hebrews 9:11-12 speaks of Christ entering into the Tabernacle of God using his own blood instead of the blood of animal sacrifice, I don't imagine this as an actual, literal event in the same way that the priests entering the Holy of Holies was an actual event in Israel. Instead, for me it points to something crucial about the nature of Christ and how he redefines the interaction of God with humanity.

I'm not expressing this very coherently, so I'll just borrow a line from Marcus Borg and leave it at that: "The Bible tells use how our spiritual ancestors saw things--not how God sees things."

I'd agree with that statement (though I might throw a "necessarily" in between "not" and "how God"): I'm assuming you would not. Given that, I don't think I see well enough through your lens to adequately engage with what you put forth.

Ah well--I've gained a lot of good food for thought from this thread and will continue to follow it. Cheers to all!
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Myrhh we can discuss the precise meaning of 'righteousness' if you want to but my point was just that John uses this as his basis here and not mercy.

The same discussion all over again. Of course Saint John speaks of righteousness. We have been reading Saint John for two thousand years, so we should know. The problem is not with what the apostles believe, but with how some people interpret that belief.

Myrrh's quote is important, because if charity is more correctly translated as justice, and if righteousness is potentialized by mercy, then this whole "God's justice" thing takes a very different twist.

Anyway, for my part, I agree with Saint Isaac:

quote:
not to redeem us from sins, or for any other reason, but solely in order that the world might become aware of the love which God has for His creation. Had all this astounding affair taken place solely for the purpose of forgiveness of sin, it would have been sufficient to redeem us by some other means. What objection would there have been if He had done what He did by means of an ordinary death? But He did not make His death at all an ordinary one - in order that you might realize the nature of this mystery. Rather, He tasted death in the cruel suffering of the Cross. What need was there for the outrage done to Him and the spitting? Just death would have been sufficient for our redemption - and in particular His death, without any of these other things which took place. What wisdom is God’s! And how filled with life! Now you can understand and realize why the coming of our Lord took place with all the events that followed it, even to the extent of His telling the purpose quite clearly out of His own holy mouth: “To such an extent did God love the world that He gave His only-begotten Son” - referring to the Incarnation and the renewal He brought about.
To introduce some notion of justice that makes it necessary for God to demand it's fulfillment it is the beginning of a series of big mistakes, and this has its beginning in human thought, rather than human experience of God.

Which brings us to "This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did." It's not by forensic justification that we are made just, but by a true change of our life that we are made sons and inheritors and disciples. Conviction is not faith, and mere knowledge is not salvation. Salvation is life, not a human conviction, but partaking in the divine life.

[ 02. April 2008, 09:20: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Myrrh's quote is important, because if charity is more correctly translated as justice, and if righteousness is potentialized by mercy, then this whole "God's justice" thing takes a very different twist.

Big word that if.


quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Which brings us to "This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did." It's not by forensic justification that we are made just, but by a true change of our life that we are made sons and inheritors and disciples. Conviction is not faith, and mere knowledge is not salvation. Salvation is life, not a human conviction, but partaking in the divine life.

[Confused] Where does that quote from John speak about howwe get 'in him'? It is about how we know that are 'in him'. (i.e. evidence of salvation, not cause of salvation.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think that's right Johnny S. Funny thing - I kept looking at that excerpt from andreas' post all day and thinking - there's something wrong with that. But the penny wouldn't drop. Good spot.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Johnny, I thought I'd be able to get back to this yesterday, but, will return over the weekend.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Myrhh we can discuss the precise meaning of 'righteousness' if you want to but my point was just that John uses this as his basis here and not mercy.

I'm not saying that they exclude one another just that John is quite happy to call upon God to express his 'justice' in salvation.

John would have understood righteousness as including mercy - for Jews God's justice always included it, otherwise it wasn't real justice, only retribution or compensation.

I've just deleted the remark I was going to make about Shylock and this being our 'common' view of the Jews, to tackle it later, because I decided to concentrate first on the meaning of the words used in translating to God's justice and righteousness and found the following which coincidentally also comments on the irony of Portia's speech...


quote:
(Thoughts from chiefrabbi.org)

What does it mean? Tzedek/tzedakah is almost impossible to translate, because of its many shadings of meaning: justice, charity, righteousness, integrity, equity, fairness and innocence. It certainly means more than strictly legal justice, for which the Bible uses words like mishpat and din. One example illustrates the point: If a man is poor, you may not go to sleep holding his security. Return it to him at sun-down, so that he will be able to sleepin his garment and bless you. To you it will be reckoned as tzedakah before the Lord your G-d. (Deut. 24: 12-13) Tzedakah cannot mean legal justice in this verse. It speaks of a situation in which a poor person has only a single cloak or covering, which he has handed over to the lender as security against a loan. The lender has a legal right to keep the cloak until the loan has beenrepaid. However, acting on the basis of this right is simply not the right thing to do. It ignores the human situation of the poor person,who has nothing else with which to keep warm on a cold night. The point becomes even clearer when we examine the parallel passage in Exodus 22, which states:

If you take your neighbour’s cloak as a pledge, return it to him by sunset, because his cloak is the only covering he has for his body. What else will he sleep in? When he cries out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate. (Ex. 22: 25-26)

John would not have understood justice as a legal tit for tat or revenge or punishment for crime, but with all the meanings as above, this is what set the Jewish God apart from others and this is how God was understood by the early 'fathers' who saw God's justice was mercy.


quote:
JohnnyLikewise when we see God's righteousness expressed in terms of covenantal faithfulness (which is changing Hebrew terms but I'm happy to run with it) then we again see that God's mercy is bound up with him 'keeping the covenant' - i.e. acting justly.

Interestingly in the verse beforehand (1 John 1: 8) John has just said that 'anyone who claims not to have sin is a liar' - i.e. even Christians are sinners and his point in verse 9 is precisely that we are forgiven and accepted into the community of Christ because of the atonement / propitiation of Christ ... in 1 John 2: 2.

So, yet again, I have to say, while I agree that words like 'righteousness' do have the other connotations you mention, that the PSA / SA handling of 'justice' seems to be much closer to what the Apostle was talking about.

The covental relationship in which a Jew was seen as righteous or not was with God and with man. You're missing the true meaning of justice here, God doesn't require PSA/SA. The emphasis for the Jews was to learn what God's justice meant, not man's, and this was understood from first seeing God as merciful and caring.

What other nation thought God like this? So important a quality that it constructed laws putting mercy forward as a duty in relationships?

quote:
The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;

Shakespeare is here expressing the medieval stereotype of Christian mercy (Portia) as against Jewish justice (Shylock). He entirely
fails to realize – how could he, given the prevailing culture – that “justice” and “mercy” are not opposites in Hebrew but are bonded
together in a single word, tzedek or tzedakah. To add to the irony, the very language and imagery of Portia’s speech (“It droppeth as
the gentle rain from heaven”) is taken from Deuteronomy: [continued on link above]

"that “justice” and “mercy” are not opposites in Hebrew but are bonded together in a single word, tzedek or tzedakah", and the same word is used for righteousness, and charity. Our understanding of putting ourselves out in caring for the less fortunate comes from the Jews.

Christ's admonishing of the Pharisees was because they weren't righteous in this sense, they would see their parents starve if it meant breaking a man made law of their own construction; they didn't care about honouring parents and mercy.

And they knew what Christ meant when confronted with this.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
John would have understood righteousness as including mercy - for Jews God's justice always included it, otherwise it wasn't real justice, only retribution or compensation.

Agreed.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
(Deut. 24: 12-13)... the parallel passage in Exodus 22, which states:

quote:
If you take your neighbour’s cloak as a pledge, return it to him by sunset, because his cloak is the only covering he has for his body. What else will he sleep in? When he cries out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate. (Ex. 22: 25-26)

John would not have understood justice as a legal tit for tat or revenge or punishment for crime, but with all the meanings as above, this is what set the Jewish God apart from others and this is how God was understood by the early 'fathers' who saw God's justice was mercy.
This would be the covenant where blessings and curses were conditional on obedience to it?

Of course the view of 'righteousness' included mercy but there are many,many, clear threats of judgment on disobedience to the covenant.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
that “justice” and “mercy” are not opposites in Hebrew but are bonded together in a single word, tzedek or tzedakah", and the same word is used for righteousness, and charity. Our understanding of putting ourselves out in caring for the less fortunate comes from the Jews.

Christ's admonishing of the Pharisees was because they weren't righteous in this sense, they would see their parents starve if it meant breaking a man made law of their own construction; they didn't care about honouring parents and mercy.

You are committing a logical fallacy here.

Your reasoning is as follows:

1. righteousness = mercy + justice ...

... therefore ...

2. righteousness = mercy.

I hope you can spot the flaw in this logic!?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Myrhh we can discuss the precise meaning of 'righteousness' if you want to but my point was just that John uses this as his basis here and not mercy.

I'm not saying that they exclude one another just that John is quite happy to call upon God to express his 'justice' in salvation.

John would have understood righteousness as including mercy - for Jews God's justice always included it, otherwise it wasn't real justice, only retribution or compensation.

I've just deleted the remark I was going to make about Shylock and this being our 'common' view of the Jews, to tackle it later, because I decided to concentrate first on the meaning of the words used in translating to God's justice and righteousness and found the following which coincidentally also comments on the irony of Portia's speech...


quote:
(Thoughts from chiefrabbi.org)

What does it mean? Tzedek/tzedakah is almost impossible to translate, because of its many shadings of meaning: justice, charity, righteousness, integrity, equity, fairness and innocence. It certainly means more than strictly legal justice, for which the Bible uses words like mishpat and din. One example illustrates the point: If a man is poor, you may not go to sleep holding his security. Return it to him at sun-down, so that he will be able to sleepin his garment and bless you. To you it will be reckoned as tzedakah before the Lord your G-d. (Deut. 24: 12-13) Tzedakah cannot mean legal justice in this verse. It speaks of a situation in which a poor person has only a single cloak or covering, which he has handed over to the lender as security against a loan. The lender has a legal right to keep the cloak until the loan has beenrepaid. However, acting on the basis of this right is simply not the right thing to do. It ignores the human situation of the poor person,who has nothing else with which to keep warm on a cold night. The point becomes even clearer when we examine the parallel passage in Exodus 22, which states:

If you take your neighbour’s cloak as a pledge, return it to him by sunset, because his cloak is the only covering he has for his body. What else will he sleep in? When he cries out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate. (Ex. 22: 25-26)

John would not have understood justice as a legal tit for tat or revenge or punishment for crime, but with all the meanings as above, this is what set the Jewish God apart from others and this is how God was understood by the early 'fathers' who saw God's justice was mercy.


quote:
JohnnyLikewise when we see God's righteousness expressed in terms of covenantal faithfulness (which is changing Hebrew terms but I'm happy to run with it) then we again see that God's mercy is bound up with him 'keeping the covenant' - i.e. acting justly.

Interestingly in the verse beforehand (1 John 1: 8) John has just said that 'anyone who claims not to have sin is a liar' - i.e. even Christians are sinners and his point in verse 9 is precisely that we are forgiven and accepted into the community of Christ because of the atonement / propitiation of Christ ... in 1 John 2: 2.

So, yet again, I have to say, while I agree that words like 'righteousness' do have the other connotations you mention, that the PSA / SA handling of 'justice' seems to be much closer to what the Apostle was talking about.

The covental relationship in which a Jew was seen as righteous or not was with God and with man. You're missing the true meaning of justice here, God doesn't require PSA/SA. The emphasis for the Jews was to learn what God's justice meant, not man's, and this was understood from first seeing God as merciful and caring.

What other nation thought God like this? So important a quality that it constructed laws putting mercy forward as a duty in relationships?

quote:
The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;

Shakespeare is here expressing the medieval stereotype of Christian mercy (Portia) as against Jewish justice (Shylock). He entirely
fails to realize – how could he, given the prevailing culture – that “justice” and “mercy” are not opposites in Hebrew but are bonded
together in a single word, tzedek or tzedakah. To add to the irony, the very language and imagery of Portia’s speech (“It droppeth as
the gentle rain from heaven”) is taken from Deuteronomy: [continued on link above]

"that “justice” and “mercy” are not opposites in Hebrew but are bonded together in a single word, tzedek or tzedakah", and the same word is used for righteousness, and charity. Our understanding of putting ourselves out in caring for the less fortunate comes from the Jews.

Christ's admonishing of the Pharisees was because they weren't righteous in this sense, they would see their parents starve if it meant breaking a man made law of their own construction; they didn't care about honouring parents and mercy.

And they knew what Christ meant when confronted with this.

Myrrh

What's with all the 'Jews would have....' They still understand justice and mercy etc. Judaism is a living religion.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What's with all the 'Jews would have....' They still understand justice and mercy etc. Judaism is a living religion.

Well said Rabbi Leo. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This would be the covenant where blessings and curses were conditional on obedience to it?

Of course the view of 'righteousness' included mercy but there are many,many, clear threats of judgment on disobedience to the covenant.[qb]

And I'll answer in the spirit of the women to Jeremiah - Oh yeah? Just because they think they know how God judges.. In the same category as those who claimed God ordered the murder of all the Canaanites. Authoritarian gods are difficult to give up..


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
[qb]that “justice” and “mercy” are not opposites in Hebrew but are bonded together in a single word, tzedek or tzedakah", and the same word is used for righteousness, and charity. Our understanding of putting ourselves out in caring for the less fortunate comes from the Jews.

Christ's admonishing of the Pharisees was because they weren't righteous in this sense, they would see their parents starve if it meant breaking a man made law of their own construction; they didn't care about honouring parents and mercy.

quote:
You are committing a logical fallacy here.

Your reasoning is as follows:

1. righteousness = mercy + justice ...

... therefore ...

2. righteousness = mercy.

I hope you can spot the flaw in this logic!?

Seems I'm not very good at explaining myself. By justice is not meant legal justice plus mercy - it's a different kind of justice, based on mercy. Mercy is intrinsic to it, this is God's justice not man's. God's justice flows from mercy.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And I'll answer in the spirit of the women to Jeremiah - Oh yeah? Just because they think they know how God judges.. In the same category as those who claimed God ordered the murder of all the Canaanites. Authoritarian gods are difficult to give up..

It's not that easy.

The Covenant is a central theme to the OT - with its accompanying blessings for obedience and curses for disobediences. This is not a question of subtle hermeneutics or reinterpretation ... you are talking about the wholesale removal of the central plank of the OT.

Any study of ANE literature will reveal the common suzerain treaties with accompanying blessings and curses. Of course you could argue that the OT is merely projecting that on to God, but what I don't think can be denied is that the OT coventant was seen in these terms. Therefore your argument has to be a complete rejection of covenantal Israelitism rather than simply 're-interpretation'... in other words, you'd have to go full-blown Marcionite on us!


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Seems I'm not very good at explaining myself. By justice is not meant legal justice plus mercy - it's a different kind of justice, based on mercy. Mercy is intrinsic to it, this is God's justice not man's. God's justice flows from mercy.

No, I think I do see what you are saying, but it still amounts to the same thing. Justice is a redundant term because it supplies nothing that is not already there in mercy. Shame the bible doesn't think so. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What's with all the 'Jews would have....' They still understand justice and mercy etc. Judaism is a living religion.

Which is why I used today's sources to explain it.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And I'll answer in the spirit of the women to Jeremiah - Oh yeah? Just because they think they know how God judges.. In the same category as those who claimed God ordered the murder of all the Canaanites. Authoritarian gods are difficult to give up..

It's not that easy.

The Covenant is a central theme to the OT - with its accompanying blessings for obedience and curses for disobediences. This is not a question of subtle hermeneutics or reinterpretation ... you are talking about the wholesale removal of the central plank of the OT.

Any study of ANE literature will reveal the common suzerain treaties with accompanying blessings and curses. Of course you could argue that the OT is merely projecting that on to God, but what I don't think can be denied is that the OT coventant was seen in these terms. Therefore your argument has to be a complete rejection of covenantal Israelitism rather than simply 're-interpretation'... in other words, you'd have to go full-blown Marcionite on us!

Nonsense, what I'm saying is interpretations of curses being included in the covental relationship are as irrational as claiming God ordered the mass murder of the Canaanites after so very recently giving the commandment to not murder.

Maybe some can love such a God..


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Seems I'm not very good at explaining myself. By justice is not meant legal justice plus mercy - it's a different kind of justice, based on mercy. Mercy is intrinsic to it, this is God's justice not man's. God's justice flows from mercy.

quote:
No, I think I do see what you are saying, but it still amounts to the same thing. Justice is a redundant term because it supplies nothing that is not already there in mercy. Shame the bible doesn't think so. [Roll Eyes]
Ah, now you've got it. That's God's justice.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Nonsense, what I'm saying is interpretations of curses being included in the covental relationship are as irrational as claiming God ordered the mass murder of the Canaanites after so very recently giving the commandment to not murder.

Again, this is not an argument, it is merely a statement. It is an admission that you have given up wrestling with the text and have decided to impose upon the scriptures your own notion of what God is like... there is a world of difference between discussing the book of Joshua and trying to expunge all traces of 'curse' from the Covenant.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Shame the bible doesn't think so. [Roll Eyes]
Ah, now you've got it. That's God's justice.
Yep, I agree, that sums up neatly where we've got to.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
[
quote:
Johnny S wrote in great frustration to Myrrh.. "you have given up wrestling with the text and have decided to impose upon the scriptures your own notion of what God is like..."
Here do we not have a statement that sums up much of the discussion on this thread. On the one hand we have the odd person like me who thinks God's judgements and 'justices' must be justified if he thought they are necessary, and others ,almost everyone else really who can't abide what they see as a violent genocidal God and they seek to redefine his actions to sanitize him
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Seems I'm not very good at explaining myself. By justice is not meant legal justice plus mercy - it's a different kind of justice, based on mercy. Mercy is intrinsic to it, this is God's justice not man's. God's justice flows from mercy.

No, I think I do see what you are saying, but it still amounts to the same thing. Justice is a redundant term because it supplies nothing that is not already there in mercy. Shame the bible doesn't think so. [Roll Eyes]
I think that you havene't fully appreciated what is being siad here, John. From the point of view of the offender then yes, justice is a redundant term, because God's dealing with him as an offender is fully expressed in mercy, but from the victim's point of view, those same actions of God are seen as justice. Both justice and mercy are, in fact, the manifestation of the same attributes of God, but seen from a different perspective. To the offended, God's righteousness (for it is that of which we speak) is justice, to the offender is is mercy.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[
quote:
Johnny S wrote in great frustration to Myrrh.. "you have given up wrestling with the text and have decided to impose upon the scriptures your own notion of what God is like..."
Here do we not have a statement that sums up much of the discussion on this thread. On the one hand we have the odd person like me who thinks God's judgements and 'justices' must be justified if he thought they are necessary, and others ,almost everyone else really who can't abide what they see as a violent genocidal God and they seek to redefine his actions to sanitize him
Well, actually, no, we don't. What we have is two different views of what the "whole counsel of Scripture" actually is. It's not a matter of sanitising, or imposing our preconceptions onto the text, rather that all parties are stuggling to see past our preconceptions to what God is actually trying to say about Himself to us through the text.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think that you haven't fully appreciated what is being siad here, John. From the point of view of the offender then yes, justice is a redundant term, because God's dealing with him as an offender is fully expressed in mercy, but from the victim's point of view, those same actions of God are seen as justice. Both justice and mercy are, in fact, the manifestation of the same attributes of God, but seen from a different perspective. To the offended, God's righteousness (for it is that of which we speak) is justice, to the offender is is mercy.

Ummh. I've been thinking about this thoughtful post for the past few hours. (I was in a Bible Study group looking at something else but hopefully it wasn't too obvious that I was chewing this over at the same time. [Disappointed] )

I can't put my finger on exactly what it is but there seems to be too much subjectivity here... I'm wondering if you stretch the meanings of words too far if you do this?

I can see how what seems like hardship to us can actually be the loving discipline of our heavenly Father - i.e. I can see how things differ from differing perspectives - however, I don't quite grasp how victim and offender can experience the same thing as mercy or justice.

Isn't mercy defined as not treating people as they deserve, or not giving them justice? (e.g. having someone at your mercy.) If so then I don't see how it would ever be possible for the victim to experience justice and the offender mercy without distorting the meaning of those words.

Of course, PSA states that 'in Christ' we (the offenders) experience mercy while Jesus (the victim) experiences justice.

... so if you were advocating PSA then I concur. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think that you haven't fully appreciated what is being siad here, John. From the point of view of the offender then yes, justice is a redundant term, because God's dealing with him as an offender is fully expressed in mercy, but from the victim's point of view, those same actions of God are seen as justice. Both justice and mercy are, in fact, the manifestation of the same attributes of God, but seen from a different perspective. To the offended, God's righteousness (for it is that of which we speak) is justice, to the offender is is mercy.

Ummh. I've been thinking about this thoughtful post for the past few hours. (I was in a Bible Study group looking at something else but hopefully it wasn't too obvious that I was chewing this over at the same time. [Disappointed] )

I can't put my finger on exactly what it is but there seems to be too much subjectivity here... I'm wondering if you stretch the meanings of words too far if you do this?

I can see how what seems like hardship to us can actually be the loving discipline of our heavenly Father - i.e. I can see how things differ from differing perspectives - however, I don't quite grasp how victim and offender can experience the same thing as mercy or justice.

Isn't mercy defined as not treating people as they deserve, or not giving them justice? (e.g. having someone at your mercy.) If so then I don't see how it would ever be possible for the victim to experience justice and the offender mercy without distorting the meaning of those words.

Of course, PSA states that 'in Christ' we (the offenders) experience mercy while Jesus (the victim) experiences justice.

... so if you were advocating PSA then I concur. [Big Grin]

No, I don't think you've quite grasped what I'm saying, but that's undoubtedly my fault. I wouldn't want to press the language too far, but let us agree, for the sake of argument that God has a quality called "Righteousness". This quality is bound up somehow with wanting to fix that which is broken. Now, when God acts out of His righeousness towards the sinner, that takes the practical form of reconciliation and forgiveness (well, the other way round, but you get my point). Now the sinner sees this quite vividly as mercy, and justice isn't really on the radar. But consider the same occasion, viewed from the point of view of the one who has been sinned against. They aren't too worried about what happens to the offender, all they want is for the offence to be corrected, and that "correction" is perceived by them as "justice". But the quality of God which we call righteousness is behind both perceptions, and is the root of them. It is God's righteousness which, if you like, drives both mercy to the sinner and justice to the victim.

And, lest there be any confusion, we are all both victim and perpetrator, and will, each of us, be the recipient of God's righteousness which we call justice, and God's righteousness which we call mercy.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Nonsense, what I'm saying is interpretations of curses being included in the covental relationship are as irrational as claiming God ordered the mass murder of the Canaanites after so very recently giving the commandment to not murder.

Again, this is not an argument, it is merely a statement. It is an admission that you have given up wrestling with the text and have decided to impose upon the scriptures your own notion of what God is like... there is a world of difference between discussing the book of Joshua and trying to expunge all traces of 'curse' from the Covenant.


It's both statement and argument, reached by a great deal of thought over some years from when I first considered it - ever since at the age of ten while reading the OT in class, we took it in turns, and we came to the mass murder of the Canaanites - I there and then rejected God. (it was a traumatic moment when I realised what I had done..).

My argument is that such thinking, and interpretations, are irrational because a God who orders murder after giving instruction not to murder is either deranged or evil, or, as when I thought about it again, many, many years later, it was yet another example of men justifiying their greed and blood lust by attributing it to the same God who gave the original instruction not to murder. Ditto curses.

To take everything the OT prophets said as if they were God's own words is not Christ's way of reading the OT, (he taught not to 'hate the evil'). Wasn't it Jeremiah who ranted on about prophets who spoke as if they were speaking for God? Irony then if it was him, since he got it so badly wrong as the women pointed out..

Is it better to do good or to do evil? To save lives or to kill? We have no problem seeing killing as an evil in a law court, but somehow it's OK for God to command we mass murder those who don't agree with us or whose land we covet...

How can God be called good who requires I sacifice another human being to atone for my sins?

What kind of God would order me to murder someone so he'll like me again?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
No, I don't think you've quite grasped what I'm saying, but that's undoubtedly my fault.

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt but I have got an MPhil in hearing what I want to hear.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I wouldn't want to press the language too far, but let us agree, for the sake of argument that God has a quality called "Righteousness". This quality is bound up somehow with wanting to fix that which is broken.

This is where we part company. ISTM that the message of the bible is more than simply a return to Eden (i.e. fixing what is broken). Somehow the new Jerusalem will be better than Eden because of redemption. The Lamb in heaven is not the lamb as he was originally but the lamb who was slain - i.e. that which was broken is not 'fixed' it is redeemed, which involves somehow keeping evidence of the brokenness.

This also fits better with life as we tend to experience it. The healing we experience through the gospel is seldom 'undoing' what was wrong but rather 'moving through it'.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It's both statement and argument, reached by a great deal of thought over some years from when I first considered it - ever since at the age of ten while reading the OT in class, we took it in turns, and we came to the mass murder of the Canaanites - I there and then rejected God. (it was a traumatic moment when I realised what I had done..).

My argument is that such thinking, and interpretations, are irrational because a God who orders murder after giving instruction not to murder is either deranged or evil, or, as when I thought about it again, many, many years later, it was yet another example of men justifiying their greed and blood lust by attributing it to the same God who gave the original instruction not to murder. Ditto curses.

While I do not want to make light of the pain you went through in trying to reconcile your faith to this, I do think this is all a red herring.

There are so many issues linked with the cleansing of Canaan that I don't think it is fair to lump them all together and then just dump them as a kind of 'end of argument'.

(For a start you haven't even engaged with the fact that the death penalty was also part of the Mosaic covenant ... that's just a start ... but I don't want to open that can of worms!?)

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
To take everything the OT prophets said as if they were God's own words is not Christ's way of reading the OT

[Confused] Only if you completely disregard what Jesus himself said, e.g. Matthew 5: 17-18 ... in your beloved Sermon on the Mount!

Have you got any evidence that Jesus read the OT the way you claim?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
No, I don't think you've quite grasped what I'm saying, but that's undoubtedly my fault.

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt but I have got an MPhil in hearing what I want to hear.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I wouldn't want to press the language too far, but let us agree, for the sake of argument that God has a quality called "Righteousness". This quality is bound up somehow with wanting to fix that which is broken.

This is where we part company. ISTM that the message of the bible is more than simply a return to Eden (i.e. fixing what is broken). Somehow the new Jerusalem will be better than Eden because of redemption. The Lamb in heaven is not the lamb as he was originally but the lamb who was slain - i.e. that which was broken is not 'fixed' it is redeemed, which involves somehow keeping evidence of the brokenness.

This also fits better with life as we tend to experience it. The healing we experience through the gospel is seldom 'undoing' what was wrong but rather 'moving through it'.

Well, I don't actually see Redemption as a "return to Eden", and, though I conceed that it can be read that way, I don't think that "fixing that which is broken" necessarily limits Redemption in this way.

Let me unpack this. I see Eden as more of a starting point for possibilities, rather than a steady state. I think this is quite justifiable from the text - men and women, pre fall, are commanded to do something, not just to sit back and enjoy! So what I see is more a sense of the mechanism being fixed (yes, I know, inadequate language) rather than the state. So I don't really think I would disagree with you that healing is "moving through" the bad experience, as it were. I don't, though, think this invalidates the point I am making, that such redemption is, to the person "redeemed" from such an experience, perceived as "justice".
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
So what I see is more a sense of the mechanism being fixed (yes, I know, inadequate language) rather than the state.

But again this is too impersonal for me.

Ironically PSA is accused of being too mechanistic, but your view seems to remove personal responsibility. Isn't one of the points of Genesis 1-3 that even when the mechanism isn't broke people can still mess up?

The gospel is about redeeming the state too, ISTM. [Biased]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
So what I see is more a sense of the mechanism being fixed (yes, I know, inadequate language) rather than the state.

But again this is too impersonal for me.

Ironically PSA is accused of being too mechanistic, but your view seems to remove personal responsibility. Isn't one of the points of Genesis 1-3 that even when the mechanism isn't broke people can still mess up?

The gospel is about redeeming the state too, ISTM. [Biased]

Well, of course the Gospel is about ontological change of state, but the end product of that chage of state is ongoing relationship and development, rather than something set in perpetual unchangeingness. God may be changeless, we are not, nor should we be. The point that I was specifically answering (and I'm conscious of the limitation of language) was that for God to have "fixed things" would mean necessarily returning us to a pre-fall undeveloped and unchanging existance. I was pointing out that such a state was never intended to be undeveloped and unchangeing. In actual fact, I think "redeemed" is a pretty good word to use, but my main point was that this redemption satisfies the (righteousness/justice) of God vis-a-vis the victim, as it does the (righteousness/mercy) vis-a-vis the sinner.

Lest there be any mistake, I am sticking to my point that the characterisatics of God which we call "justice" and "mercy" are merely paticulars of the characteristic of "righteousness" when seen from the point of view of the victim and the perpetrator, respectively. God's righteous nature will, imv, always manifest itself as mercy to the sinner and always manifest itself as justice to the victim.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
While I do not want to make light of the pain you went through in trying to reconcile your faith to this, I do think this is all a red herring.

There are so many issues linked with the cleansing of Canaan that I don't think it is fair to lump them all together and then just dump them as a kind of 'end of argument'.

(For a start you haven't even engaged with the fact that the death penalty was also part of the Mosaic covenant ... that's just a start ... but I don't want to open that can of worms!?)

I think it's relevant, not at all a red herring.

My argument is that for God to require murder, for any reason, is irrational, or evil, if the God who gave the commandment not to murder is good. It's the beginning and end of the argument.

So, if God is rational and good and meant what he said in the instruction 'do not kill/murder', then Moses blew it the moment he came down from the mountain. Add to that the murder of the poor chap who gathered sticks on the Sabbath and we've got the classic example for the reasoning of Christ against the doctrines of men - that they put their own reasoning above the commandments of God.

Ditto, same argument, a God who requires human blood sacrifice to atone for sin is ordering murder and so cannot be the same God who gave the commandment do not murder.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
To take everything the OT prophets said as if they were God's own words is not Christ's way of reading the OT

quote:
[Confused] Only if you completely disregard what Jesus himself said, e.g. Matthew 5: 17-18 ... in your beloved Sermon on the Mount!
That's about keeping GOD's Law! God commanded 'do not murder'. Do you really think he was referring to the doctrines of men he argued against?

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:


quote:
Have you got any evidence that Jesus read the OT the way you claim?
Christ argued that the doctrines of men perverted God's teaching, 'setting the commandments at naught'. He taught to love our enemies, bless them that cursed us, to do good to them that despitefully use us - what more do want to show that Christ was teaching against the doctrines of a murdering, cursing God?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
God's righteous nature will, imv, always manifest itself as mercy to the sinner and always manifest itself as justice to the victim.

On reflection you are right - if God wanted to do this of course he could. Just as I think that the scriptures teach both God's sovereignty and mankinds freewill - how he can reconcile those two things is up to him.

However, I do think there is a difference here. I am happy to 'leave it to God' when it comes to reconciling truths that are taught in scripture ... but you seem to be taking it a stage further. ISTM there is a difference in saying that 'God is both righteous and merciful' from saying that (from a human perspective) it will always be seen as such by us.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:


My argument is that for God to require murder, for any reason, is irrational, or evil, if the God who gave the commandment not to murder is good. It's the beginning and end of the argument.

Well it is a very poor argument then. In the torah there are very clear commands to kill, in certain circumstances, to put alongside the command not to murder.

Now, everyone agrees that there is a tension there. However, until now, I've never met someone who deal with this in this way.

In an apparent contradiction you are deciding which one to uphold and which one to dismiss. No synthesis, no struggle, just simply, "I, Myrrh, have a hotline to the divine and so can now reveal where God got it right and where he was mistaken."

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
That's about keeping GOD's Law! God commanded 'do not murder'. Do you really think he was referring to the doctrines of men he argued against?
... Christ argued that the doctrines of men perverted God's teaching, 'setting the commandments at naught'. He taught to love our enemies, bless them that cursed us, to do good to them that despitefully use us - what more do want to show that Christ was teaching against the doctrines of a murdering, cursing God?

Try actually reading what Jesus said this time. [Roll Eyes]

1. It was the 'Law and the Prophets' he referred to in v 17, not just the Law... i.e. the whole of the OT.

2. Jesus does not just 'set aside' in each section he makes each 'command' even tougher. For example, he turns 'do not murder' into 'do not be angry or you will be subject to judgment. In each case he takes the command and shows where it was really pointing. He is not abrogating the OT he is demonstrating how it should be interpreted.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Bump!

I haven't got anything to say, apart from that I'm going away for a couple of week's holiday - but I guess that anything that keeps this long thread going is worth it ... even if just for sentimental reasons ... I mean it will have to file under church history soon. [Biased]

[ 13. April 2008, 12:43: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:


My argument is that for God to require murder, for any reason, is irrational, or evil, if the God who gave the commandment not to murder is good. It's the beginning and end of the argument.

Well it is a very poor argument then. In the torah there are very clear commands to kill, in certain circumstances, to put alongside the command not to murder.
Aren't these the doctrines of men which Christ criticises?


quote:
Now, everyone agrees that there is a tension there. However, until now, I've never met someone who deal with this in this way.

In an apparent contradiction you are deciding which one to uphold and which one to dismiss. No synthesis, no struggle, just simply, "I, Myrrh, have a hotline to the divine and so can now reveal where God got it right and where he was mistaken."

We all have access to this hotline - to see this difference is Christ's particular teaching, logos means reason and Christ logically differentiated between the fathers, the murderer not being His..


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
That's about keeping GOD's Law! God commanded 'do not murder'. Do you really think he was referring to the doctrines of men he argued against?
... Christ argued that the doctrines of men perverted God's teaching, 'setting the commandments at naught'. He taught to love our enemies, bless them that cursed us, to do good to them that despitefully use us - what more do want to show that Christ was teaching against the doctrines of a murdering, cursing God?

quote:
Try actually reading what Jesus said this time. [Roll Eyes]

1. It was the 'Law and the Prophets' he referred to in v 17, not just the Law... i.e. the whole of the OT.

And on what does this all hang according to Christ's teaching? So in our own history all those Christians who go on the rampage slaughtering and torturing others, for being different or for not believing exactly what they believe, and claiming God ordered it or that such a thing is right in the Father's sight are doing it out of love for their neighbour?


quote:
2. Jesus does not just 'set aside' in each section he makes each 'command' even tougher. For example, he turns 'do not murder' into 'do not be angry or you will be subject to judgment. In each case he takes the command and shows where it was really pointing. He is not abrogating the OT he is demonstrating how it should be interpreted.
Quite so, this shows in His arguments - so how do you justify believing a God good when he orders mass murder of a nation? What judgement is on him when Christ taught that to kill is evil?

Have a good trip.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
[/QB][/QUOTE] Jesus does not just 'set aside' in each section he makes each 'command' even tougher. For example, he turns 'do not murder' into 'do not be angry or you will be subject to judgment. In each case he takes the command and shows where it was really pointing. He is not abrogating the OT he is demonstrating how it should be interpreted. [/qb]

[/QUOTE]Quite so, this shows in His arguments - so how do you justify believing a God good when he orders mass murder of a nation? What judgement is on him when Christ taught that to kill is evil?

Have a good trip.

Myrrh [/QUOTE]

Well I'm with Johnny S here, Jesus is specifically addressing the issue of 'pre-cross' righteousness in the sermon on the mount. He says 'you have heard it said that.." This context is his contention and challenge to the Pharisaic interpretation of the Torah. He is factoring in things like motive and intent as important factors in true righteousness, not just actions in themselves.

Regarding how a 'good' God can sanction murder, you have a confusion of categories. God because he is the giver, has the right to take as well. Human morality is not binding on the author of human life. He has a perfect right to do what he pleases with or without our approval. We have only the Bible which details both his actions and his motive of love for us. The latter is proved conclusively by the advent of Christ who came in 'due time to die for the ungodly.' The actions also include jdgements which had they been initiated by a human agency, we could rightly evaluate but since hey were initiated by a superhuman agency, they are beyond our evaluation.

As I have intimated many times before, we simply have a choice whether to accept the God of the Bible, or to redefine him to our taste.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Jamat Regarding how a 'good' God can sanction murder, you have a confusion of categories. God because he is the giver, has the right to take as well. Human morality is not binding on the author of human life. He has a perfect right to do what he pleases with or without our approval. We have only the Bible which details both his actions and his motive of love for us. The latter is proved conclusively by the advent of Christ who came in 'due time to die for the ungodly.' The actions also include jdgements which had they been initiated by a human agency, we could rightly evaluate but since hey were initiated by a superhuman agency, they are beyond our evaluation.

Surely, Jamat, you have this the wrong way round. It's not that human morality is binding on God, it's that God's morality is the basis and foundation for human morality. The more human morality conforms to God's morality, the more truely moral it becomes. What is moral for a human being must be moral from God's point of view, for He defines what is and is not moral (or rather, moral acts are an expression of God's character). Similarly, if an action is immoral from a human point of view that must be because God regards it as immoral, that is, it is an act that could not spring from God's nature. I just don't accept that right and wrong mean different things to us and to God, and I think you'd have a pretty hard time showing that the Bible accepts that concept either.

Now you can argue, and I'm sure that you would, that Human morality is fallen, and therefore a distorted reflection of the Divine. But by the argument that you posit, that should mean we recover that morality by advocating the actions which you attribute to God. It's all right to murder in some circumstances, because it was alright for God to murder in some circumstances, and we are trying to recover the perfect morality of God. Now, I know that isn't what you mean, but it is the logical conclusion of what you are saying, and, regretfully, reasoning such as that which you use here has been used by the church to justify all sorts of heinous crimes.

quote:
As I have intimated many times before, we simply have a choice whether to accept the God of the Bible, or to redefine him to our taste.

Yes, I know you have intimated this, but, nonetheless, it presupposes that the "God of the Bible" as you understand Him is the true God, whilst the "God of the Bible" as I understand Him is one that has been redefined to my taste. I could just as easily make the same accusation against you in reverse. Better, surely, to accept that we are both seeking to know more of the truth about the One who is ultimately beyond knowledge.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
...if an action is immoral from a human point of view that must be because God regards it as immoral, that is, it is an act that could not spring from God's nature. I just don't accept that right and wrong mean different things to us and to God,
Where is the logic in that statement?


quote:

But by the argument that you posit, that should mean we recover that morality by advocating the actions which you attribute to God. It's all right to murder in some circumstances, because it was alright for God to murder in some circumstances, and we are trying to recover the perfect morality of God. Now, I know that isn't what you mean, but it is the logical conclusion of what you are saying, and, regretfully,

Not at all, I simply say that God by definition, is incapable of murder. If he takes life, then it is his right. There is certainly no logic in that that suggests men have similar rights.


quote:
it presupposes that the "God of the Bible" as you understand Him is the true God, whilst the "God of the Bible" as I understand Him is one that has been redefined to my taste. I could just as easily make the same accusation against you in reverse.
The issue as you understand it is down to two equally valid readings of scripture then? This is perhaps why Jesus stated that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. You would agree that we humans have a great capacity for rationalisation, denial and consequent self-deception. For many reasons, some here associate PSA and ransom theory with a narrow and condemnatory, judgemental version of Christianity which they reject as true Gospel. My point is that the problem has been the 'singers' in many cases, not the 'song'. If we corrupt the 'song' (admittedly I speak from the PSA standpoint) on what can the victory of Christ be based and on what basis can we be forgiven and saved? There is no victory at all if the cross mechanism fails to by-pass our sin nature and the whole thesis of Christus Victor, it seems to me, does suggest this and therefore makes Christianity a self-improvement exercise.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Jamat

Do you believe we are "totally depraved"? That the image of God in human beings is completely obliterated by sin, unless we are redeemed?

Personally, I find myself, and others, to be a mixture of self-centred and more generous, more other-centred impulses. I'm pretty sure I was like that before conversion. After conversion "He" must increase and "I" must decrease. But the "good" I recognise now seems very like the "good" I recognised before. There are differences of course, but they are the differences of distortion, not perception of a totally different kind of "good".
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
...if an action is immoral from a human point of view that must be because God regards it as immoral, that is, it is an act that could not spring from God's nature. I just don't accept that right and wrong mean different things to us and to God,
Where is the logic in that statement?
Obviously, I'm not being clear enough. Can we agree that God is the one who defines, in virtue of His nature, in absolute terms what is right (moral, if you like), and that human morality is (ought to be) derived from His Nature, but is in some way clouded by our fallen nature.

Can we further agree that God is One, in that He is, to use human terms, a fully integrated and consistent personality, chageless over time, not double minded and so on.

Both these viewpoints are, I believe, amply supported in Scripture.

If that is the case, then right and wrong are not situational, and if they are not situational, then that means the more Christ-like we become, the more akin will be "our" morality to "His" morality.

quote:
quote:

But by the argument that you posit, that should mean we recover that morality by advocating the actions which you attribute to God. It's all right to murder in some circumstances, because it was alright for God to murder in some circumstances, and we are trying to recover the perfect morality of God. Now, I know that isn't what you mean, but it is the logical conclusion of what you are saying, and, regretfully,

Not at all, I simply say that God by definition, is incapable of murder. If he takes life, then it is his right. There is certainly no logic in that that suggests men have similar rights.
The issue is not whether or not God has the right to take life, but rather whether or not He chooses to do so. God's "instinct" if you like, His overriding desire is to judge for salvation, not condemnation (cf lots of verses but especially John 3:17


quote:
quote:
it presupposes that the "God of the Bible" as you understand Him is the true God, whilst the "God of the Bible" as I understand Him is one that has been redefined to my taste. I could just as easily make the same accusation against you in reverse.
The issue as you understand it is down to two equally valid readings of scripture then? This is perhaps why Jesus stated that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. You would agree that we humans have a great capacity for rationalisation, denial and consequent self-deception.
Hmmn, not quite, but almost. It depends what you mean by equally valid. Obviously, I think that your reading of the scripture is mistaken, and you think the same about mine. But I think that both readings can be held in good faith. I think there is tons of evidence that supports my view, and precious little that supports yours, but you, presumably, think the same could be said for your understanding, or you would not hold it. I don't think that an acceptance of good faith on both sides debars vigourous and impassioned debate.

quote:

For many reasons, some here associate PSA and ransom theory with a narrow and condemnatory, judgemental version of Christianity which they reject as true Gospel. My point is that the problem has been the 'singers' in many cases, not the 'song'.

Well, I guess that is true, but that isn't my primary complaint against PSA. Most believers in PSA (and I mean most by a large margin), are not condemnatory or judgemental. My main complaints against PSA are that i) it portrays a God who is less than He really is, and in many ways less than the best of His created beings, ii) that it is logically flawed, particularly in portraying the death of an innocent victim as being in any way "justice", and iii) it is incompatible with the natural reading of scripture. BTW, I don't accept your lumping together of Ransom theory with PSA. I'm actually quite favourably disposed towards Ransom theory; In many ways it is like a primitive form of CV. It's what most of the early church believed and it has plenty of Scriptural support. As long as we don't ask "to whom was the ransom paid" it will do just fine.

quote:

If we corrupt the 'song' (admittedly I speak from the PSA standpoint) on what can the victory of Christ be based and on what basis can we be forgiven and saved? There is no victory at all if the cross mechanism fails to by-pass our sin nature and the whole thesis of Christus Victor, it seems to me, does suggest this and therefore makes Christianity a self-improvement exercise.

I really do think I'm repeating myself here, but there is absolutely no way, IMV that we can bypass the cross and resurrection. It just that we disagree about precisely what is happening there. Whilst you see the cross as God dealing with our sin (that is, our moral guilt) I would say that God has already dealt with that by forgiveness, and what He does in Christ through the Cross and Resurrection is to initiate the ontological change in us necessary for us to inherit eternal life. We both believe the Paschal event to be ansolutely key, but for very different reasons. There is no way that you can characterise CV as "self improvement".
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
Just chipping in after wading through 55 pages of (mostly) very interesting discussion.

First of all, congratulations everyone on keeping such a long, controversial thread going with so little acrimony, and so much mutual engagement. Sadly, though, I think it's a rather fruitless endeavour.

Others have observed at various stages that everyone seems to be speaking past each other, as they read their own preferred model into a given text. This is a common problem in such discussions, but I think this thread has particularly suffered, because the standard Biblical proof-texts tend to be a little poetic and abstract, using language which is far from specific but which everyone thinks they understand, and most importantly, those debating the point on this thread tend to be separated by only the tiniest of margins in practical terms, so the same text can often be reasonably used to support more than one understanding. At least, that's how it appears to this non-aligned "SA" observer with an interest in learning more about CV, who read The Cross of Christ with approval (albeit quite a few years ago!) Certainly, Numpty's suggested model way back, although a slightly stripped-down one IIRC, didn't seem to provoke much disagreement from anyone on either side.

And that's where the other problem arises - identity. This has already come up as a potential barrier in discussions about the Orthodox understanding, but it might be even more of an issue within the Evangelical fold, where there are ongoing squabbles between the "Open" and "Conservative" wings. If you asked a selection of moderate Evos whether they agreed with a list of statements about the cross and atonement, I suspect they'd nearly always agree/disagree with the same ones, but if you asked them to name their preferred model, it would almost certainly tell you whether they considered themselves Conservative or Open.

That's just my suspicion, and I may be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if PSA was widely supported by Opens, or if anything else had much currency among Conservatives. Obviously, there are real differences at the extremes, but I've seen very little of that here, just a slight difference in emphasis and identity, so part of me wonders "Is it worth arguing about?" (And why did I bother reading the whole thread?) [Roll Eyes]

I think it is worth debating, but I also think Tom Wright's sentiment (quoted by Barnabas waaaaay back) is an excellent one, and worth bearing in mind: "Jesus... didn't give them a theory, he gave them a meal."

Anyway, just my thoughts, possibly way off-beam, but there they are. Carry on!
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
[/qb][/QUOTE]
quote:
The issue is not whether or not God has the right to take life, but rather whether or not He chooses to do so. God's "instinct" if you like, His overriding desire is to judge for salvation, not condemnation (cf lots of verses
He chooses to do so innumerable times in the scriptures as you well know


quote:
it presupposes that the "God of the Bible" as you understand Him is the true God, whilst the "God of the Bible" as I understand Him is one that has been redefined to my taste. I could just as easily make the same accusation against you in reverse. I think there is tons of evidence that supports my view, and precious little that supports yours, but you, presumably, think the same could be said for your understanding, or you would not hold it. I don't think that an acceptance of good faith on both sides debars vigourous and impassioned debate.
I suppose a few million dead canaanites is no evidence at all?
.
quote:
My main complaints against PSA are that i) it portrays a God who is less than He really is, and in many ways less than the best of His created beings, ii) that it is logically flawed, particularly in portraying the death of an innocent victim as being in any way "justice", and iii) it is incompatible with the natural reading of scripture. BTW, I don't accept your lumping together of Ransom theory with PSA. I'm actually quite favourably disposed towards Ransom theory; In many ways it is like a primitive form of CV. It's what most of the early church believed and it has plenty of Scriptural support. As long as we don't ask "to whom was the ransom paid" it will do just fine.
No, it makes God not less than he is ...only less than your expectations of 'your' God. Regarding who gets the ransom, obviously God does, then it does very well indeed , scripturally, you have a flawless logical atonememt theory don't you.

quote:
There is no way that you can characterise CV as "self improvement".
Well you use the term 'otological change but you have never been able to keep it still under the microscope. Just how does it work then if not by human decision?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
The issue is not whether or not God has the right to take life, but rather whether or not He chooses to do so. God's "instinct" if you like, His overriding desire is to judge for salvation, not condemnation (cf lots of verses
He chooses to do so innumerable times in the scriptures as you well know
That rather depends on how you view, for example, progressive revelation. That the Bronze Age writers of Exodus believed that God had ordered the Canaanite genocide does not make it incumbent upon us to also believe it. The truth of scripture does not depend on it being literally, historically true.


quote:
quote:
it presupposes that the "God of the Bible" as you understand Him is the true God, whilst the "God of the Bible" as I understand Him is one that has been redefined to my taste. I could just as easily make the same accusation against you in reverse. I think there is tons of evidence that supports my view, and precious little that supports yours, but you, presumably, think the same could be said for your understanding, or you would not hold it. I don't think that an acceptance of good faith on both sides debars vigourous and impassioned debate.
I suppose a few million dead canaanites is no evidence at all?
See above
.
quote:
quote:
My main complaints against PSA are that i) it portrays a God who is less than He really is, and in many ways less than the best of His created beings, ii) that it is logically flawed, particularly in portraying the death of an innocent victim as being in any way "justice", and iii) it is incompatible with the natural reading of scripture. BTW, I don't accept your lumping together of Ransom theory with PSA. I'm actually quite favourably disposed towards Ransom theory; In many ways it is like a primitive form of CV. It's what most of the early church believed and it has plenty of Scriptural support. As long as we don't ask "to whom was the ransom paid" it will do just fine.
No, it makes God not less than he is ...only less than your expectations of 'your' God. Regarding who gets the ransom, obviously God does, then it does very well indeed , scripturally, you have a flawless logical atonememt theory don't you.

Well, that of course, is your view. I, of course, disagree. We've been round this route quite a few times already, but if we are expected to be more like Christ, and if we are also expected to forgive unconditionally, and if Christ is the very image of the Father, then I think, even without stories like the Prodigal Son, we can conclude that the Father's nature is to forgive unconditionally. I see no biblical evidence whatsoever that would lead one to conclude that God needs some enabling mechanism in order to forgive.

Nor is there any Biblical evidence that the idea of ransom involves payment to anyone. In fact, Freddy did quite an extensive OT study to show that ransom, in a bblical sense, is not tied to a payment to anyone at all, only that a cost is involved to the ransommer.

I'm not sure why you think CV is inconsistent. I can understand that you think it isn't true, but surely it is at least as internally consistent as PSA, and, of course, I would say much more so.
quote:
quote:
There is no way that you can characterise CV as "self improvement".
Well you use the term 'otological change but you have never been able to keep it still under the microscope. Just how does it work then if not by human decision?
Again, this has been discussed at length. But, for completeness, CV says that we are held in bondage to the law of sin and death, which holds us to mortality. CV is Christ breaking the bondage of human nature to this law in the cross, and uniting us with Him in the resurrection, which is the beginning of the new creation. Ontological change is this - our natural fallen nature being exchanged for a new nature like Christ's - being born again of the Spirit, if you like. Of course, to benefit from everything that Chist has done for us, we do need to respond, but this is also true under your schema.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

Jesus does not just 'set aside' in each section he makes each 'command' even tougher. For example, he turns 'do not murder' into 'do not be angry or you will be subject to judgment. In each case he takes the command and shows where it was really pointing. He is not abrogating the OT he is demonstrating how it should be interpreted. [/qb]

[/QUOTE]Quite so, this shows in His arguments - so how do you justify believing a God good when he orders mass murder of a nation? What judgement is on him when Christ taught that to kill is evil?

Have a good trip.

Myrrh [/QUOTE]

Well I'm with Johnny S here, Jesus is specifically addressing the issue of 'pre-cross' righteousness in the sermon on the mount. He says 'you have heard it said that.." This context is his contention and challenge to the Pharisaic interpretation of the Torah. He is factoring in things like motive and intent as important factors in true righteousness, not just actions in themselves.[/qb][/quote]

I may have misread Johnny here, missing out the 'just' in "not just set aside". If Johnny is meaning that God is setting aside the commandment do not murder in favour of some further 'revelation', meaning that it's OK to murder as long as you're not angry, then I don't agree with him. It seems to be the direction you're going with this in saying that actions in themselves are neither right nor wrong and context is all. But Christ did not teach this. He said to keep the commandments, and there is no commandment given on Mt Sinai that says 'thou shalt murder when I say so'.




quote:
Regarding how a 'good' God can sanction murder, you have a confusion of categories. God because he is the giver, has the right to take as well. Human morality is not binding on the author of human life. He has a perfect right to do what he pleases with or without our approval. We have only the Bible which details both his actions and his motive of love for us. The latter is proved conclusively by the advent of Christ who came in 'due time to die for the ungodly.' The actions also include jdgements which had they been initiated by a human agency, we could rightly evaluate but since hey were initiated by a superhuman agency, they are beyond our evaluation.

As I have intimated many times before, we simply have a choice whether to accept the God of the Bible, or to redefine him to our taste.

God is the giver, but a God who gives the commandment 'do not murder' cannot be the same God who commands mass murder. He might as well not have bothered with Mt Sinai, it teaches us nothing if he is the same God. God is not the author of confusion, a God who instructs his chosen people not to murder and then commands them to murder confuses, therefore, cannot be God. The author of confusion is the adversary, Satan, the father of lies, this is where the confusion of categories arises - not being able to tell the difference between good and evil.

Christ said God was good, Christ said to keep the commandments of God not of men, Christ said that to kill was evil. Which God was He talking about? It can't be this artificial amalgam who commands both not to murder and to murder, which makes God irrational/insane/evil, certainly not good. And proved not good by his fruits, the order to commit genocide.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
..and if Christ is the very image of the Father, then I think, even without stories like the Prodigal Son, we can conclude that the Father's nature is to forgive unconditionally. I see no biblical evidence whatsoever that would lead one to conclude that God needs some enabling mechanism in order to forgive.


There's an enabling mechanism in repentance/forgiving others, but not so much in enabling God to forgive but for us to receive, 'forgive us as we forgive others'.

Christ teaches this synergistic relationship in changing our own being to become Christlike in the discipline of 'picking up our own crosses' - the man sick with palsy wasn't required to do anything but to be of good cheer because his sins had been forgiven.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:


quote:
There is no way that you can characterise CV as "self improvement".
Well you use the term 'otological change but you have never been able to keep it still under the microscope. Just how does it work then if not by human decision?
Grace? Partnership? Trust? Reconciliation? New beginnings? They are all there.

There is a dynamic in this relationship with God in Christ which is lost when we insist on our own understandings of how it works. He draws near; we make moves in the right direction; He helps etc. A divine feedback loop, arising out of a developing relationship.

To quote Eric Morecambe, I'm playing the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order. For you that is. But that's the way the tune sounds to me.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
A youtube video I found of interest.

I have been reading a deeply theological gospel, probably the most theological of all four, Matthew. I have been astonished by the way the term justice is used throughout the gospel. It's very very revealing. Begin with 1.19. Joseph was just and not wanting to make an example of her he willed that he secretly sent her away. What a strange (compared to the juridical meaning of justice some proposed here) use of the term just!

He, being just, wanted to secretly send her away, so that she wont be stoned according to the Law...

Then, in 3.25, Jesus Christ says that John should not object, and that every justice should be fulfilled. Jesus Christ's Baptism by John the Baptist is God's Justice.

Then, in the Beatitudes, Jesus Christ speaks of those who are thirsty for justice and for those who are persecuted for justice.

It didn't occur to me to write down all the verses where the word just or justice was used, so I'm just skimming over the gospel to bring some examples. You could examine it on your own if you want.

It's also interesting how Matthew interprets Isaiah's "he took upon himself our illnesses, and he bore our sicknesses". I have heard this verse, by Protestants, to be interpreted about what happened on the cross, while Matthew interprets it to mean that Jesus Christ healed people from their illnesses. After he healed Peter's mother in law that had fever, they brought to him people that were sick and people that were possessed. And he healed them. And in healing them, he fulfilled the prophesy if Isaiah, according to Matthew.

A most interesting gospel, to say the least!
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Oh well, back from a trip away and so I fear a triple post coming on! (Surfing on the Sunshine coast ... it is a tough life!?)

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And on what does this all hang according to Christ's teaching? So in our own history all those Christians who go on the rampage slaughtering and torturing others, for being different or for not believing exactly what they believe, and claiming God ordered it or that such a thing is right in the Father's sight are doing it out of love for their neighbour?

I don't think we are making any progess on this one. My overall point is that you are trying to make a complex issue simplistic - using the teaching of Jesus as your hermeneutical grid is not as straightforward as you make out.

e.g. Luke 22: 36

"He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

I for one do not think that the teaching of Jesus justifies war against others, however, I do accept that Christ's teaching is far more naunced than (it appears) you do.

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I think it is worth debating, but I also think Tom Wright's sentiment (quoted by Barnabas waaaaay back) is an excellent one, and worth bearing in mind: "Jesus... didn't give them a theory, he gave them a meal."

No doubt there is some truth in your analysis of our debate. Partisan politics frequently come to the fore. Nevertheless, the only place we can start from is where we are. (If I was going to Dublin I wouldn't start from here. [Big Grin] )

I'm not much a fan of Tom Wright's comment though. If I were to conclude that Jesus just gave us a meal (i.e. a very 'low' view of the Eucharist) he would be quick to put me straight. All he does is move the debate from the atonement to the Eucharist. I'd give him 10/10 for witty apohrism, 0/10 for theological insight.

quote:
Originally posted by 'Previously known as andreas1984':
It's also interesting how Matthew interprets Isaiah's "he took upon himself our illnesses, and he bore our sicknesses". I have heard this verse, by Protestants, to be interpreted about what happened on the cross, while Matthew interprets it to mean that Jesus Christ healed people from their illnesses. After he healed Peter's mother in law that had fever, they brought to him people that were sick and people that were possessed. And he healed them. And in healing them, he fulfilled the prophesy if Isaiah, according to Matthew.

I'm glad you've come across this since I think you are coming closer to a Protestant understanding of CV.

A frequent pattern (seen here) is the way that Jesus heals the 'unclean' by touching them. It is interesting how the gospel writers particularly focus on touch - Jesus doesn't have to touch to heal but very often 'touch' is linked with those who are 'unclean' - e.g. lepers / woman bleeding for 12 years etc.

This is significant because in the OT the reverse is the case. 'Uncleanness' spreads by touching - i.e. Jesus should become 'unclean' but (miraculously) instead the person becomes 'clean'.

Of course, this is a substitutionary model. It refers back to the medical CV model that others have referred to previously - namely that Jesus 'takes the bad stuff' onto himself ... rather like sucking out the poison from a snake-bite.

So, yes, I'm glad you raised this, since it demonstrates the Protestant understanding of Isaiah 53 - namely a substitutionary one. The only question is whether it is penal or not (hence this thread). I would argue that the context of Isaiah (e.g. 40: 2 "Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed, that her sin has been paid for, that she has received from the Lord's hand double for all her sins.") demands that it is penal, but I doubt very much that everyone will be convinced!? [Razz] [Biased] [Big Grin] [Biased] [Razz]
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Of course, this is a substitutionary model. It refers back to the medical CV model that others have referred to previously - namely that Jesus 'takes the bad stuff' onto himself ... rather like sucking out the poison from a snake-bite.

"Of course" huh? If this thread is to show anything at all, that would be not to think that anything is "obvious"!

So, "of course" this is not substitutionary. Because Jesus does not get ill, he does not bear the illnesses or the demons he heals the people of. He just heals us, and in this sense he lifts the illnesses of the world, which is how Matthew interprets Isaiah.

How very unprotestant of him! [Razz]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
So, "of course" this is not substitutionary. Because Jesus does not get ill, he does not bear the illnesses or the demons he heals the people of. He just heals us, and in this sense he lifts the illnesses of the world, which is how Matthew interprets Isaiah.

[brick wall] He doesn't 'just' heal them.

If you had read my post you will have noticed the reference to touching 'unclean' people and the associated OT background.

It is this 'touching' that has the substitutionary motif.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
I still don't see any substitution. And I am amazed you see substitution in that. Perhaps you could clarify further. A substitution means that one someone has he gives to another and takes something that other person has in exchange. Jesus granted healing, but he did not get leprosy or blindness or possession by demons or whatever in exchange. Unless you mean substitution in a way where no exchange is presupposed, but only a change. He annihilates disease and possession, and grants healing, and that's all. Is this what you mean by substitution?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
A substitution means that one someone has he gives to another and takes something that other person has in exchange. Jesus granted healing, but he did not get leprosy or blindness or possession by demons or whatever in exchange.

But in the analogy Jesus does 'get' leprosy / blindness / demons etc. it is just that he 'cures' them in his own body.

Now I stress that this is just an analogy and yet a common one in Protestant thought. If you think it so strange then perhaps your recent research in Matthew's gospel should focus on the region of the Gadarenes at the end of chapter 8. This is the kind of transference or substitution that I am talking about.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
I don't see that, sorry. I guess that's an impasse. Much like ordination, Jesus heals through his touch, but this does not mean that the person that does the touching takes in himself what he cleans the other person from. To put it differently, Isaiah's saying means that Jesus heals, not that he heals by taking the illness in his own body.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Of course, this is a substitutionary model. It refers back to the medical CV model that others have referred to previously - namely that Jesus 'takes the bad stuff' onto himself ... rather like sucking out the poison from a snake-bite.

"Of course" huh? If this thread is to show anything at all, that would be not to think that anything is "obvious"!

So, "of course" this is not substitutionary. Because Jesus does not get ill, he does not bear the illnesses or the demons he heals the people of. He just heals us, and in this sense he lifts the illnesses of the world, which is how Matthew interprets Isaiah.

How very unprotestant of him! [Razz]

I'm not sure that the idea of transactional exchange is as closely coupled with substitution as your post suggests. All that is necessary for substitution is that an act is carried out
on behalf of another. Thus, we can argue whether or not Christ bears our sins, and what that means, but all that is necessary for a substitutional understanding is that He does something with respect to sin which we cannot, or will not do, on our behalf. The whole point of a "champion" motif is that Christ acts on our behalf, that is, He does what He does for our sake. He is, in that sense, our substitute.

By the way, I think you are spot on with regard to how we understand the biblical concept of justice, and your exposition of how the concept is used in the first Gospel is really excellent.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
I don't see that, sorry. I guess that's an impasse.

It is an impasse on our view of justice and the atonement, but I don't think it is on this passage in Matthew.

quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Much like ordination, Jesus heals through his touch, but this does not mean that the person that does the touching takes in himself what he cleans the other person from. To put it differently, Isaiah's saying means that Jesus heals, not that he heals by taking the illness in his own body.

[Confused] Except that is what Isaiah says! [Roll Eyes] The quotation from Isaiah, picked up in Matthew 8 does not talk about healing through touch - it describes healing through the 'taking away' (often translated 'bearing' in English) of our diseases. It is as if Jesus picks up the disease and takes it away with him to dispose of elsewhere.

As JJ says this can fit easily with substitutionary thought.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And on what does this all hang according to Christ's teaching? So in our own history all those Christians who go on the rampage slaughtering and torturing others, for being different or for not believing exactly what they believe, and claiming God ordered it or that such a thing is right in the Father's sight are doing it out of love for their neighbour?

I don't think we are making any progess on this one.[/quote]

Perhaps not. But anyway, do you think this shows love of neighbour as Christ taught us to love our neighbours?


quote:
My overall point is that you are trying to make a complex issue simplistic - using the teaching of Jesus as your hermeneutical grid is not as straightforward as you make out.

e.g. Luke 22: 36

"He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

I for one do not think that the teaching of Jesus justifies war against others, however, I do accept that Christ's teaching is far more naunced than (it appears) you do.

Oh right, so they all bought swords and and fought those who were against them...

Simple it may well be, but I think you've lost Christ's message in the shash of thinking every reference to God in the OT is actually God speaking.

As one of Mohammed's wives said to him, 'hmm, interesting that whenever you want something you come up with a new revelation from God giving it to you..'

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

And on what does this all hang according to Christ's teaching? So in our own history all those Christians who go on the rampage slaughtering and torturing others, for being different or for not believing exactly what they believe, and claiming God ordered it or that such a thing is right in the Father's sight are doing it out of love for their neighbour?

I don't think we are making any progess on this one.
Perhaps not. But anyway, do you think this shows love of neighbour as Christ taught us to love our neighbours?
No, I do not think that the behaviour in (for example) the Crusades / Inquisition could ever be justified by the gospel.

However, I come to that conclusion by trying to harmonise scripture rather than just jettisoning the parts I don't like.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Simple it may well be, but I think you've lost Christ's message in the shash of thinking every reference to God in the OT is actually God speaking.

As one of Mohammed's wives said to him, 'hmm, interesting that whenever you want something you come up with a new revelation from God giving it to you..'

Myrrh, what on earth are you talking about? [Paranoid]

One of us is seeking to interpret scripture with scripture and the other is claiming to know (via 'new' revelation) when God is really speaking and when Jesus is really revealing God to us.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Regarding how a 'good' God can sanction murder, you have a confusion of categories. God because he is the giver, has the right to take as well. Human morality is not binding on the author of human life. He has a perfect right to do what he pleases with or without our approval. We have only the Bible which details both his actions and his motive of love for us. The latter is proved conclusively by the advent of Christ who came in 'due time to die for the ungodly.' The actions also include jdgements which had they been initiated by a human agency, we could rightly evaluate but since hey were initiated by a superhuman agency, they are beyond our evaluation.

As I have intimated many times before, we simply have a choice whether to accept the God of the Bible, or to redefine him to our taste.

God is the giver, but a God who gives the commandment 'do not murder' cannot be the same God who commands mass murder. He might as well not have bothered with Mt Sinai, it teaches us nothing if he is the same God. God is not the author of confusion, a God who instructs his chosen people not to murder and then commands them to murder confuses, therefore, cannot be God. The author of confusion is the adversary, Satan, the father of lies, this is where the confusion of categories arises - not being able to tell the difference between good and evil.

Christ said God was good, Christ said to keep the commandments of God not of men, Christ said that to kill was evil. Which God was He talking about? It can't be this artificial amalgam who commands both not to murder and to murder, which makes God irrational/insane/evil, certainly not good. And proved not good by his fruits, the order to commit genocide.


Myrrh [/QB]

You haven't heard a word. If God takes life, it ain't murder. Murder is a human category of behaviour. You simply have to let him do and authorise what he likes. Who are you O man says Paul to call God into question. Job tried it to his embarrassment. You cannot build a biblical concept of God on a human conception of what you want him to be.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[creation. Ontological change is this - our natural fallen nature being exchanged for a new nature like Christ's - being born again of the Spirit, if you like. Of course, to benefit from everything that Chist has done for us, we do need to respond, but this is also true under your schema. [/QB]

Sure, and how it happens is cos God forgives and renews right? But the way this renewal of us happens is the issue, not the fact that it does. We come back to the old chestnut, the basis of fogiveness. The Bible clearly teaches that Christ is accepted by god as ablood sacrifice. he offered himself as such. hebrews clearly describes how his blood cleansed the heavenly tabernacle. This is our basis, our only basis of approach tho the almighty, the holy God. That is our 'ontological' change. If you take that out, you have to find another basis. That can only be works based since logically that is all that is left, the only other alternative.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[creation. Ontological change is this - our natural fallen nature being exchanged for a new nature like Christ's - being born again of the Spirit, if you like. Of course, to benefit from everything that Chist has done for us, we do need to respond, but this is also true under your schema.

Sure, and how it happens is cos God forgives and renews right? But the way this renewal of us happens is the issue, not the fact that it does. We come back to the old chestnut, the basis of fogiveness. The Bible clearly teaches that Christ is accepted by god as ablood sacrifice. he offered himself as such. hebrews clearly describes how his blood cleansed the heavenly tabernacle. [/QB]
Well, right and wrong. It happens because God renews us, yes. It has, IMV, nothing whatsoever to do with forgiveness, though. Forgiveness is a done deal, nothingh whatever to do with the atonement, though the death of Jesus is certainly the highest manifestation of that forgiveness. God doesn't need blood sacrifice or anything else as a precondition or enabling mechanism for forgiveness. He forgives because that's who He is. The Atonement is an enabling mechanism, but it enables eternal life, regeneration in Christ, not forgiveness. Humanity's problem is not the need to be forgiven, but the need to accept the forgiveness that is already tours, in order that we live like forgiven people, in relationship with the forgiver.

We've covered the Old Testament antecedents of Hebrews quite extensively, noting that sacrifice was intended to point people towards the covenant relationship, but suffice it to say that the sacrificial lambs/oxen/doves were not "punished for the sins of the people", but reminders of God's commitment to His people, sealed in Genesis with blood-sacrifice. I believe Jesus does, indeed, bear our sinful nature on the cross, but he certainly isn't punished by God there.
quote:
This is our basis, our only basis of approach tho the almighty, the holy God. That is our 'ontological' change. If you take that out, you have to find another basis. That can only be works based since logically that is all that is left, the only other alternative.
What about "it is God's nature and desire to redeem" as a basis? It's got quite a lot of scriptural backing, as I recall, and it hardly equates to a works-based schema, quite the reverse. You see you are still asserting that a holy God has a problem relating to sinners, as if sin was some contagion that God was afraid to catch. But if that were the case, why was Jesus (ie God) so happy and relaxed in their company. Now if you were to say that sinners have a problem relating to a holy God, I would agree with you, and could cite chapter and verse. But the idea that sinners are unacceptable to Him, (in the sense that He prevents them relating to him until the theological fix of the cross is applied to them) is a total misreading of scripture.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[Confused] Except that is what Isaiah says! [Roll Eyes]

I wrote a long reply to that, but the crux of the issue is this:

You interpret that passage so that it speaks about the Cross. Yet, Matthew already gave, in an authoritative manner, the interpretation of that passage, and he interprets it to mean that Jesus gave sight to people that were blind, made whole people that were lame, cleaned people that were leprous, etc, and, what's more, he says that Jesus fulfilled that Scripture BEFORE he even speaks of Palm Sunday, let alone the Cross.

There is a difference in how you interpret that passage and how Matthew interprets it! And that's huge! That's a big issue here!

P.S. We have a leper. Jesus touches him, and he gets cleaned. The bacteria of leper do not pass on Jesus. How can you see substitution in that? I still don't see it as even possible!
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

And on what does this all hang according to Christ's teaching? So in our own history all those Christians who go on the rampage slaughtering and torturing others, for being different or for not believing exactly what they believe, and claiming God ordered it or that such a thing is right in the Father's sight are doing it out of love for their neighbour?

I don't think we are making any progess on this one.
Perhaps not. But anyway, do you think this shows love of neighbour as Christ taught us to love our neighbours?
No, I do not think that the behaviour in (for example) the Crusades / Inquisition could ever be justified by the gospel.

However, I come to that conclusion by trying to harmonise scripture rather than just jettisoning the parts I don't like.

Then how can you see Scripture justifying the mass murder of a nation as God's command?

I'm not jettisoning anything - by treating it as a collection of works in the history of a particular nation getting to know God it makes perfect sense to me. I don't make Scripture my God, nor do I confuse inspiration by the HOly Spirit in recording this history by thinking this means every utterance, whether claimed to be God speaking or not, to be God given as a truth to be followed.



quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Simple it may well be, but I think you've lost Christ's message in the shash of thinking every reference to God in the OT is actually God speaking.

As one of Mohammed's wives said to him, 'hmm, interesting that whenever you want something you come up with a new revelation from God giving it to you..'

quote:
Myrrh, what on earth are you talking about? [Paranoid]
[qb]

[Smile] see below.

quote:
[qb]One of us is seeking to interpret scripture with scripture and the other is claiming to know (via 'new' revelation) when God is really speaking and when Jesus is really revealing God to us.

Christ revealed the Scriptures to us, and I've been quoting it. He contradicts the idea of God demanding murder, 'you don't know the spirit you're of', because, like Mohammed, the early Israelites found lots of reasons to murder and claim that it was God's will whenever they wanted something and at the time of Christ this included wanting the power of life and death over others, in promoting their own laws above the commandments, for example in murdering by stoning for adultery. But there is a narrow trail through it all, as the prophets taught, that of God teaching that he is not the kind of god who demands blood sacrifice for sins but what God requires is a contrite heart for our own shortcomings and for us to love others as ourselves.

It'll harmonise a lot easier if this trail is followed.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
You interpret that passage so that it speaks about the Cross.

Do I? Where? I do believe that Isaiah 53 looks forward to the cross, but that doesn't mean that I limit it to that.

quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Yet, Matthew already gave, in an authoritative manner, the interpretation of that passage, and he interprets it to mean that Jesus gave sight to people that were blind, made whole people that were lame, cleaned people that were leprous, etc, and, what's more, he says that Jesus fulfilled that Scripture BEFORE he even speaks of Palm Sunday, let alone the Cross.

[Confused] Where does Matthew do this? He says that Jesus healing is a fulfilment of this prophecy. I am saying that it makes sense to understand the way Jesus fulfils it in a consistent manner to the original prophecy.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

Myrrh

You haven't heard a word. If God takes life, it ain't murder. Murder is a human category of behaviour. You simply have to let him do and authorise what he likes. Who are you O man says Paul to call God into question. Job tried it to his embarrassment. You cannot build a biblical concept of God on a human conception of what you want him to be. [/QB][/QUOTE]


We're created in the image and likeness of God, and Christ teaches in Matthew 25 what that means, murder is deliberately killing the image likeness of God. But which God? This is problem Christ answers, he makes a distinction between His Father and the father of lies.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm not jettisoning anything - by treating it as a collection of works in the history of a particular nation getting to know God it makes perfect sense to me. I don't make Scripture my God, nor do I confuse inspiration by the HOly Spirit in recording this history by thinking this means every utterance, whether claimed to be God speaking or not, to be God given as a truth to be followed.

And do you have any evidence of Jesus adopting this view of scripture? (As we have seen already in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus intensifies rather than abrogates the OT law.)
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm not jettisoning anything - by treating it as a collection of works in the history of a particular nation getting to know God it makes perfect sense to me. I don't make Scripture my God, nor do I confuse inspiration by the HOly Spirit in recording this history by thinking this means every utterance, whether claimed to be God speaking or not, to be God given as a truth to be followed.

And do you have any evidence of Jesus adopting this view of scripture? (As we have seen already in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus intensifies rather than abrogates the OT law.)
This is a mixed verse, the first part on anger relates back to God's qualities and the second from OT Law as given at Mt Sinai. This emphasis of Christ's on anger without a cause putting one in danger of judgement is consistent here with standard teaching, one of those the Holy One loves is one who doesn't get angry. Anger is taught by the Jews to be wrong, something best avoided by practicing 'long suffering', and if it can't be avoided then one should try and control it. However, here it is coupled with an even greater danger in calling someone a fool and I think it's because it relates back directly to the commandments. For the Jews, who read the commandments more as categories, the second would, I think, come under the heading thou shalt not murder because to call someone a fool is to embarrass him 'which causes blood to suffuse the face' and so is a sort of shedding of blood, murder.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
[Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm not jettisoning anything - by treating it as a collection of works in the history of a particular nation getting to know God it makes perfect sense to me. I don't make Scripture my God, nor do I confuse inspiration by the HOly Spirit in recording this history by thinking this means every utterance, whether claimed to be God speaking or not, to be God given as a truth to be followed.

And do you have any evidence of Jesus adopting this view of scripture?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm not jettisoning anything - by treating it as a collection of works in the history of a particular nation getting to know God it makes perfect sense to me. I don't make Scripture my God, nor do I confuse inspiration by the HOly Spirit in recording this history by thinking this means every utterance, whether claimed to be God speaking or not, to be God given as a truth to be followed.

And do you have any evidence of Jesus adopting this view of scripture? (As we have seen already in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus intensifies rather than abrogates the OT law.)
Well the first thing to say is that, of course Jesus "intensifies", to use your word, the law. Isn't that just what Myrhh is claiming? Is it harder to exact retribution, or to forgive unconditionally? Is it harder to exclude those who are diseased/poor/"sinners", or to be radically inclusive? Of course His is a harder way. After all, it leads to a cross.

As to whether or not Jesus had the attitude to the Scriptures that Myrhh describes, of course we don't know for certain, but it seems at least possible that it would be something close to this, since it is pretty standard fare amongst Jewish scholars. What is almost certain is that He would not have had a modernist understanding, because such a viewpoint was unknown in the Aincient world. The idea that, in order for something to be "true" it had to be facutally and forensically correct would have been considered as bizarre, had it been considered at all, at any time up to, say, 1500. That's just not how, particularly, sacred texts were regarded. The question of inerrancy just didn't arise. Of course, the scriptures have always been regarded as "authoritative" but that authority is still compatible with a schema not unlike Myrhh's.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
of course Jesus "intensifies", to use your word, the law. Isn't that just what Myrhh is claiming?

Not at all. She is claiming that Jesus directly contradicted parts of the OT.


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As to whether or not Jesus had the attitude to the Scriptures that Myrhh describes, of course we don't know for certain, but it seems at least possible that it would be something close to this,

... "it seems at least possible" ... sounds like you're reaching to me. [Biased]

How about some evidence for this?


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
What is almost certain is that He would not have had a modernist understanding, because such a viewpoint was unknown in the Aincient world. The idea that, in order for something to be "true" it had to be facutally and forensically correct would have been considered as bizarre, had it been considered at all, at any time up to, say, 1500. That's just not how, particularly, sacred texts were regarded. The question of inerrancy just didn't arise. Of course, the scriptures have always been regarded as "authoritative" but that authority is still compatible with a schema not unlike Myrhh's.

This is (IMHO) a complete red herring. Did I request evidence that Jesus had a modern conception of inerrancy?

An understanding of the scriptures as having authority is definitely not compatible with Myrrh's schema. By definition anyone claiming to say which bits apply to us and which bits don't is claiming a greater authority than the text. Of course, that is precisely what Jesus did claim...

... and therefore we are back to the fact that Jesus did not abrogate the OT law but rather intensified it.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Not at all. She is claiming that Jesus directly contradicted parts of the OT.
I would say that Jesus so altered the interpretation of the law as to totally subvert it as understood. This looks very like contradiction. I don't know a better way of describing Jesus attitude to the law as expressed in John 8:1-11 or Matt 5:38-42.

quote:
... "it seems at least possible" ... sounds like you're reaching to me.

How about some evidence for this?

Well there was the second half of the sentence, which you didn't quote [Big Grin] . I am not suggesting it is hard evidence. As I said, we cannot know for sure what Jesus' understanding of the Scriptures was, other than that He treated them seriously. But the tenor of Jewish thinking (and, incidentally, that of the ECFs), is not that far removed from Myrhh's understanding. You pays your money and you takes your choice, but her view is hardly off the wall.

quote:
This is (IMHO) a complete red herring. Did I request evidence that Jesus had a modern conception of inerrancy?

An understanding of the scriptures as having authority is definitely not compatible with Myrrh's schema. By definition anyone claiming to say which bits apply to us and which bits don't is claiming a greater authority than the text. Of course, that is precisely what Jesus did claim...

... and therefore we are back to the fact that Jesus did not abrogate the OT law but rather intensified it.

I accept that you did not demand that Jesus had a modern concept of inerrancy. But your argument only holds water if there is that foundation of inerrancy on which to construct it (to mix my metaphors). The truth is that we all pick and choose which parts of the Scriptures apply to us and which bits do not. For example, we don't insist that Jewish Christians follow all the Levitical code. We are quite happy, rightly in my view, to say that was an understanding rooted in the culture of the Old Testament, and that it is subverted by Christ's teaching that uncleanness arises out of what comes from a person, not what goes into him.

I don't see that such an understanding of scripture, that it is inspired by God, but that it is also the work of ordinary, flawed people, trying to make sense of God and life as they understood them at the time, is at all incompatible with authority. The scriptures aren't a manual for doing theology, they are a locus for God meeting with us today, as he did with the writers in their day.

But I guess we are wandering pretty close to deceased equine territory.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I would say that Jesus so altered the interpretation of the law as to totally subvert it as understood. This looks very like contradiction.

Does it? as understood is the key phrase here. The Pharisees had not understood the Law and so Jesus is correctly explaining it to them. Jesus contradicts them but I don't see where he contradicts the Law per se.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I don't know a better way of describing Jesus attitude to the law as expressed in John 8:1-11

Well for a start John 8:1-11 shouldn't really be in the NT in the first place!? [Razz]


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
For example, we don't insist that Jewish Christians follow all the Levitical code. We are quite happy, rightly in my view, to say that was an understanding rooted in the culture of the Old Testament, and that it is subverted by Christ's teaching that uncleanness arises out of what comes from a person, not what goes into him.

I think we agree at this point - although I would put it that Jesus is the way we interpret the OT.

However, what I was trying to tie down with Myrrh was precisely how she uses Jesus as the key to interpret the OT. AFAIK there is no consistency. And it doesn't fit with Christ's expressed intention of fulfilling the Law (Matt. 5: 17) instead of abolilshing them.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But I guess we are wandering pretty close to deceased equine territory.

Agreed, but then I wasn't the one dragging the discussion off into inerrancy! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Can't sleep, huh! [Big Grin]

I still think Jesus did such a fundamental reinterpretation of the Law that, to all intents and purposes, He could be said to be contradicting it. Of course, we both understand this as a sort of epiphany of the real meaning behind the scripures, but I would say that that real meaning includes, amongst other things, that capital punishment for adultery (to use the John 8 example) is against God's will, whilst the OT scriptures imply that it is God's will. That's pretty close to contradiction, though you might not like the word.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Well for a start John 8:1-11 shouldn't really be in the NT in the first place!? [Razz]
I know your yanking the chain here, but there is a serious point, that it is actually the deeply subversive content of this scripture that convinces me of its absolute authenticity
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Can't sleep, huh! [Big Grin]

Actually I've just finished writing a talk for our church weekend away starting tomorrow (Anzac day). I'm now off to bed. [Snore]

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
that capital punishment for adultery (to use the John 8 example) is against God's will, whilst the OT scriptures imply that it is God's will. That's pretty close to contradiction, though you might not like the word.

That's a bit of a big jump from John 8. There is no explicit setting aside of capital punishment here. I'm not in favour of capital punishment and would go to the mercy Jesus shows in a passage like this as part of my case, but that is not the same as saying that here Jesus deliberately contradicts capital punishment in all circumstances. Again I think you are reaching here.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Well for a start John 8:1-11 shouldn't really be in the NT in the first place!? [Razz]
I know your yanking the chain here, but there is a serious point, that it is actually the deeply subversive content of this scripture that convinces me of its absolute authenticity
I was just joking, but now you mention it that seems an extremely subjective criterion to use in deciding your canon!

The passage would only be subversive to the Pharisees / 'Jews' and John's gospel hardly needs any more of that does it? Therefore you are really saying that because it fits with your theology you think it should be in.

A rather slippery hermenutical grid ... like Myrrh! [Razz]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Well for a start John 8:1-11 shouldn't really be in the NT in the first place!? [Razz]
I know your yanking the chain here, but there is a serious point, that it is actually the deeply subversive content of this scripture that convinces me of its absolute authenticity
I was just joking, but now you mention it that seems an extremely subjective criterion to use in deciding your canon!
The passage would only be subversive to the Pharisees / 'Jews' and John's gospel hardly needs any more of that does it? Therefore you are really saying that because it fits with your theology you think it should be in.

A rather slippery hermenutical grid ... like Myrrh! [Razz]

Well the translators/editors obiously concur!

It's not so much that it reflects my theology (I assume it reflects yours as well) but rather that it is a very unlikely text for anyone to add, because it is so problematic. It's the argument against the Donation of Constantine, but in reverse. Very inconvenient!
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:


As to whether or not Jesus had the attitude to the Scriptures that Myrhh describes, of course we don't know for certain, but it seems at least possible that it would be something close to this, since it is pretty standard fare amongst Jewish scholars. What is almost certain is that He would not have had a modernist understanding, because such a viewpoint was unknown in the Aincient world. The idea that, in order for something to be "true" it had to be facutally and forensically correct would have been considered as bizarre, had it been considered at all, at any time up to, say, 1500. That's just not how, particularly, sacred texts were regarded. The question of inerrancy just didn't arise. Of course, the scriptures have always been regarded as "authoritative" but that authority is still compatible with a schema not unlike Myrhh's.

Christ was arguing particularly with the Pharisees who do, as does Johnny, treat Scripture with the kind of inerrancy which seeks to harmonise its parts as being 'from God therefore has to make sense somehow'. What Christ did was cut right across these convolutions exposing their irrationality simply by going back to basics. The Jews of today are inheritors of the pharisaic traditions to a greater or lesser extent, the only other sect which survived in any coherent state and number are the Christians, and reading modern arguments and explanations from the OT from the more orthodox Jew is still like hearing them 2,000 years ago, and like listening to Johnny here.

The concept of Sola Scriptura was in existence among the Jews in Christ's time as it is now,
quote:
(Was King David guilty of murder and adultery)

Only one who does not have a proper appreciation for the level of a true Tzadik can accuse G-d’s anointed servant of adultery and/or murder! Holiness and impurity do not go hand-in-hand! Maimonides tells us that one can only become a prophet if he has the ability to completely overcome his temptations. Among the prophets listed2is King David. It is, therefore preposterous to assume that he simply succumbed to his temptations.

The attempt to harmonise in the belief that authority is a book and so each time God is said to have spoken He actually did and therefore the acts of the protagonists in any story are right regardless how offensive their behaviour as long as it's claimed God ordered it or they are deemed to have behaved true to God's will have some of today's Jews tearing their hair out too -

qb](Losing God's image By Shulamit Aloni)[/qb]

When Christ asks 'is it lawful to do good or to do evil on the Sabbath' and couples evil with destroying life and doing good with saving life the Pharisees have no answer, except to plot against him. Given enough time to form a convoluted explanation they too could exonerate David and at the same time rule murder as God's will for adultery, missing Christ's point that this is putting man's doctrines above God's commandments (taking Mt Sinai as Christ's reference to be God's commandments) and, particularly, missing the point he makes again and again, that he is against evil as not being from God.

Every attempt to harmonise from inside the box of believing Scripture inerrantly God's word, dictated by God to Moses and so on, can only lead to discordant tunes when, as Christ showed, evil is called good and those caught up in this net of contradictions not really understanding their own acts of evil as evil because they're convinced they're acting for the good.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
As JJ said this wandering off into a discussion of inerrancy.

Myrrh you really need to do a course / read a book on Protestant theology because the arguments you use simply don't engage.

A Protestant view of the canon of scripture means that we do not recognise your description of the interaction between the Pharisees and Jesus.

The discussion (from our view) centres around the Talmud (which we do not accept as scripture). Jesus fits into the 1st century context of being another Rabbi giving the 'right' interpretation of the Torah. (Of course, he is different in that he 'teaches with authority'.)

Until you engage with this view you will always be way off the mark.

Is this part of your daily devotions? - "God, I thank you that I am not like the Pharisees!" [Biased]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Trying to change tack. [Roll Eyes]

I read Hebrews 2 this morning and I was struck again by the theme of substitution. What cannot be escaped is that it was (for some reason linked to atonement) essential for Jesus to be fully human.

I'm not claiming Hebrews 2 (especially v 17) to be some kind of knock-down proof text for PSA, just curious as to how others interpret the writers argument?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As JJ said this wandering off into a discussion of inerrancy.

Myrrh you really need to do a course / read a book on Protestant theology because the arguments you use simply don't engage.

A Protestant view of the canon of scripture means that we do not recognise your description of the interaction between the Pharisees and Jesus.

The discussion (from our view) centres around the Talmud (which we do not accept as scripture). Jesus fits into the 1st century context of being another Rabbi giving the 'right' interpretation of the Torah. (Of course, he is different in that he 'teaches with authority'.)

Until you engage with this view you will always be way off the mark.

Is this part of your daily devotions? - "God, I thank you that I am not like the Pharisees!" [Biased]

It really matter not a lot what you call it, as JJ pointed out your arguments are 'as if inerrancy exists', and this is what you have in common with the Pharisees of Christ's day and some more orthodox Jews of today, you both strive to harmonise an evil God into the scheme of things, whether it's believing God ordered the mass murder of every man woman and child of the Canaanites or believing that God requires human sacrifice for your sins to be atoned.

Again you mention Hebrews, again I'll give the same answer as earlier - Hebrews refers to Yom Kippur not Passover, this is a case of some who believed that God required blood sacrifice (the prophets consistently taught that God did not require any sacrifices) taking the event out of context and attributing it another day altogether, the Day of Atonement when blood sacrifices were made. It might well have made the writer feel better, that Christ as final sacrifice was the last, but it's an irrelevant connection, Passover has nothing whatsoever to do with sin atonement nor with sacrifice. The problem here is that in making such a connection the person is in danger of superimposing a different idea of God into Christian teaching, making Him no different from the pagan ideas around at the time of Abraham and Moses and still around two thousand years ago and less, that God requires human sacrifice for atonement, favours, and so on.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Ah, I see Myrrh, your idea of engaging with someone is just to repeat yourself and tell them that they are wrong. [Roll Eyes]

I wonder if you ever make progress with that approach?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
that capital punishment for adultery (to use the John 8 example) is against God's will, whilst the OT scriptures imply that it is God's will. That's pretty close to contradiction, though you might not like the word.

That's a bit of a big jump from John 8. There is no explicit setting aside of capital punishment here. I'm not in favour of capital punishment and would go to the mercy Jesus shows in a passage like this as part of my case, but that is not the same as saying that here Jesus deliberately contradicts capital punishment in all circumstances. Again I think you are reaching here.
Oops, missed this one.

If you read what I wrote, there was no mention of "in all circumstances". Like you, I'm against capital punishment, and, I suspect, for much the same reasons, but the point I was making was narrower. The Law (here, the Torah, not the Talmud) mandated capital punishment in the specific case of adultery. It was the only permitted punishment, not one of a range of options. Now, I suppose it is possible that Jesus here was just making his listeners look foolish, but if we accept that there is more than this going on, then by refusing to apply this teaching to the woman, Jesus was specifically contradicting what was written, not just in the Talmud, but in the Torah. I think this is pretty powerful evidence that Jesus was happy with "creative reinterpretation" of the Torah.

Anyway, I hope that you have a super time on your parish weekend, and that God will richly bless both you and your church.

Do get some sleep, though (where's the "chance would be a fine thing" emoticon when you need it?) [Killing me]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Ah, I see Myrrh, your idea of engaging with someone is just to repeat yourself and tell them that they are wrong. [Roll Eyes]

I wonder if you ever make progress with that approach?

Johnny that's really not fair. We did cover this much earlier in the discussion, and others not just me, but worth repeating the two aspects here since you've brought up Hebrews a couple of times in the last few pages.

As I see it, there's nothing wrong in attributing Christ's death to the idea of final sacrifice as was done in Hebrews since it could in principle be accommodated within 'Passover as freedom from slavery', but it fails as a direct connection to atonement for sin for the people because this day was specifically Yom Kippur, and, taking it further into the concept of 'perfect sacrifice for sin' it falls short in that Christ's battered and bloody body would not be considered an unflawed offering, and there was more than one animal offered, two lambs for a start..

But that said, several prophets also ranted at times that God didn't require sacrifice, Isaiah was particularly harsh about this saying that the stink of it all offended God but also Jeremiah said that the whole sacrificial system was not given at the Exodus.

They're certainly not taking everything written in the Torah as coming from God and Jeremiah particularly goes against "And Moses said, Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the LORD our God." by saying "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you."

These commands of God then are not those about sacrifice and sin atonement but are those given at Mt Sinai, the ones Christ always refers back to as God's commands, the event which is the defining moment for Jews when it's said that all present there at the time heard the commands and it's said by some now that all Jews since were there 'in spirit'.

This is the law of God as Paul refers to it when saying although it was given specifically to the Jews by God in their covenant with Him, it was also in every Gentile intrinsic in his nature.

quote:
Romans 2:13-15 (King James Version)


13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

This is the message that the Jews are supposed to live out as the people chosen by God to do so as a nation, they've fallen short as much as have Christians as a group, it really is that simple.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

Myrrh

You haven't heard a word. If God takes life, it ain't murder. Murder is a human category of behaviour. You simply have to let him do and authorise what he likes. Who are you O man says Paul to call God into question. Job tried it to his embarrassment. You cannot build a biblical concept of God on a human conception of what you want him to be.
We're created in the image and likeness of God, and Christ teaches in Matthew 25 what that means, murder is deliberately killing the image likeness of God. But which God? This is problem Christ answers, he makes a distinction between His Father and the father of lies.


Myrrh [/QB][/QUOTE]


Adam was created in God's likeness.That likeness was marred by the fall. Man is actually a being with a deceitful and desperately selfish heart. Matt 25 has no direct point to make in regard to murder. Did you not realise that the potter can make and mar? He has that right. You as a human can be guilty of murder. When God takes life it isn't murder. That is a human category, a human possibility only. Cain could do it, God cannot. He was tainted as we all are by the 'father of lies.' We have to find another way to categorise God'd taking of life, but the Bible often calls it judgement.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Trying to change tack. [Roll Eyes]

I read Hebrews 2 this morning and I was struck again by the theme of substitution. What cannot be escaped is that it was (for some reason linked to atonement) essential for Jesus to be fully human.

I'm not claiming Hebrews 2 (especially v 17) to be some kind of knock-down proof text for PSA, just curious as to how others interpret the writers argument?

Well it focuses sqauarely on Jesus' identification with mans state and his predicament. In that sense it posits Christ as the final and great intercessor., the one who interposed himself between God and our helpless state. Consequent to his voluntary identification with humanity, he is given, according to the writer, a position of authority (v7) which implies that those identified with him are free from the 'power' of death. (v14)
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

Myrrh

You haven't heard a word. If God takes life, it ain't murder. Murder is a human category of behaviour. You simply have to let him do and authorise what he likes. Who are you O man says Paul to call God into question. Job tried it to his embarrassment. You cannot build a biblical concept of God on a human conception of what you want him to be.
We're created in the image and likeness of God, and Christ teaches in Matthew 25 what that means, murder is deliberately killing the image likeness of God. But which God? This is problem Christ answers, he makes a distinction between His Father and the father of lies.


Myrrh

Adam was created in God's likeness.That likeness was marred by the fall.[/qb][/quote]

There isn't a "fall" in my theology.




quote:
Matt 25 has no direct point to make in regard to murder.
It has a point to make about God being man.


quote:
Did you not realise that the potter can make and mar? He has that right.
Then your "Man is actually a being with a deceitful and desperately selfish heart." can hardly be our fault.


quote:
You as a human can be guilty of murder. When God takes life it isn't murder.
If it's all down to God, as Job so brilliantly got Him to admit, then the murder man commits isn't murder either, it's God taking life.


quote:
That is a human category, a human possibility only. Cain could do it, God cannot. He was tainted as we all are by the 'father of lies.' We have to find another way to categorise God'd taking of life, but the Bible often calls it judgement.
Stinky sort of God though who creates man and then blames him for stuff he has no responsibility for.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Jamat[qb] We're created in the image and likeness of God, and Christ teaches in Matthew 25 what that means, murder is deliberately killing the image likeness of God. But which God? This is problem Christ answers, he makes a distinction between His Father and the father of lies.

[qb]

I'm not sure the point you're making here, Jamat. Satan is not God, no-one is made in his image, and even in the most depraved of individuals, the image of God is never obliterated. No-one is beyond God's redemptive love. Ergo, if we kill, then we kill the image and likeness of God. Are you really suggesting that we have a right to kill someone because we do not recognise God's image in them? Doesn't that rfequire an overly optimistic capacity on our part to discern that image?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Oops, coding [Hot and Hormonal]

Preview post is my friend!
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by Jamat[qb] We're created in the image and likeness of God, and Christ teaches in Matthew 25 what that means, murder is deliberately killing the image likeness of God. But which God? This is problem Christ answers, he makes a distinction between His Father and the father of lies.

[qb]

I'm not sure the point you're making here, Jamat. Satan is not God, no-one is made in his image, and even in the most depraved of individuals, the image of God is never obliterated. No-one is beyond God's redemptive love. Ergo, if we kill, then we kill the image and likeness of God. Are you really suggesting that we have a right to kill someone because we do not recognise God's image in them? Doesn't that rfequire an overly optimistic capacity on our part to discern that image?
Bit confused here, this was my reply to Jamat - are you adding to it?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Sorry, the confusion appears to be down to me.
Try again.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh
quote:

Originally posted by Jamat:

Myrrh You haven't heard a word. If God takes life, it ain't murder. Murder is a human category of behaviour. You simply have to let him do and authorise what he likes. Who are you O man says Paul to call God into question. Job tried it to his embarrassment. You cannot build a biblical concept of God on a human conception of what you want him to be.

We're created in the image and likeness of God, and Christ teaches in Matthew 25 what that means, murder is deliberately killing the image likeness of God. But which God? This is problem Christ answers, he makes a distinction between His Father and the father of lies.
quote:
JamatAdam was created in God's likeness.That likeness was marred by the fall.
There isn't a "fall" in my theology.






quote:
JamatMatt 25 has no direct point to make in regard to murder.
It has a point to make about God being man.


quote:
JamatDid you not realise that the potter can make and mar? He has that right.
Then your: "Man is actually a being with a deceitful and desperately selfish heart." can hardly be our fault.


quote:
JamatYou as a human can be guilty of murder. When God takes life it isn't murder.
If it's all down to God, as Job so brilliantly got Him to admit, then the murder man commits isn't murder either, it's God taking life.


quote:
JamatThat [guilty of murder] is a human category, a human possibility only. Cain could do it, God cannot. He was tainted as we all are by the 'father of lies.' We have to find another way to categorise God'd taking of life, but the Bible often calls it judgement.
Stinky sort of God though who creates man and then blames him for stuff he has no responsibility for.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by Jamat[qb] We're created in the image and likeness of God, and Christ teaches in Matthew 25 what that means, murder is deliberately killing the image likeness of God. But which God? This is problem Christ answers, he makes a distinction between His Father and the father of lies.

[qb]

I'm not sure the point you're making here, Jamat. Satan is not God, no-one is made in his image, and even in the most depraved of individuals, the image of God is never obliterated. No-one is beyond God's redemptive love. Ergo, if we kill, then we kill the image and likeness of God. Are you really suggesting that we have a right to kill someone because we do not recognise God's image in them? Doesn't that rfequire an overly optimistic capacity on our part to discern that image?
I think you have mixed something I wrote with something Myrrh wrote
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Well Myrrh, if you see fit to deny man's fallen nature which is the main reason Jesus had to redeem him, then whatever planet you are on it is neither Christian nor Biblical
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
by refusing to apply this teaching to the woman, Jesus was specifically contradicting what was written, not just in the Talmud, but in the Torah. I think this is pretty powerful evidence that Jesus was happy with "creative reinterpretation" of the Torah.

I thought that was where you were coming from - I guess we disagree on the interpretation though. We both see Jesus encouraging mercy here, but there are many possible contexts for this ... e.g. (just to mention one) maybe Jesus is highlighting the hypocrisy that the man is not dragged before him too.)

As in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus shows us where the Torah points - e.g. 'Do not murder' is a signpost to God's kingdom where there is no hate ... etc. Here, in John 8, 'Do not commit adultery' is a signpost to God's kingdom where we keep our promises. I think there is a case for saying that Jesus 'reinterprets' the Torah, but there is none for him 'contradicting' it.

But I guess we disagree.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Anyway, I hope that you have a super time on your parish weekend, and that God will richly bless both you and your church.

Thanks a lot - we had a great time.

Although being a Baptist the world is my parish ... you are in my parish! [Biased]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
by refusing to apply this teaching to the woman, Jesus was specifically contradicting what was written, not just in the Talmud, but in the Torah. I think this is pretty powerful evidence that Jesus was happy with "creative reinterpretation" of the Torah.

I thought that was where you were coming from - I guess we disagree on the interpretation though. We both see Jesus encouraging mercy here, but there are many possible contexts for this ... e.g. (just to mention one) maybe Jesus is highlighting the hypocrisy that the man is not dragged before him too.)

As in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus shows us where the Torah points - e.g. 'Do not murder' is a signpost to God's kingdom where there is no hate ... etc. Here, in John 8, 'Do not commit adultery' is a signpost to God's kingdom where we keep our promises. I think there is a case for saying that Jesus 'reinterprets' the Torah, but there is none for him 'contradicting' it.


I thought the point was that he did apply it to the woman. The problem was with the witnesses. To apply the torah here required their full participation. Jesus does not abrogate the law, he simply disposes of the witnesses. It is interesting that whn he deals with Sadducees, he quotes only from the pentacheuch, but when with the Pharisees, he uses the prophets and Psalms. The could never catch him out denying the Torah, only their 'oral' law traditions as to its application.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
They're certainly not taking everything written in the Torah as coming from God and Jeremiah particularly goes against "And Moses said, Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the LORD our God." by saying "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you."

[Roll Eyes] Yes Myrrh, we have talked about this before, which is why I can't see why you have brought it up again.

A few chapters later in Jeremiah 17 we have this picture of what God does require:

"People will come from the towns of Judah and the villages around Jerusalem, from the territory of Benjamin and the western foothills, from the hill country and the Negev, bringing burnt offerings and sacrifices, grain offerings, incense and thank offerings to the house of the LORD."

Jeremiah 17: 26

So, two options:

1. Jeremiah was so mentally retarded that he (or the final redactor of the book) could not spot the complete contradiction.

or ...

2. Jeremiah was not contradicting God's commands about sacrifice but critising the Israelite abuse of sacrifice.

You choose. [Disappointed]


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
These commands of God then are not those about sacrifice and sin atonement but are those given at Mt Sinai, the ones Christ always refers back to as God's commands, the event which is the defining moment for Jews when it's said that all present there at the time heard the commands and it's said by some now that all Jews since were there 'in spirit'.

So, oh dear, your entire premise rests on shaky foundations indeed.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I thought the point was that he did apply it to the woman. The problem was with the witnesses. To apply the torah here required their full participation. Jesus does not abrogate the law, he simply disposes of the witnesses.

Yep, could be that too. All I was saying is that Jesus doesn't exapnd on the bigger picture and so we can't be too sure.


quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is interesting that whn he deals with Sadducees, he quotes only from the pentacheuch, but when with the Pharisees, he uses the prophets and Psalms. The could never catch him out denying the Torah, only their 'oral' law traditions as to its application.

Exactly. Thanks Jamat.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Just chipping in after wading through 55 pages of (mostly) very interesting discussion.

First of all, congratulations everyone on keeping such a long, controversial thread going with so little acrimony, and so much mutual engagement. Sadly, though, I think it's a rather fruitless endeavour.

Others have observed at various stages that everyone seems to be speaking past each other, as they read their own preferred model into a given text. This is a common problem in such discussions, but I think this thread has particularly suffered, because the standard Biblical proof-texts tend to be a little poetic and abstract, using language which is far from specific but which everyone thinks they understand, and most importantly, those debating the point on this thread tend to be separated by only the tiniest of margins in practical terms, so the same text can often be reasonably used to support more than one understanding. At least, that's how it appears to this non-aligned "SA" observer with an interest in learning more about CV, who read The Cross of Christ with approval (albeit quite a few years ago!) Certainly, Numpty's suggested model way back, although a slightly stripped-down one IIRC, didn't seem to provoke much disagreement from anyone on either side.

And that's where the other problem arises - identity. This has already come up as a potential barrier in discussions about the Orthodox understanding, but it might be even more of an issue within the Evangelical fold, where there are ongoing squabbles between the "Open" and "Conservative" wings. If you asked a selection of moderate Evos whether they agreed with a list of statements about the cross and atonement, I suspect they'd nearly always agree/disagree with the same ones, but if you asked them to name their preferred model, it would almost certainly tell you whether they considered themselves Conservative or Open.

That's just my suspicion, and I may be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if PSA was widely supported by Opens, or if anything else had much currency among Conservatives. Obviously, there are real differences at the extremes, but I've seen very little of that here, just a slight difference in emphasis and identity, so part of me wonders "Is it worth arguing about?" (And why did I bother reading the whole thread?) [Roll Eyes]

I think it is worth debating, but I also think Tom Wright's sentiment (quoted by Barnabas waaaaay back) is an excellent one, and worth bearing in mind: "Jesus... didn't give them a theory, he gave them a meal."

Anyway, just my thoughts, possibly way off-beam, but there they are. Carry on!

Well you deserve a bottle of wine for reading the whole freaking thing!
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well Myrrh, if you see fit to deny man's fallen nature which is the main reason Jesus had to redeem him, then whatever planet you are on it is neither Christian nor Biblical

Jamat we don't have your Augustine base of a fall through Original Sin which claims that man is born damned to estrangement from God because of it. Since we don't have this we can hardly have your idea that this is the main reason for Christ do be or have done anything in reference to it.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well Myrrh, if you see fit to deny man's fallen nature which is the main reason Jesus had to redeem him, then whatever planet you are on it is neither Christian nor Biblical

Jamat we don't have your Augustine base of a fall through Original Sin which claims that man is born damned to estrangement from God because of it. Since we don't have this we can hardly have your idea that this is the main reason for Christ do be or have done anything in reference to it.

Myrrh

You don't need salvation then cos you are not a sinner; lucky you.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well Myrrh, if you see fit to deny man's fallen nature which is the main reason Jesus had to redeem him, then whatever planet you are on it is neither Christian nor Biblical

Jamat we don't have your Augustine base of a fall through Original Sin which claims that man is born damned to estrangement from God because of it. Since we don't have this we can hardly have your idea that this is the main reason for Christ do be or have done anything in reference to it.

Myrrh

You don't need salvation then cos you are not a sinner; lucky you.
I certainly don't need salvation from Original Sin and I would reject any offer of it being achieved by the sacrifice of another, so yes, lucky me I don't have such a God who first of all condemned me to damned estrangement for something Adam and Eve are accused of and then required I accept a bloody sacrifice to atone for something I didn't do...

Myrrh
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I wish somebody would close this thread. There surely cannot be anythıng new to say after 56 pages. İn any case., much of it is not about the classical doctrine of the atonement but about defendıng the relatively modern and abhorrent notion of penal substitution.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I wish somebody would close this thread. There surely cannot be anythıng new to say after 56 pages. İn any case., much of it is not about the classical doctrine of the atonement but about defendıng the relatively modern and abhorrent notion of penal substitution.

I like this thread, and appreciate it remaining open. It has seemed to me to demonstrate that there is really no substantial difference between the classical doctrine of the atonement and what you are calling the "abhorrent notion" of penal substitution.

Also, my friends don't even believe that Christians today still hold these views, as opposed to the Christus Victor type of view. Referring them to this thread enables them to see how wrong they have been.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I wish somebody would close this thread. There surely cannot be anythıng new to say after 56 pages. İn any case., much of it is not about the classical doctrine of the atonement but about defendıng the relatively modern and abhorrent notion of penal substitution.

[Confused] There's nothing new to say, but you just couldn't help saying something! [Roll Eyes]

Do you really think that the way to close down a thread is by making a comment that will (inevitably) provoke further discussion? [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Do you really think that the way to close down a thread is by making a comment that will (inevitably) provoke further discussion? [Paranoid]

The way to close down a thread is to say something so blandly innocuous and uninteresting that no one would even consider responding. [Snore] [Snore] [Snore]

The thread then drifts peacefully to the bottom of the pile. [Angel] [Snore] [Angel]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I wish somebody would close this thread. There surely cannot be anythıng new to say after 56 pages. İn any case., much of it is not about the classical doctrine of the atonement but about defendıng the relatively modern and abhorrent notion of penal substitution.

Something new? A quote from John Wesley's 'Doctrine of Original Sin' P211

"The Lord's laying on Christ the iniquity of us all" was eminently typified by the High Priest putting all the iniquities of Israel on the scape goat who then carried them away. 'But the goat ,' says Dr Taylor, was to suffer nothing.' This is a gross mistake. It was a sin offering,and as such was to bear upon him all the iniquities of the people into the wilderness; and there (as Jewish doctors unanimously hold) to suffer a violent death, by way of punishment, instead of the people, for their sins 'put upon him'....This is just a piece with, 'A sin offering..'

he continues
"To conclude, we must allow the imputation of Adam's sin, whatever difficulties attend it, or renounce justification by Christ, and salvation through the merit of his blood.?

T
Dr Taylor, Wesley's opponent, says Wesley,
"ascribes to Christ a singular worthiness; but it is nothing more than a superior degree of the same worthiness that belongs to every virtuous man. He talks of Christs consummate virtue, or his obedience to God and goodwill to man. And to this virtue of his as imitated by us, he would teach us to ascribe our acceptance by God; which is indeed to ascribe it to ourselves, or to our own virtue to works of righteousness done by us in opposition to the whole tenor of the Gospel."

Writes well don't he?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
much of it is not about the classical doctrine of the atonement but about defendıng the relatively modern and abhorrent notion of penal substitution.

Something new? A quote from John Wesley's 'Doctrine of Original Sin' P211

"The Lord's laying on Christ the iniquity of us all" was eminently typified by the High Priest putting all the iniquities of Israel on the scape goat who then carried them away. 'But the goat ,' says Dr Taylor, was to suffer nothing.' This is a gross mistake. It was a sin offering,and as such was to bear upon him all the iniquities of the people into the wilderness; and there (as Jewish doctors unanimously hold) to suffer a violent death, by way of punishment, instead of the people, for their sins 'put upon him'....This is just a piece with, 'A sin offering..'

Leo, is Wesley's version "the classical doctrine of the atonement" or "the relatively modern and abhorrent notion of penal substitution"?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
much of it is not about the classical doctrine of the atonement but about defendıng the relatively modern and abhorrent notion of penal substitution.

Something new? A quote from John Wesley's 'Doctrine of Original Sin' P211

"The Lord's laying on Christ the iniquity of us all" was eminently typified by the High Priest putting all the iniquities of Israel on the scape goat who then carried them away. 'But the goat ,' says Dr Taylor, was to suffer nothing.' This is a gross mistake. It was a sin offering,and as such was to bear upon him all the iniquities of the people into the wilderness; and there (as Jewish doctors unanimously hold) to suffer a violent death, by way of punishment, instead of the people, for their sins 'put upon him'....This is just a piece with, 'A sin offering..'

Leo, is Wesley's version "the classical doctrine of the atonement" or "the relatively modern and abhorrent notion of penal substitution"?
Freddy I'm not Leo but could I guess..the latter?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Wesley was part of the evangelical revival - it was that revival that created the notion of PSA and John believed and preached it (unlike his brother Charles who seems to have preferred the exemplary metaphor (Love so amazing...demands'.

The 'classical view' is Christus Victor - see Gustav Aulen.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Nonsense. All three of those views (and a few others probably) go back to the earliest church and to Scripture. And they aren't fundamentally opposed to each other.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Nonsense. All three of those views (and a few others probably) go back to the earliest church and to Scripture. And they aren't fundamentally opposed to each other.

LOL. I missed that writing style. He he.

Actually, no, all three are relatively new concepts, and have little to do with the gospel of Christ.

An exemplary model leaves me a human, because by example I cannot become deified, in parallel with Christ being incarnate. He became man so that I become God, not so that I become a good boy.

A penal substitutionary atonement theory is based upon all sorts of presuppositions. In the end of the day, like all other theories, it does not save... We remain what we are, so thanks, but I will pass.

Christus Victor model doesn't do better either. He descended to Hell and overcame death by his Power? What kind of Victory was it? And how does this change me?

Now that I think about it, it's interesting that once the changing me part is left out of the equation, once one accepts forensic or not for me or not possible approaches, then all these models start to make sense and a debate is possible about which one of them is true(er). Personally, I reject all of them.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Nonsense. All three of those views (and a few others probably) go back to the earliest church and to Scripture. And they aren't fundamentally opposed to each other.

Yes, that is partially true but we tend to read scripture with the lens of Luther, Calvin, Anselm or whoever and find ideas that are not really there or are certainly not developed.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Nonsense. All three of those views (and a few others probably) go back to the earliest church and to Scripture. And they aren't fundamentally opposed to each other.

LOL. I missed that writing style. He he.

Actually, no, all three are relatively new concepts, and have little to do with the gospel of Christ.

An exemplary model leaves me a human, because by example I cannot become deified, in parallel with Christ being incarnate. He became man so that I become God, not so that I become a good boy.

A penal substitutionary atonement theory is based upon all sorts of presuppositions. In the end of the day, like all other theories, it does not save... We remain what we are, so thanks, but I will pass.

Christus Victor model doesn't do better either. He descended to Hell and overcame death by his Power? What kind of Victory was it? And how does this change me?

Now that I think about it, it's interesting that once the changing me part is left out of the equation, once one accepts forensic or not for me or not possible approaches, then all these models start to make sense and a debate is possible about which one of them is true(er). Personally, I reject all of them.

CV has immense power to change lives but short of giving an self-indulgent personal testimony I feel unwilling to spell out the detail.
 
Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :
 
So, to sum up then, what is it that the Orthodox (and others) understand by Christus Victor? Where do get this theology from? And where do other explanations of Christ's death and resurrection (eg PSA) stand in relation to this? Hmm, a quick reply should put an end to this discussion! [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:

Actually, no, all three are relatively new concepts, and have little to do with the gospel of Christ.

We've been here before Andreas. [Roll Eyes] Read back through all the pages (as a form of penance). You'll soon discover that no one who has read any Church History believes that all three are new concepts. Over the last century or so they have become 'political', but the ideas date way back to the Fathers.


quote:
Originally posted Leo:
The 'classical view' is Christus Victor - see Gustav Aulen.

Funny that to evidence CV as 'classical' you need to quote a 20th century author. [Biased]

[ 09. May 2008, 23:30: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Nonsense. All three of those views (and a few others probably) go back to the earliest church and to Scripture. And they aren't fundamentally opposed to each other.

LOL. I missed that writing style. He he.

Actually, no, all three are relatively new concepts, and have little to do with the gospel of Christ.

An exemplary model leaves me a human, because by example I cannot become deified, in parallel with Christ being incarnate. He became man so that I become God, not so that I become a good boy.

A penal substitutionary atonement theory is based upon all sorts of presuppositions. In the end of the day, like all other theories, it does not save... We remain what we are, so thanks, but I will pass.

Christus Victor model doesn't do better either. He descended to Hell and overcame death by his Power? What kind of Victory was it? And how does this change me?

Now that I think about it, it's interesting that once the changing me part is left out of the equation, once one accepts forensic or not for me or not possible approaches, then all these models start to make sense and a debate is possible about which one of them is true(er). Personally, I reject all of them.

CV has immense power to change lives but short of giving an self-indulgent personal testimony I feel unwilling to spell out the detail.
Perhaps ,Leo, a better statement would be, 'Christ, has immense power to change lives'.

I too testify to that and maybe it is something we all agree on.

The thing I think Penal substitution expaliins and others don't is HOW he does it. I think Wesley actually knew how. He was the victor because he was the penal substitute n'est-ce pas?
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
]We've been here before Andreas. [Roll Eyes] Read back through all the pages (as a form of penance). You'll soon discover that no one who has read any Church History believes that all three are new concepts. Over the last century or so they have become 'political', but the ideas date way back to the Fathers.

So, not only I don't read the Scriptures, but also I don't read church history. This is getting us nowhere. Deconstruct what you are writing, for pete's shake!

Taking phrases or small paragraphs from what a father wrote, isolated from the entire life and work of that father, and reading into them Protestant ideas is what Protestants have been doing ever since the Reformation started. The dialog between the early Reformers and the then Patriarch of Constantinople is revealing.

The problem is that this way of speaking about church history is not true to church history, it merely tries to perpetuate modern ideas. Now that I think about it, taking a phrase or two and saying "here that's N. expressing the view we express" seems like what you guys do with the Scriptures, Paul especially.

Things don't work that way though.

There are two ways. You can search for phrases, verses, and small paragraphs. Or you could try to approach the fathers in their wholeness. But rarely anyone is interested in what these people really confessed, since our faiths are seen as self-evident.

And what's that with penance?

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
CV has immense power to change lives

But we are not talking about any change here... Convictions have the power to change lives. From communism to capitalism, from militant Islam to Orthodox Judaism, people form their lives based on convictions, or ideas, or beliefs, or faith.

Despite the change though, we remain humans. And the point is to have our humanity transformed, like Mary did, and become deified. That's the whole point. It's that potential that's absent from heresy.

If Jesus Christ, for example, is no Godman, I cannot become manGod. If the Holy Spirit is not God, then I cannot become deified when the Holy Spirit comes and sanctifies me. If Jesus Christ is of one divine nature, then my humanity remains unreceived by the Godhead. If Jesus Christ has one will alone, then my will remains untouched and untransformed. If Jesus Christ cannot be depicted in icons, then I cannot become uncreated, eternal, infinite.

That's the problem with things like PSA and CV and examples. Example cannot give me Godhead, it cannot make me what I am not. CV, unless taken metaphorically, isn't enough either. PSA is about a madGod, a God I do not recognize in the Christian faith, and about a man that remains wretched, even after Christ.

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
So, to sum up then, what is it that the Orthodox (and others) understand by Christus Victor?

As an Orthodox, if asked how Jesus Christ saves, I would reply "by ontology". Not by CV, neither by example, nor by PSA.

Jesus Christ saves, because God takes up humanity, receives it, and imparts to it Himself. Creation is manifested to be opened up to God in a very literal way, and we can finally find transformation, we can become, by the Grace of God, what Jesus Christ is.

So, that's why the Incarnation is of such great importance. In it we realize the entering of God into creation, the receiving of creation into God. In Jesus Christ's life we see that opening up, that receiving, clearly. In Jesus Christ's death, the most important enemy of mankind, death, is transformed, and it stops being the annihilator of creation, the destroyer of our potential, the enemy that cannot be overcome. In Jesus Christ's Resurrection, we see the true Life, God transforms our humanity beyond imagination, and we get a new potential, which starts to get realized in Pentecost.

Where does CV fit in all this? Personally, I wouldn't have even heard about it were it not for the internet and the Protestants who speak about it. In reflection, I accept the imagery, but not the literal understanding. I accept it as a metaphor, of Life being manifested to be immensely more powerful than death, but I do not accept it as life and death literally fighting with each other. For me there was no such possibility. It's my eyes that get opened, not that light starts to lit.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
§Andrew

I recall you asking me to listen to a series of addresses on the Cross by Kallistos Ware and we had a discussion on those addresses on this thread. Metropolitan Kallistos was quite clear that substitution, example and Christus Victor were concepts which could be found in scripture and Tradition and he was also clear that none of them on their own provided an adequate meaning of the Cross.

The concepts are not modern inventions, though they have indeed been filled (to overflowing) with contextual speculation as to their full meaning. I think it is this "filled to overflowing" to which you object, rather than the undeniable presence of the concepts in scripture and Tradition. If I'm right on this, then I agree that this "filled to overflowing" process has not been very helpful.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Despite the change though, we remain humans. And the point is to have our humanity transformed, like Mary did, and become deified. That's the whole point. It's that potential that's absent from heresy.

If Jesus Christ, for example, is no Godman, I cannot become manGod. If the Holy Spirit is not God, then I cannot become deified when the Holy Spirit comes and sanctifies me. If Jesus Christ is of one divine nature, then my humanity remains unreceived by the Godhead. If Jesus Christ has one will alone, then my will remains untouched and untransformed. If Jesus Christ cannot be depicted in icons, then I cannot become uncreated, eternal, infinite.

That's the problem with things like PSA and CV and examples. Example cannot give me Godhead, it cannot make me what I am not. CV, unless taken metaphorically, isn't enough either. PSA is about a madGod, a God I do not recognize in the Christian faith, and about a man that remains wretched, even after Christ.

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
So, to sum up then, what is it that the Orthodox (and others) understand by Christus Victor?

As an Orthodox, if asked how Jesus Christ saves, I would reply "by ontology". Not by CV, neither by example, nor by PSA.

Jesus Christ saves, because God takes up humanity, receives it, and imparts to it Himself. Creation is manifested to be opened up to God in a very literal way, and we can finally find transformation, we can become, by the Grace of God, what Jesus Christ is.

So, that's why the Incarnation is of such great importance. In it we realize the entering of God into creation, the receiving of creation into God. In Jesus Christ's life we see that opening up, that receiving, clearly. In Jesus Christ's death, the most important enemy of mankind, death, is transformed, and it stops being the annihilator of creation, the destroyer of our potential, the enemy that cannot be overcome. In Jesus Christ's Resurrection, we see the true Life, God transforms our humanity beyond imagination, and we get a new potential, which starts to get realized in Pentecost.

Where does CV fit in all this? Personally, I wouldn't have even heard about it were it not for the internet and the Protestants who speak about it. In reflection, I accept the imagery, but not the literal understanding. I accept it as a metaphor, of Life being manifested to be immensely more powerful than death, but I do not accept it as life and death literally fighting with each other. For me there was no such possibility. It's my eyes that get opened, not that light starts to lit.

I realise that because I don't share your tradition, that I can't understand all that.

However..

If you are deified wouldn't that make you perfect? What happened to "Now we see through a glass darkly, but then we will see face to face". A teaching of Paul that suggests we have an element, an 'earnest' a down payment in this life, on the glory that is our true inheritance.

Depicting Christ in icons an essential of some kind? Please clarify.

Regarding the fathers. They too were men who had the same scriptures we do. In what sense does that give them equal weight with scripture? From wher I am the Orthodox position is very analogous to the Pharisee's reverence for their oral traditions and this is primarily what Jesus resisted about them.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Jamat

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you are deified wouldn't that make you perfect?

No! And that's the whole point. Creation is imperfect. Only God is perfect. When we get deified, we don't stop being creatures. The struggle is not about stopping being creatures, but about transformation. Not about destruction, but about potential.

So, we do not stop being human when we get deified, just like Jesus Christ did not stop being God when he became incarnate.

Now, that was a quick reply, to what I think you were asking. If I were to give a fuller reply, I would say that there are two meanings in the term "perfect". One is the everyday use of the word, which I think you meant also, and to which I gave a reply. There is also another meaning for the word, and in that meaning the Scriptures command us to "be perfect as your father is perfect". I guess you don't have a problem with that, so I just replied to what I thought you objected.

quote:
What happened to "Now we see through a glass darkly, but then we will see face to face". A teaching of Paul that suggests we have an element, an 'earnest' a down payment in this life, on the glory that is our true inheritance.
At the same time Paul was grabbed into the heavens and saw and heard things that cannot be spoken. Unspoken Verbs. And we read the term "glory" (and it's variants) all over the Scriptures. People have been glorified throughout the centuries, and that is the faith, and the distinguishing mark, of Orthodoxy. That potential for glorification while in this life is not lost, and we are to struggle for it.

quote:
Depicting Christ in icons an essential of some kind? Please clarify.
Well, the argument of those who rejected the icons was that Jesus Christ is God, so we cannot depict him in icons. The faith of the iconophiles though was that Jesus Christ's humanity was just like ours, it was tangible and depictable, and that our faith in his two nature allows us to depict him, just like those around him saw him.

The Orthodox faith was that it's the union of divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ that saves us, because it gives us the potential of union with God, and because this is our salvation, it's imperative that we are allowed to depict Jesus Christ. So, it was a matter of life and death, which is why they suffered great persecutions and death, and why ecumenical councils were convened. That's why people got so involved. It was not a minor issue, but it touched the crux of Christianity, salvation itself.

quote:
Regarding the fathers. They too were men who had the same scriptures we do. In what sense does that give them equal weight with scripture? [/QB]
Well, the Just men of the Old and the Holy men of the New Testament were not supermen either. They too were men. The Scriptures they wrote, they wrote out of their personal encounter with the Living God. For the Orthodox it's that experience that makes them authoritative. And that experience did not end with Revelation's final Amen.

The Holy Spirit has been coming to many people throughout the ages, and He has been revealing all Truth. The Holy Spirit is not given in measure, but in His wholeness. So, when one has an authentic relationship with God, one can speak with authority based on his experience. There is one church of the Old Testament, the New Testament and the post-Revelation to John times.

quote:
From wher I am the Orthodox position is very analogous to the Pharisee's reverence for their oral traditions and this is primarily what Jesus resisted about them.
LOL. I'm not a Protestant, and therefore, I either haven't read the Scriptures (JonnyS) or I'[m a Pharisee Jamat). Personally, I am thankful I disagree with both conservative and liberal Western Christianity... because Orthodoxy is very different than conservatism and liberalism.

From where I am, the Orthodox position is identical to Jesus Christ's oral Tradition, and this is primarily why Jesus came. Change, Become Saints, Receive the Holy Spirit. That's what Orthodoxy is all about.

Dear Barnabas. We have had that discussion. If we couldn't resolve it then, what makes you think we can resolve that issue now? You think the metropolitan said that these theories as they are expressed now existed in church history, I think he said part of the imagery existed and that we can find truth is some of the metaphor. Two different things.

[ 10. May 2008, 10:34: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:

Actually, no, all three are relatively new concepts, and have little to do with the gospel of Christ.

We've been here before Andreas. [Roll Eyes] Read back through all the pages (as a form of penance). You'll soon discover that no one who has read any Church History believes that all three are new concepts. Over the last century or so they have become 'political', but the ideas date way back to the Fathers.


quote:
Originally posted Leo:
The 'classical view' is Christus Victor - see Gustav Aulen.

Funny that to evidence CV as 'classical' you need to quote a 20th century author. [Biased]

A 20th Century author whose entire book quotes the Fathers and Luther.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
From where I am, the orthodox position is identical to Jesus Christ's oral Tradition, and this is primarily why Jesus came. Change, Become Saints, Receive the Holy Spirit. That's what orthodoxy is all about.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A 20th Century author whose entire book quotes the Fathers and Luther.

[Roll Eyes] I know that Leo - the whole point is that everybody is claiming that their view is faithful to the Fathers and to the scriptures.

My point was that it was ironic that you instinctively quoted Aulen (i.e. 20th century) when some try to make out that PSA was an invention of the Reformers.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:


Dear Barnabas. We have had that discussion. If we couldn't resolve it then, what makes you think we can resolve that issue now? You think the metropolitan said that these theories as they are expressed now existed in church history, I think he said part of the imagery existed and that we can find truth is some of the metaphor. Two different things.

What is left to resolve? I didn't use the word "theory", I used the word "concept". I'm quite happy with the word "image" or "picture" rather than "concept". In normal parlance, a concept is just a unit of thought, not a developed position. Such units of thoughts can be equally well expressed in images or pictures to try to get the thought across.

You will note that I said earlier that I'm quite happy to agree that folks have done too much theorising around such concepts or pictures. That is precisely what I am trying to say.

andreas, you are a good fellow. I do get sad sometimes that you cannot see close agreement even when it is staring you in the face. At times, your thirst for precision seems to me to prevent you from spotting the genuine harmony which is there. And that is a pity.

Anyway, I'm off now and will be back in three weeks. God bless you, my friend; this place would be a lot less interesting without your provocation and precision.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Dear Jamat

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you are deified wouldn't that make you perfect?

No! And that's the whole point. Creation is imperfect. Only God is perfect. When we get deified, we don't stop being creatures. The struggle is not about stopping being creatures, but about transformation. Not about destruction, but about potential.



The Orthodox faith was that it's the union of divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ that saves us, because it gives us the potential of union with God, and because this is our salvation, it's imperative that we are allowed to depict Jesus Christ. So, it was a matter of life and death, which is why they suffered great persecutions and death, and why ecumenical councils were convened. That's why people got so involved. It was not a minor issue, but it touched the crux of Christianity, salvation itself.

quote:
Regarding the fathers. They too were men. The Scriptures they wrote, they wrote out of their personal encounter with the Living God. For the Orthodox it's that experience that makes them authoritative. And that experience did not end with Revelation's final Amen.

The Holy Spirit has been coming to many people throughout the ages, and He has been revealing all Truth. The Holy Spirit is not given in measure, but in His wholeness. So, when one has an authentic relationship with God, one can speak with authority based on his experience. There is one church of the Old Testament, the New Testament and the post-Revelation to John times.

[QUOTE]From wher I am the Orthodox position is very analogous to the Pharisee's reverence for their oral traditions and this is primarily what Jesus resisted about them.

LOL. I'm not a Protestant, and therefore, I either haven't read the Scriptures (JonnyS) or I'[m a Pharisee Jamat). Personally, I am thankful I disagree with both conservative and liberal Western Christianity... because Orthodoxy is very different than conservatism and liberalism.

From where I am, the Orthodox position is identical to Jesus Christ's oral Tradition, and this is primarily why Jesus came. Change, Become Saints, Receive the Holy Spirit. That's what Orthodoxy is all about.

Dear Barnabas. We have had that discussion. If we couldn't resolve it then, what makes you think we can resolve that issue now? You think the metropolitan said that these theories as they are expressed now existed in church history, I think he said part of the imagery existed and that we can find truth is some of the metaphor. Two different things.

Well, again, I think your terminolgy is confusing. Why use the term deify' when all you mean is what any protestant would mean viz: the potential for human redemption in union with Christ?

Regarding the fathers though, they were indeed great..made great by the same Holy spirit's light on the same scriptures that we also possess. They were not Gods thopugh, just vessels of clay like thou and me and I'm certainn they would have confessed it.. Why then put them on a soapbox as if their light in their age has also to be our light in our age.

It seems to me that we too have the Holy Spirit (paraphrase of Paul1 Cor 7:40)
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, again, I think your terminolgy is confusing. Why use the term deify' when all you mean is what any protestant would mean viz: the potential for human redemption in union with Christ?

What do you mean by human redemption in union with Christ? Do you mean sharing in God's begininglessness, in God's endlessness, in God's infinity? Sharing in God's sustaining of the Universe? Sharing in God's perfect love?

Because that's what deify means. To share, to participate, to operate the way God does.

quote:
Regarding the fathers though, they were indeed great..made great by the same Holy spirit's light on the same scriptures that we also possess.
I don't understand the scriptures bit. What has the great high priest of Jerusalem, that ancient Melchisedek, to do with the Scriptures? Or Noah? Or Enoch?

Anyway.

They were made perfect by the Holy Spirit... This is very true. But what the Holy Spirit makes available to them, He also makes available to me and you. Yet we are not them. The Holy Spirit is not enough. If God was enough, then we would end up with a capricious God who saves whom he wants arbitrarily and condemns whom he wants, again arbitrarily. That's a monster, not God.

Humanity matters, what we do and what we will and what we choose matters, and God expects us to be free agents and partners of Him, not mere subjects to a great Despot!
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, again, I think your terminolgy is confusing. Why use the term deify' when all you mean is what any protestant would mean viz: the potential for human redemption in union with Christ?

What do you mean by human redemption in union with Christ? Do you mean sharing in God's begininglessness, in God's endlessness, in God's infinity? Sharing in God's sustaining of the Universe? Sharing in God's perfect love?

Because that's what deify means. To share, to participate, to operate the way God does.

I definitely agree that we share in God's perfect love. Salvation involved being drawn into the relationships of love that exist between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We become as loved as much as the Son is by the Father; as we receive God's love, we grow in love for God and so on.

But I'm honestly not sure what the other things you say mean. What does it mean for us as creatures to share in God's beginninglessness and his infinity? How and in what sense can we share in his sustaining of the universe?
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Depicting Christ in icons an essential of some kind? Please clarify.

There is another thing about icons. Unless we begin to see the immaterial through the material, we cannot be saved. The entire Universe is an icon, Christ is an icon, man is an icon, everything is iconic in nature. And when we reject the icons, it's not really the icons we reject. That's the tip of the iceberg, that's the final straw. To reject the icons, we have already rejected the world and God, we have already become blind to how things are, we have lost our salvation.

That's why the iconoclasts were anathematized, that was the danger and that's why all those holy men and women shed their blood during the iconoclastic controversies in the Byzantine Empire.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Depicting Christ in icons an essential of some kind? Please clarify.

There is another thing about icons. Unless we begin to see the immaterial through the material, we cannot be saved. The entire Universe is an icon, Christ is an icon, man is an icon, everything is iconic in nature. And when we reject the icons, it's not really the icons we reject. That's the tip of the iceberg, that's the final straw. To reject the icons, we have already rejected the world and God, we have already become blind to how things are, we have lost our salvation.

That's why the iconoclasts were anathematized, that was the danger and that's why all those holy men and women shed their blood during the iconoclastic controversies in the Byzantine Empire.

Fascinating though it is, the concept seems to me more platonic than anything else. However, it is clearly very important to you thank you for sharing it.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, again, I think your terminolgy is confusing. Why use the term deify' when all you mean is what any protestant would mean viz: the potential for human redemption in union with Christ?

What do you mean by human redemption in union with Christ? Do you mean sharing in God's begininglessness, in God's endlessness, in God's infinity? Sharing in God's sustaining of the Universe? Sharing in God's perfect love?


All of the above I think. I actually don't think that the description of aspiration is any different to what your average evangelical would subscribe to though he wouldn't use your terminology
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Fascinating though it is, the concept seems to me more platonic than anything else.

First of all, don't be so dismissive of Plato, because he was the greatest philosopher of the ancient world, at least, at the shores of Mediterranean.

And don't forget that saying, by Numenius, about Plato: What is Plato but Moses in the Athenian tongue?

Which brings me to Moses. In Genesis, we read that man was created in the image of God. In the New Testament we see clearly what that image of God means. Paul explains to us that Jesus Christ is the icon of God (Col. 1.15, 2 Cor. 4.4). Paul has more to say on icons, because he speaks about men reflecting in an iconic manner God, and women being the iconic reflection of men (1 Cor. 11.7)

So, it's much more than platonic. It's at the core of Christianity. And the first Christians knew that. Of course, it might seem strange, if those few verses were the only thing we had available, to say that it's at the center of things. But centuries of Christian life showed that the entire cosmos is iconic in nature, the visible part being an icon for the invisible, and vice versa, through which, man can grow spiritually towards God.

Anyway, yeah, like you said, the seventh ecumenical council is important to me and to my religion. People died and got tortured for centuries, and the true faith was proclaimed at an ecumenical council, so yeah, it matters.

quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
But I'm honestly not sure what the other things you say mean. What does it mean for us as creatures to share in God's beginninglessness and his infinity? How and in what sense can we share in his sustaining of the universe?

What does it mean for Him that is without beginning to begin to exist? For Him that is transcendent, to occupy space? For Him that is eternal, to die? The Incarnation is a Great Mystery, and our deification is also a mystery. It can be experienced, but I doubt human words can explain the hows. Just like Apostle Paul says, man can experience words that cannot be spoken.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Sorry to double post.

Barnabas*, I was listening to an interview, with an Orthodox who came to Christianity from Judaism, and he touched upon the issue of Christ dying for us rather than dying instead of us... and I think it's relevant. Hey, since I bugged you with all those mp3 files earlier, I thought, what hurt can one more be?

Here is the audio file.

Enjoy!

*and anyone else that is interested!
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I went to a lecture by Derek Tidball (former Prinicpal of London School of Theology) recently giving his take on the Atonement debate in the UK.

He outlined four positions in the debate:


1. PSA is the only model.
2. There are lots of models but PSA is the dominant one.
3. There are lots of models.
4. There are lots of models but PSA isn't one of them.


Through questions after the lecture he conceded that, in practice, the middle positions tend to collpase outwards - i.e. option 2 becomes 1, and option 3 becomes 4.

That (ISTM) sums up the impasse we have reached. I'd be happy with option 3, but I find that others who say that really mean that there are some models they want to drop.

I suppose a lot of this is also dependent upon whether one thinks biblical models should be compatible or not.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
What do you mean by compatible? That they're equally valid?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What do you mean by compatible? That they're equally valid?

That they do not contradict each other.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
But they do contradict each other, because each belief relates to a particular concept of God. My point in the discussion here is that each can be equally valid because the event is Passover, an all encompassing event of freedom from slavery, but that doesn't make each a true concept of God.

So for example, someone who comes to Christianity from a practice of human sacrifice can validly believe that Christ is the final such and be freed from the slavery of his mind to such a concept, which in Judaism's history began with Abraham and which can be seen as a process of God changing a peoples' concept of God, but he has to move on to come to know the God who so saved him.

The same in later centuries from Abraham, the Israelites considered themselves different to those around them because of the different relationship they had, i.e. having a different God, because their God found child sacrifices abhorrent.

The message of the prophets in moments of insight and relating history was that God didn't require any sacrifice, neither human nor animal; Isaiah says that animal sacrifice is as if a human one and Jeremiah says that God didn't give the system of sacrifice to the people at the time of Moses, from whom particularly the Jews count themselves a particular nation. This then is something they had acquired from ideas around them and it could be read that Christ's final act in the Temple was to clear it of this since He both instituted a bloodless remembrance of sacrifice among his followers, which didn't relate to sin at all and, as Orthodox teach, followed on from St John the Forerunner (the Baptist), who did away with sacrifice for sins by requiring only repentance, contrition and change of mind, to set people free, again as the earlier prophets taught.

So I can see each as valid in their relationship to Christ as did the writer of Hebrews who referred it back to his own tradition in the freedom Christ gave him. That it doesn't actually fit in with the requirements of sacrifice for sin at the time in his own tradition didn't make it less valid for him in seeing Christ as this anyway.

The problem with this only arises when such a reason is imposed as dogma, something that has to be believed by all Christians, because then those who don't see Christ as teaching such a God and certainly those nations in the world who never had such a concept of God, will object, or even worse, find themselves required to believe this is a true concept of God as Christ taught.

Myrrh

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I went to a lecture by Derek Tidball (former Prinicpal of London School of Theology) recently giving his take on the Atonement debate in the UK.

He outlined four positions in the debate:


1. PSA is the only model.
2. There are lots of models but PSA is the dominant one.
3. There are lots of models.
4. There are lots of models but PSA isn't one of them.


Through questions after the lecture he conceded that, in practice, the middle positions tend to collpase outwards - i.e. option 2 becomes 1, and option 3 becomes 4.

That (ISTM) sums up the impasse we have reached. I'd be happy with option 3, but I find that others who say that really mean that there are some models they want to drop.

I suppose a lot of this is also dependent upon whether one thinks biblical models should be compatible or not.

If you are happy with 3, which collapses into 4 then the leopard has changed its spots. has it?

Perhaps you could elaborate on whether the learned Tidball committed himself and why.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
But they do contradict each other, because each belief relates to a particular concept of God. My point in the discussion here is that each can be equally valid because the event is Passover, an all encompassing event of freedom from slavery, but that doesn't make each a true concept of God...

The problem with this only arises when such a reason is imposed as dogma, something that has to be believed by all Christians, because then those who don't see Christ as teaching such a God and certainly those nations in the world who never had such a concept of God, will object, or even worse, find themselves required to believe this is a true concept of God as Christ taught.

[Confused] But isn't that exactly what you are doing? You are rejecting one model as not what Christ taught ... therefore imposing your dogma on others?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you are happy with 3, which collapses into 4 then the leopard has changed its spots. has it?

Perhaps you could elaborate on whether the learned Tidball committed himself and why.

No, I'd be happy with 3 only if it did not collapse into 4. (In fact, I'd also be happy with 2, depending on how you defined 'dominant'! [Biased] By saying "I'd be happy with" I was trying to be conciliatory [Cool] )

DT said he was round about 2. He compared the different models to a symphony throughout scripture. PSA is a melody that is distinctly present.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[Confused] But isn't that exactly what you are doing? You are rejecting one model as not what Christ taught ... therefore imposing your dogma on others?

Saying how I see it is not imposing my dogma on anyone...

You're asking 'how to make the contradictions go away', I'm saying one can't if one views them as related to a specific concept of God, but one can if seen in the totality of Passover.

In the first we have to agree to differ that our concepts of God are different, and although some might like to argue that it's the same God, most will understand this to be specifically different Gods, hence the arguments. Personally I find it all rather sad that people have a relationship with God in which they see themselves as damned sinners requiring to produce a perfect human sacrifice to their God to atone for their sins. This is simply not my concept of God, not my God. Not a God I want to be in any way 'one with'..

In the second the reference is not to a specific concept of God, but to Christ as "God's solution" to the problem of estrangement from or non-relationship to or whatever from Christ's God. Being God's solution because "God so loved the world", does away with any particular idea we might have of what that means because it is all encompassing and at the same time allowing it to mean something to each personally. But because it is rooted in a specific event in the calendar of a specific people is what we can say for fact here we can argue that some reasons just don't make sense. Passover has nothing to do with sin offerings while the event which does have that as its focus for 'all the people' is Yom Kippur, and it didn't happen then. If God had meant.., etc.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
That (ISTM) sums up the impasse we have reached. I'd be happy with option 3, but I find that others who say that really mean that there are some models they want to drop.

Yes. As some of us have stated, the PSA model is abhorrent in a number of ways. By this reasoning PSA is not an acceptable model and should be dropped. The reasons that have been given are that it makes God a monster, it contradicts Scripture, it divorces faith from life, and it is fundamentally irrational. It arises from a narrow interpretation of a few passages, most of which are found in Paul, which are endlessly repeated, emphasized and misinterpreted. This has been argued above.

That said, there are plenty of people who have said on this thread that PSA is one of many models of atonement, all of which are perfectly acceptable. So 3 doesn't necessarily collapse into 4. These people, of course, would resist option 1, so they could be seen by proponents of 1 as arguing for 4.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
all of which are perfectly acceptable.

Ah, there is the enigmatic phrase.

In practice that phrase is used in completely different ways on both sides.

Some take it to mean - "choose whichever model works for you, I choose CV, you choose PSA."

Others mean - "all models are biblical and therefore any are appropriate to use at any given time but each model needs to be informed by the insights of all the other models."

I'm with the latter, but do you see how the former collapses into 4?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm with the latter, but do you see how the former collapses into 4?

Absolutely. Especially since 3 usually seems to come up in the context of "PSA isn't the only way."
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Absolutely. Especially since 3 usually seems to come up in the context of "PSA isn't the only way."

Thanks Freddy - I really appreciate your honesty in these discussions.

I raised this issue because this debate is often (and has been even on this thread) pictured as the nassssty conevos attacking those who use different models - claiming that they are not 'real Christians'.

What frustrates me is that the 'other side of the debate' seldom admits that they are equally portraying PSA as a perversion of the gospel.

i.e. both sides are claiming that the other is not proclaiming the 'real' gospel.

I don't have a problem with any of this - just trying to clarify (in my own mind at least! [Biased] ) exactly what the debate is over.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QUOTE] As some of us have stated, the PSA model is abhorrent in a number of ways. By this reasoning PSA is not an acceptable model and should be dropped. The reasons that have been given are that it makes God a monster, it contradicts Scripture, it divorces faith from life, and it is fundamentally irrational. It arises from a narrow interpretation of a few passages, most of which are found in Paul, which are endlessly repeated, emphasized and misinterpreted. .

Freddy, John Wesley would probably call you to Hell for that.

He might say, PSA is the only model that forces us to be completely honest with God and ourselves because it makes us face our sin vs his holiness.

He might also say that God , far from being a monster, has shown us a way we can be forgiven and deal withour sin and consequently have fellowsip, genuinely with him. Not monster behaviour.

Lastly, though discussed above, you could hadly say anything was resolved..or dealt with as you put it.

The problem really is "What is the gospel" and "What is the mechanism of salvation."

These essential questions are adequately resolved by PSA or its corollary, ransom theory and opposing vies have failed , (IMNSHO) to provre any alternative is credible scripturally.

The fundamental issue for me is the basis of forgiveness. Since Page 2, I have been unsble to believe God, in his holiness, forgives willy nilly. he forgives only on the basis of propitiatory sacrifice.

[ 25. May 2008, 07:54: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The problem really is "What is the gospel" and "What is the mechanism of salvation."

Yes, those are the problems. Jesus says that those who believe in Him and obey Him are saved. PSA removes the second phrase from the equation, denying Jesus' words.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
These essential questions are adequately resolved by PSA or its corollary, ransom theory and opposing vies have failed , (IMNSHO) to provre any alternative is credible scripturally.

These questions are not adequately resolved by PSA. PSA simply ignores or denies any Scripture that seems to define redemption in any way other than a payment or make salvation dependent on a person's willingness to live as God teaches.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The fundamental issue for me is the basis of forgiveness. Since Page 2, I have been unsble to believe God, in his holiness, forgives willy nilly. he forgives only on the basis of propitiatory sacrifice.

Yet Jesus never says anything close to this, and says rather that forgiveness is based on a person's own willingness to forgive. PSA relies almost completely on a misunderstood version of Paul and generally avoids quoting Jesus. Why is that?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
PSA relies almost completely on a misunderstood version of Paul and generally avoids quoting Jesus.

Come on Freddy. I thought we were getting somewhere.

We have established where we disagree but please don't return to this stuff. [Disappointed]

Read back over all the pages, Jesus has been quoted plenty... by both sides!?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Come on Freddy. I thought we were getting somewhere.

We have established where we disagree but please don't return to this stuff. [Disappointed]

Don't you think that with a few more pages we could find an answer that satisfies everyone? [Two face]
 
Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Come on Freddy. I thought we were getting somewhere.

We have established where we disagree but please don't return to this stuff. [Disappointed]

Don't you think that with a few more pages we could find an answer that satisfies everyone? [Two face]
I dug up a set of golden tablets in my back yard, which say that the answer that will satify everyone will be arrived at on page 59! Keep up the good work, everyone, you're almost there!

DT
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jamat:
[qb] The problem really is "What is the gospel" and "What is the mechanism of salvation."

Yes, those are the problems. Jesus says that those who believe in Him and obey Him are saved. PSA removes the second phrase from the equation, denying Jesus' words.
[QUOTE]

Well actually, thinking a bit more about it the question really is "Is there a Gospel" and if so, does it imply a mechanism of salvation.?

I really think this discussion is that fundamental as I simply cannot see the point of being a Christian if you pull out all the teeth with which a literal interpretation endows scripture.

My tradition is one where people are encouraged tosimply believe, simply trust and simply endure. Ibelong to a fellowship where tertiary education is a luxury many can't have . Faith is, however still alive and well. Everyone practically speaking embraces Christ as the great victor and champion of our humanity and the bridge to God by virtue of his divinity.

But question any deeper and you find the statement that "Christ took my sin to the cross so now I can face God with confidence." In other words, there is a deep visceral assumption of PSA even if most could not articulate it.

On these folk, the sun also rises.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I have been unsble to believe God, in his holiness, forgives willy nilly. he forgives only on the basis of propitiatory sacrifice.

The facts don't seem to fit the theory though.

Maybe this is a pointless argument but I'll try it out to see what you think. If person A takes active steps to bring about a reconciliation with person B, person B having damaged the relationship with person A by committing a crime or causing offence in some way, I would say that person A has already forgiven person B. If person A didn't forgive person B, why bother? If you don't forgive someone then you want to get your own back, you want them to suffer or at least to undo the damage.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I belong to a fellowship where tertiary education is a luxury many can't have . Faith is, however still alive and well. Everyone practically speaking embraces Christ as the great victor and champion of our humanity and the bridge to God by virtue of his divinity.

But question any deeper and you find the statement that "Christ took my sin to the cross so now I can face God with confidence." In other words, there is a deep visceral assumption of PSA even if most could not articulate it.

Nice to have you put it the way that you do here, Jamat. It illustrates another big problem with PSA, which is that it does not worship Jesus as God but makes Him a bridge to God. Christians worship Jesus as "my Lord and my God".
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greyface:
If person A didn't forgive person B, why bother?

That's a good point Greyface. Although it is assuming that forgiveness can be entirely one-sided. (I think you have a point, I'm just clarifying.)

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It illustrates another big problem with PSA, which is that it does not worship Jesus as God but makes Him a bridge to God. Christians worship Jesus as "my Lord and my God".

[Confused] I thought that it was mainstream orthodox thought to see Jesus as the link between God and man?

The hymn in Phil. 2 and the Cappadocian Fathers picture God becoming man so that man could become God.

I know Anselm is probably not your favourite author on this thread but Cur Deus Homo seems to sum up the question of Christian theology!?

So if you were trying to locate PSA firmly in the middle of the road of Christian thinking, then well done.

But you probably weren't. [Biased]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I thought that it was mainstream orthodox thought to see Jesus as the link between God and man?

Yes, it probably is, but I'm not saying I agree with the mainstream. And Jesus is the link, but as only God can truly be that link Jesus is God. The idea is that God bowed the heavens and came down:
quote:
Psalm 18:9 He bowed the heavens also, and came downWith darkness under His feet.
PSA leads to the mistake of seeing Jesus as other than God. Jesus is truly the Word, but the Word is God.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, it probably is, but I'm not saying I agree with the mainstream.

Don't you see Jesus as fully human then?

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
PSA leads to the mistake of seeing Jesus as other than God.

No, you haven't demonstrated that. There are plenty of other accusations that have been hurled but that one won't stick. PSA stands in a long tradition of attempts to explain why God had to become man. That much, surely, has to be thoroughly orthodox!?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
BTW

I've just noticed that we passed the 1st anniversary of this thread a while ago. [Yipee]

Do we get a card or sumfing? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Do we get a card or sumfing? [Big Grin]

I'm just waiting for Talitha to say that her question has been answered.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, it probably is, but I'm not saying I agree with the mainstream.

Don't you see Jesus as fully human then?
I believe statements like these:
quote:
Colossians 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;

1 Timothy 3:16 God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the nations, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross...that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Our denominational statement says:
quote:
Saving faith is in the Lord God the Saviour Jesus Christ. Saving faith is in God as Saviour, because He is God and man, and He is in the Father and the Father is in Him, so that they are one. Those therefore who approach Him, at the same time approach the Father, that is, the one and only God, and saving faith is in no other. We are to believe or have faith in the Son of God, the Redeemer and Saviour, who was conceived of Jehovah and born of the Virgin Mary, and was called Jesus Christ.
So, yes, Jesus is God and Man.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
PSA leads to the mistake of seeing Jesus as other than God.

No, you haven't demonstrated that. There are plenty of other accusations that have been hurled but that one won't stick.
I don't need to make it stick. Jamat is the one who stated it.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I have been unsble to believe God, in his holiness, forgives willy nilly. he forgives only on the basis of propitiatory sacrifice.

The facts don't seem to fit the theory though.

Maybe this is a pointless argument but I'll try it out to see what you think. If person A takes active steps to bring about a reconciliation with person B, person B having damaged the relationship with person A by committing a crime or causing offence in some way, I would say that person A has already forgiven person B. If person A didn't forgive person B, why bother? If you don't forgive someone then you want to get your own back, you want them to suffer or at least to undo the damage.

Your point being perhaps that forgiveness in the heart of the wronged party is sufficient for the process.

It would be if forgiveness in the sense we understand God to forgive us was not more of a transaction or contract perhaps. In other words it is one thing to offer it, another to accept the offer.

In PSA terms, the offer is made on the basis of Christ having taken the 'rap' due to the sinner, but the process is only complete when the sinner accepts the benefit of what God, in Christ did.

And so we circle round again.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I belong to a fellowship where tertiary education is a luxury many can't have . Faith is, however still alive and well. Everyone practically speaking embraces Christ as the great victor and champion of our humanity and the bridge to God by virtue of his divinity.

But question any deeper and you find the statement that "Christ took my sin to the cross so now I can face God with confidence." In other words, there is a deep visceral assumption of PSA even if most could not articulate it.

Nice to have you put it the way that you do here, Jamat. It illustrates another big problem with PSA, which is that it does not worship Jesus as God but makes Him a bridge to God. Christians worship Jesus as "my Lord and my God".
Well, he is a bridge to God but not merely that. I mentioned his divinity. Of course we also worship him as God.

The real problem with PSA as she is understood by thems what don't like her, is: (sorry to repeat for the millionth time,) that the 'God' many choose to worship 'can't be like that.'He can't be judgemental, he can't need blood sacrifice, he wouldn't have ordered the deaths or the 'genocide' as it is put, of millions.

on the last point, I just see God as above human rules and evaluations. Who is going to tell him what to do?

The issue in my view isn't about what I would like or want in my God, but in will I accept the God of the Scriptures as he,in toto, presents himself there, Canaanites, Amelekites, and all?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, he is a bridge to God but not merely that. I mentioned his divinity. Of course we also worship him as God.

I'm sure you do. But in the Christian world as a whole the position has eroded into something less. I attribute that to PSA.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The real problem with PSA as she is understood by thems what don't like her, is: (sorry to repeat for the millionth time,) that the 'God' many choose to worship 'can't be like that.'He can't be judgemental, he can't need blood sacrifice, he wouldn't have ordered the deaths or the 'genocide' as it is put, of millions.

That's right. But not because we just decided that this is how God "really" is. Rather, God Himself says "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" and describes Himself as mercy and love itself, and defines those terms.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue in my view isn't about what I would like or want in my God, but in will I accept the God of the Scriptures as he,in toto, presents himself there, Canaanites, Amelekites, and all?

I accept the Scriptures in toto. I believe that every word was written by God Himself. But the contradictions are obvious and we need to have a way to resolve them.

I am just going with how my denomination does this, which is to understand some parts as metaphoric (those would be the parts about sacrifice, genocide, judgment) and other parts as the real truth shining through.

You appear to be doing the opposite - taking the parts about judgment, sacrifice and genocide literally, and seeing those about love and mercy as metaphors. Or simply saying that God is beyond our ability to comprehend. He is certainly above our puny understanding, but the point of the Word of God is that it is designed to be apprehended.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Your point being perhaps that forgiveness in the heart of the wronged party is sufficient for the process.

Not at all, just that it must be the precursor of the restoration of relationship. It must already exist for the wronged party to want to instigate the relationship's rescue mission. You go on to address this...

quote:
It would be if forgiveness in the sense we understand God to forgive us was not more of a transaction or contract perhaps. In other words it is one thing to offer it, another to accept the offer.
Quite so but you seem to me to be departing from the standard PSA line a bit here, which is that God could not forgive us unless someone is punished for our sins. I'm arguing that God must pre-emptively forgive otherwise why the rescue mission? Therefore Christ's atoning work must be not to appease God but rather to make it possible for us to receive the benefits. How that works and why it's necessary is the next step in soteriology but it seems to me to be a key point that God's forgiveness must come before it all.

This fits IMHO the biblical picture of Christ announcing the forgiveness of sins before his crucifixion, much better than the hard-core PSA approach of saying that he could do it because he knew what was going to happen.

quote:
In PSA terms, the offer is made on the basis of Christ having taken the 'rap' due to the sinner,
But don't you see that if God forgives before the rap is taken, then the rap can't have been taken in order to enable God to forgive? It must have been for some other reason.

quote:
but the process is only complete when the sinner accepts the benefit of what God, in Christ did.
And so we circle round again.

No, I don't think that's controversial and it's not specific to PSA. The reason I question PSA is that it says things about God that Holy Scripture doesn't (at least when I read it - I acknowledge that YMMV and almost certainly does).

I know we can get into all sorts of theological knots with questions like the one I'm going to ask but I'll do it anyway because it illustrates the point. If Christ had not died for us, do you believe the Father would not forgive those who with true repentance turn to him?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
If Christ had not died for us, do you believe the Father would not forgive those who with true repentance turn to him?

That depends on what you mean by forgive! [Biased]

Seriously, if you are going to separate forgiveness from consequences (as for example, Freddy has in his appeal to 'natural law') then you have made the question rather redundant - rather like a judge, as a person, saying, "I forgive you" but then bringing the gavel down and pronouncing you guilty.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Seriously, if you are going to separate forgiveness from consequences (as for example, Freddy has in his appeal to 'natural law') then you have made the question rather redundant - rather like a judge, as a person, saying, "I forgive you" but then bringing the gavel down and pronouncing you guilty.

Isn't that's arguing backwards from the conclusion? PSA is definitely true therefore my claim that God forgives us is absurd because... which doesn't help the discussion.

I'll note in passing that your illustration shows what I understand to be the main Orthodox objection to substitutionary atonement in general, namely that for the situation of the judge who forgives yet condemns at the same time to make sense, you need a judge whose personal relationship with the defendant is overruled by his allegiance to a higher authority. God can't be like that (so the argument goes, and I buy it) because God himself is the highest authority.

Anyway, I don't think this boots PSA into touch but you need to be careful to distinguish between various PSA interpretations. The tract version is all too susceptible to leaving people thinking "Thank you Christ for saving us from your terrible Father who would have burned us in Hell for eternity if you hadn't come up with a way of tricking him." Whether a more nuanced PSA is still recognisable to those who hold the tract version as the core of their theology as PSA, I don't know but I've seen people argue that PSA is the way God chose to enact his mercy whilst displaying his hatred of sin, which to me is a very different kettle of fish to being constrained by his nature to never forgive unless someone is punished.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Isn't that's arguing backwards from the conclusion? PSA is definitely true therefore my claim that God forgives us is absurd because... which doesn't help the discussion.

I think we are talking past each other here. I basically agree with your post.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
The tract version is all too susceptible to leaving people thinking "Thank you Christ for saving us from your terrible Father who would have burned us in Hell for eternity if you hadn't come up with a way of tricking him."

Absolutely - the idea of God as judge sentencing his son instead of us sets the persons of the Trinity against themselves. That is not the atonement but, AFAIK, it is not PSA either.

My point earlier was that (IMHO) if you distinguish between God's forgiveness and 'consequences' (or whatever else you want to call it) you end up with the same problem you articulated in your post.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
I'm not sure that I understand you reasoning here, John. Perhaps the problem is the word "cosequence". I've used it pretty freely, but I recognise that it is inadequate. In fact, the relationship between sin and destructiveness/death is much closer than one of action and consequence. If we consider a typical action/consequence (for example, child puts hand in fire - gets burned) then it is quite reasonable to sayn "well if God had designed things differently, the link between putting the hand in the fire and getting burned could be broken. We even have scriptujral precedent to show how God has, on occasion, broken that link, as in the case of the "fiery furnace". Ergo, consequence is just a different way of describing God's commisive will, and therefore there is no fundamental difference between punishment and consequence.

However, I see the relationship between destructiveness and sin as more an identity than a chain of events. Sin is destructiveness. That's why Paul links it as an identity with death. God can no more make sin non-destructive than He could make a square circle. If sin is non-destuctive, the it ceases to be sin, because the thing that makes it what it is is the destructivenss. It's not that God hates sin, and therefore makes it destructive as a consequence, rather that becaus sin is destructive, God hates it.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not sure that I understand you reasoning here, John.

I'm not sure I do either. [Big Grin]

I'm just trying to recreate (in my mind) what the idea you, and others, have used about identity would look like in practice.


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
However, I see the relationship between destructiveness and sin as more an identity than a chain of events.

What I'm trying to say is that if you take this 'identity' concept I'm not so sure that it is possible to distinguish forgiveness from consequences in the way GreyFace has done. Isn't the whole point that it is all bound up in identity?

It could well be that I've misunderstood the atonement model being put forward though.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Language, again, I'm afraid. I was using identity in the sense of destructiveness and sin being identical, rather than being our, human, identity.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Language, again, I'm afraid. I was using identity in the sense of destructiveness and sin being identical, rather than being our, human, identity.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Language, again, I'm afraid. I was using identity in the sense of destructiveness and sin being identical, rather than being our, human, identity.

Ah, okay ... still, I heard you the first time. [Biased]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I accept the Scriptures in toto. I believe that every word was written by God Himself. But the contradictions are obvious and we need to have a way to resolve them.

Have another look at what you wrote here Freddy. And think about what the word contradiction actually means.

Just winding you up really, but seriously... the way I see scripture is that 'if God wrote it, it couldn't contradict itself and so ,..if it seems to... then I must be misunderstanding it or misinterpreting it somewhere.'

Now while this view leads to circularity and therefore is certainly no logical proof of anything, I'd remind myself we are dealing here with a being way beyond our limited minds to comprehend.

I think you can find, in PSA for instance, a system where love and judgement meet. This is why I believe it really.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Your point being perhaps that forgiveness in the heart of the wronged party is sufficient for the process.

Not at all, just that it must be the precursor of the restoration of relationship. It must already exist for the wronged party to want to instigate the relationship's rescue mission. You go on to address this...

quote:
It would be if forgiveness in the sense we understand God to forgive us was not more of a transaction or contract perhaps. In other words it is one thing to offer it, another to accept the offer.
Quite so but you seem to me to be departing from the standard PSA line a bit here, which is that God could not forgive us unless someone is punished for our sins. I'm arguing that God must pre-emptively forgive otherwise why the rescue mission? Therefore Christ's atoning work must be not to appease God but rather to make it possible for us to receive the benefits. How that works and why it's necessary is the next step in soteriology but it seems to me to be a key point that God's forgiveness must come before it all.

This fits IMHO the biblical picture of Christ announcing the forgiveness of sins before his crucifixion, much better than the hard-core PSA approach of saying that he could do it because he knew what was going to happen.

quote:
In PSA terms, the offer is made on the basis of Christ having taken the 'rap' due to the sinner,
But don't you see that if God forgives before the rap is taken, then the rap can't have been taken in order to enable God to forgive? It must have been for some other reason.

quote:
but the process is only complete when the sinner accepts the benefit of what God, in Christ did.
And so we circle round again.

No, I don't think that's controversial and it's not specific to PSA. The reason I question PSA is that it says things about God that Holy Scripture doesn't (at least when I read it - I acknowledge that YMMV and almost certainly does).

I know we can get into all sorts of theological knots with questions like the one I'm going to ask but I'll do it anyway because it illustrates the point. If Christ had not died for us, do you believe the Father would not forgive those who with true repentance turn to him?

Ok, but if it exists as a precursor, in what sense is it effective? It seems to me to be more, in that sense, indicative of God's willingness to accept the sinner, (Call it pre-emptive forgiveness if you like,)rather than his having already done so. The sinner still has to do his bit.

The point you make about appeasement is really the sticking point though. I frankly don't understand what's wrong with a 'both/and' approach. We receive the benefits of God's love and willingness to forgive because of 'appeasement.' Now if appeasement is a red button word, why not substitute 'atonement' or as some translations do, 'reconciliation'.(Romans 5:11) Whatever, you do to verbalize it, It seems to me that Christ has done something no one else could, and without his having done it we would still be lost and without hope because of the evil ethos into which we were born, and which holds us ,in our natural state, in its grip.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
the way I see scripture is that 'if God wrote it, it couldn't contradict itself and so ,..if it seems to... then I must be misunderstanding it or misinterpreting it somewhere.'

That's exactly how I see it too. Of course it relies on the idea that "contradiction" is a concept that applies to God. I think it does, as does the normal definition of love, mercy, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I'd remind myself we are dealing here with a being way beyond our limited minds to comprehend.

Sure, but if you mean that we must accept a description of God's "mercy" that seems monstrous, then it's just an excuse.

PSA is just such a system, in my opinion. It is simply wrong for anyone, God or man, to be somehow "satisfied" by punishment, much less "blood". It is simply wrong to think that the genuine spiritual merit of one can be imputed to another.

[ 31. May 2008, 11:12: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
]Sure, but if you mean that we must accept a description of God's "mercy" that seems monstrous, then it's just an excuse.

PSA is just such a system, in my opinion. It is simply wrong for anyone, God or man, to be somehow "satisfied" by punishment, much less "blood". It is simply wrong to think that the genuine spiritual merit of one can be imputed to another.

Well regarding blood, it was the one stipulation the apostles put on Paul's gospel to gentiles. They must not eat blood.

Why was this if somehow God did not see blood as a key of great importance to God?

You are familiar with the mosaic injunction "The life of the flesh is in the blood"(Deut 12:23)

It seems that sin costs life then. Now this is both literal and metaphorical. Jesus blood was literally shed, his life literally laid down. It becomes also a metaphor to help us understand a spiritual reality. There are no literal bloodstains on us, but God literally looks down on a believer and sees him/her as righteous by virtue of real blood, that was a real cost of a real life.

We've been here before but if it wasn't necessary, God would not have required it. If I read you correctly Freddy, you think that this makes God if he would have required it for salvation, some kind of a monster.

In my view, it simply underlines the serious ness and destructive power of sin. Had God not allowed the blood of his son as an atonement, sin would continue to separate us from God and ultimately destroy us. As James says, sin when it is finished, brings forth death. (Jas 1:15)
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well regarding blood, it was the one stipulation the apostles put on Paul's gospel to gentiles. They must not eat blood.

Why was this if somehow God did not see blood as a key of great importance to God?

It was because of the meaning that blood had. It was not literally about blood.

It was like what Jesus said about the "leaven of the Pharisees":
quote:
Matthew 16:6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” ...11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
It wasn't about leaven at all. It was about their false teachings.

The same is true of blood, flesh and bread in John:
quote:
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

Jesus was not actually bread, and He didn't literally mean that anyone should eat and drink His flesh and blood. His flesh and bread are His goodness and love, come down from heaven. His blood, or wine, is the truth that He taught. The blood that He shed, or poured out, was the truth that He gave us, and that humanity treated with violence.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
We've been here before but if it wasn't necessary, God would not have required it. If I read you correctly Freddy, you think that this makes God if he would have required it for salvation, some kind of a monster.

Yes, that's right. Jesus is God. Bloodshed was not required by God. Rather bloodshed was offered by humanity as we rejected God's love and truth - and God allowed us to do that.

So in a good sense, blood is necessary for salvation because truth is necessary for salvation - teaching us to change our ways. In a negative sense the shedding of blood was a necessary acting out of humanity's rejection of God - as a first step leading to repenting from that rejection. This is why Jesus said that He would bring evil out of the darkness so that it could be seen.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
John 6:55 Jesus says my blood is real drink. He nowhere suggests that of leaven. In the NT it is as you say a type. Blood, however, is not seen as simply typological is it? It is literally about life or life force. To shed blood is to take life. Jesus' shed blood covers our sin because God accepted that his life was given for us. This is a scriptural fact. The questions at issue over the last 57 pages are why it was necessary as well as how it works for us.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
[QUOTE][qb]In PSA terms, the offer is made on the basis of Christ having taken the 'rap' due to the sinner,

But don't you see that if God forgives before the rap is taken, then the rap can't have been taken in order to enable God to forgive? It must have been for some other reason.[QUOTE][qb]

The logic here only works if you see the offer of forgiveness as forgiveness itself, ie the completed transaction.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
In PSA terms, the offer is made on the basis of Christ having taken the 'rap' due to the sinner,
But don't you see that if God forgives before the rap is taken, then the rap can't have been taken in order to enable God to forgive? It must have been for some other reason.


The logic here only works if you see the offer of forgiveness as forgiveness itself, ie the completed transaction.

...which is, of course, the position that I and others take. That is not to say that I do not need to live in that forgiveness for its benefits to accrue to me*, but, as far as God is concerned, it's a done deal and always has been.

*just to avoid any confusion, I do not, as I assume you realise, count eternal life (as in, going to heaven) as one of those benefits. The mechanism for saving us, in the sense of our eternal destiny, as opposed to quality of life here and now, is completely separate from forgiveness, as I see it.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
John 6:55 Jesus says my blood is real drink. He nowhere suggests that of leaven.

Jesus' blood is real drink because His truth is the only thing that will genuinely satisfy our real, that is our spiritual, thirst.

Jesus speaks this way repeatedly about hunger and thirst. For example:
quote:
John 6:35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
Why won't they hunger and thirst? Because coming to Him and believing in Him are genuine spiritual food and drink that last forever. He said this to the woman at the well:
quote:
John 4:14 "Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”
Why will they never thirst? Because the words of Jesus will last forever. This is what Amos the prophet spoke about:
quote:
Amos 8:11 “ Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord GOD, “ That I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine of bread, Nor a thirst for water, But of hearing the words of the LORD."
Humanity would hunger and thirst for the truth and the goodness that result from people hearing and obeying it. So Jesus promised:
quote:
Matthew 5:6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled.
They shall be filled because they will hear the truth and obey it. This will change the world.

Jesus spoke about the fact that doing the will of the Father is food:
quote:
John 4:31 In the meantime His disciples urged Him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.”
32 But He said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.”
33 Therefore the disciples said to one another, “Has anyone brought Him anything to eat?”
34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.

This is a pattern of meaning that is present throughout the Bible. There is no question in my mind that this what Jesus' meaning was.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In the NT it is as you say a type. Blood, however, is not seen as simply typological is it? It is literally about life or life force. To shed blood is to take life.

Yes, blood is equated with life because the Word is life, Jesus' words are life, life is truth:
quote:
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
To "shed" this life, or literally to "pour it out" is to give it to humanity, or conversely, to attempt to destroy it. This is what happened to Christ as the Word, rejected by humanity. But since it cannot be destroyed the effect is just the opposite - the killers are exposed.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Jesus' shed blood covers our sin because God accepted that his life was given for us. This is a scriptural fact.

Yes, His life is given for us. But it is not that God accepted this life as payment. Rather, the giving overcame the power of evil. Jesus is God.

[ 02. June 2008, 11:04: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
In PSA terms, the offer is made on the basis of Christ having taken the 'rap' due to the sinner,
But don't you see that if God forgives before the rap is taken, then the rap can't have been taken in order to enable God to forgive? It must have been for some other reason.


The logic here only works if you see the offer of forgiveness as forgiveness itself, ie the completed transaction.

...which is, of course, the position that I and others take. That is not to say that I do not need to live in that forgiveness for its benefits to accrue to me*, but, as far as God is concerned, it's a done deal and always has been.

*just to avoid any confusion, I do not, as I assume you realise, count eternal life (as in, going to heaven) as one of those benefits. The mechanism for saving us, in the sense of our eternal destiny, as opposed to quality of life here and now, is completely separate from forgiveness, as I see it.

Well, given this comment, Johnny's earlier argument about your position collapsing into universalism seems to apply.

Regarding 'eternal life,' There is a logic to believing that since I am forgiven for my sins I am now in a covenant relationship with God through Jesus' blood that does assure me of an eternal destiny in his presence.

If you see salvation as a separate issue, how can you be assured you have it?

I recall in Acts when the people cried out 'Men and brethren, what must we do?' The injunction was to repent and be baptised. Repentance and forgiveness are surely theological correlatives, impossible to separate.

It just seems to me that the more you look at what you have in a CV scenario, the more you haven't actually got anything except a hope based on an assertion of God's nature of goodness, that refuses to allow anyone to be lost; hence, universalism. And the hope is based on a lot of allegorising of scripture since a literalistic interpretation is offensive because it implies as you say,'God is less than he is.'
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
John 6:55 Jesus says my blood is real drink. He nowhere suggests that of leaven.

Jesus' blood is real drink because His truth is the only thing that will genuinely satisfy our real, that is our spiritual, thirst.

Jesus speaks this way repeatedly about hunger and thirst. For example:
quote:
John 6:35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
Why won't they hunger and thirst? Because coming to Him and believing in Him are genuine spiritual food and drink that last forever. He said this to the woman at the well:
quote:
John 4:14 "Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”
Why will they never thirst? Because the words of Jesus will last forever. This is what Amos the prophet spoke about:
quote:
Amos 8:11 “ Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord GOD, “ That I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine of bread, Nor a thirst for water, But of hearing the words of the LORD."
Humanity would hunger and thirst for the truth and the goodness that result from people hearing and obeying it. So Jesus promised:
quote:
Matthew 5:6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled.
They shall be filled because they will hear the truth and obey it. This will change the world.

Jesus spoke about the fact that doing the will of the Father is food:
quote:
John 4:31 In the meantime His disciples urged Him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.”
32 But He said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.”
33 Therefore the disciples said to one another, “Has anyone brought Him anything to eat?”
34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.

This is a pattern of meaning that is present throughout the Bible. There is no question in my mind that this what Jesus' meaning was.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In the NT it is as you say a type. Blood, however, is not seen as simply typological is it? It is literally about life or life force. To shed blood is to take life.

Yes, blood is equated with life because the Word is life, Jesus' words are life, life is truth:
quote:
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
To "shed" this life, or literally to "pour it out" is to give it to humanity, or conversely, to attempt to destroy it. This is what happened to Christ as the Word, rejected by humanity. But since it cannot be destroyed the effect is just the opposite - the killers are exposed.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Jesus' shed blood covers our sin because God accepted that his life was given for us. This is a scriptural fact.

Yes, His life is given for us. But it is not that God accepted this life as payment. Rather, the giving overcame the power of evil. Jesus is God.

I guess, Freddy, that the words 'literal' and 'real' become meaningless when we start applying them to spritual truths.

In that we, in our 'ghost in the machine' form can apprehend the world beyond the physical, we have only concepts associated with the physical to create our analogies.

So yes, I agree with your thesis with the proviso that when we 'really' eat his flesh and 'drink' his blood, that something powerful, and transforming, is or should be, taking place.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Jamat
Well, given this comment, Johnny's earlier argument about your position collapsing into universalism seems to apply.

Only, of necessity, if you accept that the primary problem of humans vis-a-vis God is moral guilt. As you are aware, I think the primary problem is an ontology bound to decay, as it were. We can be forgiven and still not inherit eternal life. CV is certainly compatible with universalism, but it is also compatible with de facto limited salvation.


quote:
Regarding 'eternal life,' There is a logic to believing that since I am forgiven for my sins I am now in a covenant relationship with God through Jesus' blood that does assure me of an eternal destiny in his presence.

If you see salvation as a separate issue, how can you be assured you have it?

Hmmn, let's see now. You have assurance of salvation because you trust in the merciful saving grace of God in Jesus. I have assurance of salvation because I trust in the merciful saving grace of God in Jesus. I don't see that having different views on how that saving grace is worked out affects the fundamentals at all. We both have assurance which is wholly dependant upon the desire of God to save us, and His willingness to act according to that desire: on His nature, if you like.


quote:
I recall in Acts when the people cried out 'Men and brethren, what must we do?' The injunction was to repent and be baptised. Repentance and forgiveness are surely theological correlatives, impossible to separate.

Well they are certainly key spiritual truths, no-one is disputing that. I'm certainly not saying that we don't need to repent in order to have the fullness of life in Christ. What I am saying is that the God forgive us our sins whether we repent or not, that is, that forgiveness is a necessary prerequisite for repentance, as the good Greyface of this parish explained. Repentance is the evidence that we have truely received that forgiveness, that it has made a difference to our lives. Baptism is the sacramental sign (to put it somewhat crudely) of that repentance; it, as it were, gathers the diversity of the many acts of repentance into one defined event, which is why Peter links the two.

quote:
It just seems to me that the more you look at what you have in a CV scenario, the more you haven't actually got anything except a hope based on an assertion of God's nature of goodness, that refuses to allow anyone to be lost; hence, universalism. And the hope is based on a lot of allegorising of scripture since a literalistic interpretation is offensive because it implies as you say,'God is less than he is.'

Well what is your hope in, if it's not in the Nature of God? I certaily can't think of anything more secure in which to rest my hope. I certainly believe in what you say I believe in, viz, that God refuses to allow anyone to be lost. I would believe that even if I didn't believe in CV, even if I were convinced that PSA is a doctrine to be found in the Scripture, because I believe it is what the Bible teaches. You interpret the texts differently. Heigh-ho [Biased] .

I don't think I go in for allegorising that much, though. That's more Freddy's tradition. I think there's a middle way between literalism and allegory. I suppose when I'm studying the Bible I hope for intelligent engagement with the text, regarding it as authoritative rather than inerrant or allegorical; true rather than forensically accurate or mythical , (though that doesn't preclude it being mythic)

I'm not sure that paragraph comes over with the right tone - I'm not trying to imply that you don't engage intelligently with the text, it's about how I approach the Bible. You will no doubt be able to find similarities and differences in our approaches.

[ 04. June 2008, 09:55: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The logic here only works if you see the offer of forgiveness as forgiveness itself, ie the completed transaction.

Sorry for the hit-and-run nature of my posting on this thread. Partly I've been busy, partly I have to summon up the effort to keep going when we get to fifty-odd pages [Biased]

Based on what you wrote above, I suspect what we're talking about now is completely irrelevant to the argument of the thread. I say that, because I think we're saying the same thing but just using slightly different alternative definitions of the word forgiveness. The two descriptions...

1. God offers forgiveness + we gratefully receive (repentance, baptism) -> Salvation
2. God forgives, offers reconciliation + we gratefully accept (repentance, baptism) -> Salvation

...are functionally identically. You changed (quite possibly inadvertently) the goalposts a few posts back when you started saying that we need to respond in order for the soteriological transaction to take place. Before that, the question was different. It was the claim that Christ needed to suffer our punishment before God would forgive us (or in your terms, offer forgiveness). The two questions are not related although oddly people keep claiming they are, that is, that without PSA all soteriological models are universalist. This is just not the case.

I'm not arguing that a response from us is not required. I'm rather arguing that if Christ was acting according to the will of the Father, the Father's desire was for us to be saved from the consequences of our sin before atonement was made - and under the basic PSA model we're back to the paradox of a judge who personally forgives but is held to a higher authority and therefore cannot.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So yes, I agree with your thesis with the proviso that when we 'really' eat his flesh and 'drink' his blood, that something powerful, and transforming, is or should be, taking place.

Yes, good. But what is it? My point is that “eating His flesh” and “drinking His blood” are about hearing His Word and doing His commandments. This is what is powerful and transforming, and this is how Jesus tells us that we are to be transformed.

He says:
quote:
John 6:56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

He also says:
quote:
John 15.9 Abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love.
It should be clear form these two passages that the eating and drinking that He is talking about is nothing other than believing and doing what He says. This is what causes us to abide in Him, to have everlasting life, to be His disciples, to never see death, and to have God make His home in us, as He says in these passages:
quote:
John 15:7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.

John 5:24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life,

John 8:31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.

John 8:51 Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.”

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

Revelation 3:8 “I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it; for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name.

The point is that references to Jesus’ flesh and blood are not obscure and inexplicable, but are easily understood metaphors that He Himself explains.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I guess, Freddy, that the words 'literal' and 'real' become meaningless when we start applying them to spritual truths.

Just the opposite. It is obvious to everyone that no one can literally eat Jesus’ flesh. Jesus explains that He means believing in him and doing His will when He says this. This is extremely meaningful.

Similarly, most people intuitively understand that the “true light” that Jesus brought was spiritual and not about physical brightness. So they have no trouble comprehending this verse:
quote:
John 1:9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
Similarly, most people don’t struggle with the meaning of “true riches” or “treasures in heaven”:
quote:
Luke 16:11 Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?

Matthew 6:19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.

Everyone knows that the “true riches” and “treasures in heaven” are about salvation and eternal life.

Far from being meaningless, the distinction between a literal understanding and a genuine understanding is very meaningful and important.

So I think that it is a mistake to understand passages about Jesus blood as referring to God the Father’s demand of a blood payment. Jesus' blood is about His words, and the violence done to Him is about humanity's rejection of His Word. This should be abundantly clear from the New Testament.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
The two questions are not related although oddly people keep claiming they are, that is, that without PSA all soteriological models are universalist. This is just not the case.

I didn't say that all other models are universalist, but I do think that they eventually collapse down into universalism.

Since this thread compares CV with other models let's do that:

PSA - is a transactional model. It adopts easily the picture in Romans 4 of crediting wages to the person who has not earned it.

Now the thing about a transactional analogy is that it inherently includes the idea of receiving the transaction... whether, turning up to collect your coins, or paying the cheque into your bank account.

CV - is a battle model. It adopts easily the victory motif of Colossians 2.

However, the victory analogy does not include any sense of receiving the benefits. In battle, if the enemy is defeated, then the benefit is automatic.

Now, I repeat, I'm not saying that CV is universalist. Of course, it is possible to use CV and not be a universalist. I'm merely commenting on the overall effect of only using this model to explain the atonement.

I like CV and use it a lot to explain the gospel. However, if I dropped PSA from my 'bag' I think that the impression given would soon tend towards universalism.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Johnny, I'm not convinced any atonement model is transactional in the sense you mean and PSA is no exception. There are two parts in any atonement model, it seems to me.

1. How are the gates of heaven opened?
2. How do we walk through them?

The penal substitutionary bits of PSA are to do with part 1. The moral guilt problem (thanks for that phrase, JJ) is the barrier to our salvation that Christ has removed for us by taking responsibility for our sins and paying for them with his passion and with his life itself on the cross. Part 2 is a separate question - what must we do (without getting into Calvin vs Arminius) to be saved? Now clearly there are standard answers (repent and be baptised, have faith) but the fact remains that the moral guilt problem has been solved. I think of that as the completeness of Christ's atoning work.

Similarly for CV, the enemy that bars the way to eternal life is death (=sin =Satan) and Christ defeats that in his own death and resurrection. Atonement is complete, the gates of heaven are open, the part 1 problem is solved. We still have the exactly identical part 2 problem though of how we receive the benefits - and incidentally Calvin vs Arminius is still on the programme.

I don't see that one atonement model is more or less likely to result in universalism, and the fact that the Orthodox aren't universalists counts against the theory that CV is more universalism friendly, doesn't it?

I'm probably missing something important, but I can't see it.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:

1. How are the gates of heaven opened?
2. How do we walk through them?

Okay, but can you see how they are both related and the way you answer question 1 will heavily influence how you answer question 2.

i.e. I agree with you up to a point but I don't think that you can just pick your model and then bolt on 'repent and believe' onto it in the same way.


quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Similarly for CV, the enemy that bars the way to eternal life is death (=sin =Satan) and Christ defeats that in his own death and resurrection. Atonement is complete, the gates of heaven are open, the part 1 problem is solved. We still have the exactly identical part 2 problem though of how we receive the benefits - and incidentally Calvin vs Arminius is still on the programme.

I'm repeating myself here - but to save you having to trawl through 50+ pages - I don't think the NT depicts death as an enemy in exactly the same way as sin. Death is alien in the sense that it stands against us. Sin is both alien to us (against what God created us for) and part of our very nature.

Therefore, I think CV tends to picture Christ defeating an enemy alien to us - and thus once the enemy is defeated there is no need for a response ... hence universalism.

However, PSA, sees Christ defeating sin in us and therefore it is only if we are in him (by faith) that we receive his benefits.

Remember PSA is not simply about an innocent man receiving our punishment - it is us being punished, in Him!


quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
the fact that the Orthodox aren't universalists counts against the theory that CV is more universalism friendly, doesn't it?

The big 'O's can answer for themselves, but the fact that Orthodoxy (big O) has its roots in tradition (and is not a philosophical system like Arminianism or Calvinism) stops it from progressing to the logical conclusion of some of its theology! [Biased]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Johnny S

I'm not sure you're right, scripturally. I suppose it depends how you classify Peter's sermon in Acts 2. Personally, I think it is very much prototype CV! Yet it produces this well known response (Acts 2 v 37).

"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the Apostles 'Brothers, what shall we do?'"

I suppose much depends on how much weight you give to "this Jesus, who you crucified". Anyway, you know that I'm primarily CV but accept SA. Maybe one can argue there's a bit of both? But I think there is a whole lot of CV and only by implication a bit of SA.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Johnny S

I'm not sure you're right, scripturally.

About what exactly?

I don't see how Acts 2 fits into the recent discussion.

(People tell me I'm wrong about so many things it helps to be specific! [Big Grin] )
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I've got to go to bed so I'll comment on the only thing that struck me when I looked up Acts 2:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Peter's sermon in Acts 2. Personally, I think it is very much prototype CV! Yet it produces this well known response (Acts 2 v 37).

"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the Apostles 'Brothers, what shall we do?'"

Whatever else Peter's sermon says about atonement models the response he calls for in verse 38 specifically makes God's forgiveness conditional on repentance and baptism!?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Since no one else is interested, I'll carry on the conversation with myself. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

I suppose much depends on how much weight you give to "this Jesus, who you crucified". Anyway, you know that I'm primarily CV but accept SA. Maybe one can argue there's a bit of both? But I think there is a whole lot of CV and only by implication a bit of SA.

I think we are talking past each other over the portrayal of the gospel in Acts.

I do not go to Peter at Pentecost and try to find a classic 4 Spiritual laws / 2 ways to live type PSA explanation of the gospel. You are right that Peter focusses on the vindication of Jesus in the resurrection.

My point concerns more the framework behind his appeal. IMHO this is the issue - from what is Peter appealing that they be saved?

In v 40, Peter pleads with the crowd to 'save themselves from this wicked generation'. Is he talking about rescue from the kind of laws of this physical world that Freddy and others have described? Or is he talking about being saved from God's judgment?

The context of the quotation from Joel makes it pretty clear - the day of the Lord, which brings (from God) both salvation and judgment.

Indeed, a recurring theme of the Lukan sermons in Acts is that the 'CV' gospel of Jesus' resurrection is important because it means that Jesus is judge.

The 'thing' people need saving from in the book of Acts is the judgment of Jesus.... e.g. Acts 3: 23; Acts 10: 42; Acts 17: 31.

So, if you are going to use Acts as a mine for atonement models you are left with:

1. Jesus judges people only according to how they have lived their lives ... i.e. no atonement at all.


or


2. The 'enemy' Jesus has to fight against is actually himself!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Johnny S

I appreciate that I was a bit obscure. (Or a bit more than "normal for Norfolk!")

My observation was based on a simplicity - that Peter definitely preached for a decision and focussed in that very first sermon, not on the sacrificial power of the Cross (an SV theme) but God's power in the resurrection of Jesus, which defeated those who were opposed to His purposes (a CV theme). The effect on his audience was not "Oh that's great, but we don't have to do anything about it" but "What must we do?".

I'll remind you of this sentence in your response to GreyFace

Therefore, I think CV tends to picture Christ defeating an enemy alien to us - and thus once the enemy is defeated there is no need for a response ... hence universalism. (Italicisation mine).

A CV approach does provoke questions, which may indeed make the hearer open to the Acts 2 reply "Repent and be baptised every one of you, in the name of Jesus, for the forgiveness of sins". I know from my own experience (some 1950 years later) the power of the personal revelation to me that the resurrection (whatever it was) created the church, rather than the church the resurrection. This did not leave me feeling "that's nice, but I don't need to do anything about it". Rather the impact was "I've been wrong about this God stuff all my life. There is a lot more going on here than I thought".

CV is as provocative as SA in preaching the gospel, but neither on its own answers all the questions about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. They have "drawing power" towards God.

Hope that makes clearer what my thoughts were, Johnny. And apologies for the obscurity.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
not on the sacrificial power of the Cross (an SV theme) but God's power in the resurrection of Jesus, which defeated those who were opposed to His purposes (a CV theme). The effect on his audience was not "Oh that's great, but we don't have to do anything about it" but "What must we do?".

Okay (but as I posted above) you are reading a 21st century CV understanding into Peter's sermon.

My argument is that the 'punchline' of the sermons in Acts is, "Jesus has risen from the dead and therefore he will judge the world." To put it crudely and clumsily - you had better get on the right side of Jesus.

Therefore, ISTM, the response comes from some sense of appeasing the wrath of Jesus being necessary.

I know it is more complicated than that, by my argument is more along these lines ... a CV presentation of the gospel then would have a similar effect to a PSA presentation now.

When I say that I think CV tends to lapse into universalism I am presuming that we are talking about a current western worldview.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Dont think this is about anachronistic reading, Johnny. My basic position is that CV and SA as we articulate them now are developed theories from images, concepts and ideas found in somewhat atomic form in the NT (and OT) and the traditions of the church. And I think these theories, pushed too far, dissolve into paradox and incoherence. There is mystery at the heart of the Passion of Christ.

So I'm pointing to a record of a primitive preach, whose prime theme was the resurrection of Christ demonstrating victory over opposition and saying, you can see it had evangelistic impact. Which suggests to me at least that we can get too "pat" in our analyses of which salvation model is best. It depends on the audience, surely?

Now I think you are right that the mindset of the listeners of the times to Peter would condition the way the message is heard. And of course it would be different to most today. For example, they would all believe in "the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses" - who you didn't mess with! So the ability to hear the call to repentence is a pretty obvious response to those who thought, hearing the message, that the resurrection of Jesus showed that his crucifixion was a serious messing with "God's boy". A somewhat different audience to those who hear the gospel today!

But that argument kind of proves my "non-pat" point. Discussion about salvation-models and comparative evaluation can cleanse the mind I suppose, but because conversion is ultimately the work of the Spirit of God, we can be surprised by which messages prove to be efficacious. Those of us, like you and me, who have preached, often wondering perhaps at the mangling of the gospel we have achieved, have often been surprised by the responses.

[ 06. June 2008, 12:53: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Hello Barnabas!

Mate, I missed you! Hope everything is all right!

In page 57, I posted a link I think you might find of interest.

Here's an Orthodox priest, who began his journey from Judaism, and through Protestantism came to Orthodox Christianity, speaking about how Orthodoxy and Judaism agree in their view of expiation and contrasts that to the non-Orthodox Christian view on propitiation, or, as I think he puts it, Christ dying for us, rather than instead of us.

When you have some time to spare, and feel like it, do listen at that interview and tell me what you think.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
The difference between expiation and propitiation is crucial in this debate.

Those of us who are Anglican and old enough to remember Cranmer's 'Holy Communion' service heard 'The Comfortable Words' where 'propitiation' was read - it is hard to get this mistranslation out of our heads and I am sure it has passed into wider evangelical thinking.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thanks andreas - just back this week from 40th wedding anniversary celebrations. Listening to the link is on my "to do" list.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
just back this week from 40th wedding anniversary celebrations.

Oooooo, congrats!!! [Yipee]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

But that argument kind of proves my "non-pat" point. Discussion about salvation-models and comparative evaluation can cleanse the mind I suppose, but because conversion is ultimately the work of the Spirit of God, we can be surprised by which messages prove to be efficacious. Those of us, like you and me, who have preached, often wondering perhaps at the mangling of the gospel we have achieved, have often been surprised by the responses.

We seem to be converging here.

Again, to put it simplistically, I'm talking about which models predominate when we articulate the gospel.

So, generalising massively, people growing up as a 'wee free' in Scotland will hear something different from the Home Counties.

Some know that they are sinners and need to hear of God's great love. Other's take God's love as a given but are massively surprised to hear that he might think them 'sinners'.

My overall take is that CV is becoming more popular because of cultural shifts in our society... and when it comes to proclaiming the gospel we must both go with the flow and cut against the grain.

I stand with those who say that (in some evangelical quarters) PSA has been a sole voice and we need CV to speak into today's world. However, I am convinced that those who want to jettison PSA altogether will soon find that they have married the 'spirit of this age' and (proverbially) will be widowed in the next ... left with nothing to say.

[ 07. June 2008, 01:16: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

My overall take is that CV is becoming more popular because of cultural shifts in our society... and when it comes to proclaiming the gospel we must both go with the flow and cut against the grain.

I stand with those who say that (in some evangelical quarters) PSA has been a sole voice and we need CV to speak into today's world. However, I am convinced that those who want to jettison PSA altogether will soon find that they have married the 'spirit of this age' and (proverbially) will be widowed in the next ... left with nothing to say.

I don't see that CV is married any more to the 'spirit of this age' than PSA, as you suggest. Any such spirit, it seems to me, is well attuned to the demand for due punishment and retribution that is at the heart of the PSA worldview. The present age might like to see itself as soft and compassionate in these ways, but I'd suggest it's really the 'law and order', 'make the punishment fit the crime' types who set the current tone in the nations most of us inhabit.

I'd agree that on a number of levels the CV notion is communicating with our contemporaries much better than the bundle of medieval lies and complex insults to God and humanity that constitutes the PSA perspective. But it is hardly conforming to the spirit of this age to take Satan and his wiles as fully into account as fully and as centrally as CV does, for instance. CV makes some serious demands on the credulity and moral perspective of the great majority of our contemporaries.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
I'd agree that on a number of levels the CV notion is communicating with our contemporaries much better than the bundle of medieval lies and complex insults to God and humanity that constitutes the PSA perspective. But it is hardly conforming to the spirit of this age to take Satan and his wiles as fully into account as fully and as centrally as CV does, for instance. CV makes some serious demands on the credulity and moral perspective of the great majority of our contemporaries.

Yes, this illustrates what we are wrestling with perfectly.

In your eagerness to to dismiss PSA you appear to have wandered into platonic dualism. I assume that is not what you meant but by putting Satan centre stage that is what you have done and so, as the early Church Fathers decided, put you outside of orthodox Christianity.

I'm not expecting anyone to accept my POV just to acknowledge that the issues are too complex for models to be dismissed to lightly.
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
I'd agree that on a number of levels the CV notion is communicating with our contemporaries much better than the bundle of medieval lies and complex insults to God and humanity that constitutes the PSA perspective. But it is hardly conforming to the spirit of this age to take Satan and his wiles as fully into account as fully and as centrally as CV does, for instance. CV makes some serious demands on the credulity and moral perspective of the great majority of our contemporaries.

Yes, this illustrates what we are wrestling with perfectly.

In your eagerness to to dismiss PSA you appear to have wandered into platonic dualism. I assume that is not what you meant but by putting Satan centre stage that is what you have done and so, as the early Church Fathers decided, put you outside of orthodox Christianity.

I'm not expecting anyone to accept my POV just to acknowledge that the issues are too complex for models to be dismissed to lightly.

You make some hefty assumptions on the basis of some slender evidence in your eagerness to exclude not just models but actual human beings, Johnny S. There is nothing light about my dismissal of PSA, it is vigorous, hearty and the result of decades of attention to exegetical, doctrinal and historical matters.

You obviously forget that many of the 'early church fathers' you refer to (I have Irenaus in mind especially) by no means confuse Christ's victory over the powers with a crass dualism. It takes eyes dazzled and sensibilities blunted by systematically distorted thinking to do that to a person.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Johnny

Yes, it is interesting where this long discussion is now going. I haven't checked back to see whether it has been here (or close) before.

CV and SA (I'll get back to the P) can only be properly understood when they take their place in the kerygma (proclamation, announcement, preaching). They do not stand on their own as in any way sole repositories of the kerygma. Earlier in the thread I remember a quote found (it might have been by me) from Tom Wright, who observed that his gentle and wise teacher at vicar college had himself observed "the story is not complete without PSA". And I think that is right.

I do think that the local church I grew up in (it has changed a lot in this respect) basically discounted the CV atoms in the NT because the then leadership was convinced that PSA was "it". Quite hard for me personally, because the truth of the resurrection was the open door that drew me in.

But there is no way I can throw away SA. Deep within me, something resonates. The combination of words and music with which Handel expresses "All we like sheep have gone astray and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" tells me something absolutely vital about the human condition and salvation. The hurrying, scurrying music of the straying sheep slows dramatically to the final stark statement - and truth is revealed.

I think you and I sing a lot from the same hymn sheet, but I am uncomfortable about the "P" in PSA. We're right at the expiation-propitation point here. Expiation is about effecting changes in us, propitiation about changing God. The "P" implies a change in God. I guess leo is right - that might be the ongoing discussion in this long thread, really. The problem is that I've met a lot of folks frightened by their own shadows by the effects of an overemphasis on PSA, and the consequent wedding in their minds of divine holiness and "angry punishing God". They've never really "got" God as Abba - and that can't be right either.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
There is nothing light about my dismissal of PSA, it is vigorous, hearty and the result of decades of attention to exegetical, doctrinal and historical matters.

You obviously forget that many of the 'early church fathers' you refer to (I have Irenaus in mind especially) by no means confuse Christ's victory over the powers with a crass dualism.

I'm sure such a great man will not be bothered that after all those decades of study you can't even spell his name correctly. [Biased]

But if you have read Irenaeus, then you will know that he did not set Christ's victory over Satan centre stage.

Also you will know that what we have of his writings were in response to others and therefore hard to draw conclusions from about his systematic thinking.

Indeed, even then, there are many passages which seem to weave CV and PSA together. e.g.

“And therefore in the last times the Lord has restored us into friendship through His incarnation, having become 'the Mediator between God and men'; propitiating indeed for us the Father against whom we had sinned, and cancelling (consolatus) our disobedience by His own obedience; conferring also upon us the gift of communion with, and subjection to, our Maker. For this reason also He has taught us to say in prayer, 'And forgive us our debts'; since indeed He is our Father, whose debtors we were, having transgressed His commandments.” Against Heresies, V.xvii.i "

(Obviously whether we translate as 'propitiation' or 'expiation' is key, but nevertheless there is sacrifcial language here.)

quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
It takes eyes dazzled and sensibilities blunted by systematically distorted thinking to do that to a person.

Quite. [Roll Eyes]

This is, IMHO, the mistake Aulen makes. He is right to recognise CV so clearly here, but wrong to try to expunge PSA from him entirely.

Still, that is what systematically distorted thinking can do to you. [Razz]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think you and I sing a lot from the same hymn sheet, but I am uncomfortable about the "P" in PSA. We're right at the expiation-propitation point here. Expiation is about effecting changes in us, propitiation about changing God. The "P" implies a change in God. I guess leo is right - that might be the ongoing discussion in this long thread, really. The problem is that I've met a lot of folks frightened by their own shadows by the effects of an overemphasis on PSA, and the consequent wedding in their minds of divine holiness and "angry punishing God". They've never really "got" God as Abba - and that can't be right either.

Yes, this is pretty close to where I am.

The thing about expiation for me is still that (ISTM) it collapses into dualism. It lets God off the hook but leaves it hanging where 'judgment' comes from. If it is built into the fabric of the universe then didn't God create it this way in the first place?

Expiation sounds good but, for me, it creates more problems than it solves.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Johnny

Good point mate - I'm off out and will pick up later
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
Thanks, Johnny S. Your wry humour has given me some very pleasant and heart-warming chuckles on a cold afternoon. [Smile] And I'm sure that you are right about Irenaeus' ability to tolerate a mis-spelling of his name by a rough and careless barbaros such as myself. You are also right about how much hangs on our translation and understanding of hilasterion Morris was generally awarded the laurels over Dodd in that debate in the fifties, but it is no doubt time to revisit it.

I am far more interested, however, in your contention that CV models are more wedded to the spirit of the present age (in a bad way) than are more strictly Anselmian reconstructions. Do you care to elaborate?
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But if you have read Irenaeus, then you will know that he did not set Christ's victory over Satan centre stage.

[brick wall]

That's because both psa and cv are later developments that have little to do with the gospel [Waterworks]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:

I am far more interested, however, in your contention that CV models are more wedded to the spirit of the present age (in a bad way) than are more strictly Anselmian reconstructions. Do you care to elaborate?

Actually, I agree that most Anselmian reconstructions are wedded to modernity and so I'm not playing Anselm off against Aulen.

Also, I am advocating that it is (mostly) a good thing that CV rides the wave of contemporary western culture.

However, cultural aspects that I think CV wrongly reinforces are:

- 'Hand waving'. That was Talitha's description when she started this thread way back in the mists of time.

There is mystery in the cross. No model will ever adequately explain what is a mystery. However, appeals to mystery can be a cop out when they amount to sweeping things under the carpet. This, ISTM, modern writers sometimes do with God's righteous anger against sin.

- abdication of responsibility. Between my genes and society there is no longer any room for personal responsibility. (NB by personal I do not mean individual.)

The cry of today is thus - "I'm more sinned against than sinning." A cry that is echoed in some CV models where Satan is my ultimate enemy rather than my own rebellion against God.

Anyway, that is just a start.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But there is no way I can throw away SA. Deep within me, something resonates. The combination of words and music with which Handel expresses "All we like sheep have gone astray and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" tells me something absolutely vital about the human condition and salvation.

Me too although to be fair I don't see this as necessarily leading to PSA, nor even all the way to Anselm.

As none of us (at least, I rather suspect none of us) think iniquity/sin is something real in the sense of a substance that can be transferred from one person to another as though you could carry it in a bucket, I take such language as meaning the responsibility for dealing with sin which is either the cause of our alienation from God or the separation itself, was laid on Christ.

This is of course compatible with all major theories of atonement. I'm not arguing against PSA here.

Something struck me about this whole debate a while back. Dualism is often raised - as Johnny just has - as an objection to the ransom theory. Well, surely anyone that believes in the existence of Satan as an evil entity with any sort of influence in this world has to ask why God does not simply bar him from the universe or obliterate him by fiat. In fact that same question must be asked of any evil and the answer it seems to me, inadequate though is is, must be that he permits Satan/evil to exist for a higher purpose.

In ransom theory, Satan as the one who has the right (or at least the permission of God) to punish offenders, is directly analogous to the side of God that demands sin be punished, in PSA. So if ransom theory is dualist, isn't PSA saying God is set against himself? I suspect a lot of the problems here are answered by St Paul's discussion of the purpose and nature of the law in Romans.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:

That's because both psa and cv are later developments that have little to do with the gospel [Waterworks]

[brick wall] That's like saying gravity didn't exist before 1687.

As I keep saying, we are discussing models here Andreas. The question is which models most accurately explain the gospel.

Whenever anyone (yes, even the Orthodox) seek to explain the gospel then the moment they use an analogy or even select verses from scripture they are adopting a model. Everybody does it (yes, even the Orthodox) so let's just get on with discussing them. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Something struck me about this whole debate a while back. Dualism is often raised - as Johnny just has - as an objection to the ransom theory. Well, surely anyone that believes in the existence of Satan as an evil entity with any sort of influence in this world has to ask why God does not simply bar him from the universe or obliterate him by fiat. In fact that same question must be asked of any evil and the answer it seems to me, inadequate though is is, must be that he permits Satan/evil to exist for a higher purpose.

Good question GF.

I've got to go. So just a quick though here.

If Satan is 'just' a creature then why can't God treat him like any other creature - i.e. he loves him and longs to share heaven with him but can only do that through repentance and cleansing of sin?

That is the narrow gate through which all must pass to enter eternal life.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:

That's because both psa and cv are later developments that have little to do with the gospel [Waterworks]

[brick wall] That's like saying gravity didn't exist before 1687.

As I keep saying, we are discussing models here Andreas. The question is which models most accurately explain the gospel.

Whenever anyone (yes, even the Orthodox) seek to explain the gospel then the moment they use an analogy or even select verses from scripture they are adopting a model. Everybody does it (yes, even the Orthodox) so let's just get on with discussing them. [Roll Eyes]

That's very frank, Johnny S.

My frustration stems from this debating of models, because I do not accept as valid this way of doing theology, this speculative theology, and this model-making.

I have seen people speaking about the model of Christus Victor, others speaking about the model of PSA, some, to a slight degree, speaking about the model of ransom, and I expressed my view against all those models, without erecting a new model in their place.

The way I see it, they are all very human things, and it is a mistake to begin with human thoughts when dealing with the gospel.

Of course, you will rightly say, that isn't that what we all do? I mean, aren't we supposed to be doing that, because there is no other way?

Well, I think that there is another way, and that we are not supposed to be debating on these terms.

Which is why I don't think that "getting on with discussing the models" is the right thing to do. I don't think it will get us anywhere! What I think it might get us somewhere is some meta-discussion about the presuppositions of this debate, and this is what I'm trying to do with this post.

I feel reluctant making this post, because I don't know if it will be any help... But I don't know what else to say... This debates rolls easily between you guys, but as an Orthodox there isn't much I can say here because I don't share all those presuppositions you do.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
What I think (it) might get us somewhere is some meta-discussion about the presuppositions of this debate, and this is what I'm trying to do with this post.


Well, you could always start a new thread designed to discuss at a different level the presuppositions that you see (and what, presumably, you find counter-productive in them. Not everyone is up to that level of abstraction, but you'll probably find a few who are.

For the rest of us, the current framework of the discussion in this long-running thread is still working. As you observe, we seem to be able to share ideas easily enough and we're finding the exchanges make sense. I think the level of debate has shifted several times over the past year anyway, but you may be thinking "meta-discussion" on a different level to anything discussed so far. It'll be interesting to see what you say.

BTW, my wife and I both listened to the link you provided and found it helpful. (Without necessarily agreeing with all of the points made, of course). A gentle and thoughtful man; I think I'll try to get his book for a more detailed read of his ideas.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
My view is still that God didn't give the system of sacrifice and doesn't need it (Jeremiah etc.), but because it's a Passover the idea of even PSA could be included for the individual according to his need for it, but I'd never thought about that 'need' except in general terms of taking people out of blood sacrifice. I don't know where I'm going with this but I'm reminded of it because I've just read a piece on animal sacrifice of the Jews which says:

quote:
(The Value of Animal Sacrifices)
The institution of animal sacrifice allows us to confront our deepest subconscious urges and needs.
By Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson


Sefer Vayikra, the Book of Leviticus, is at the center of the Torah, not only spatially, but also spiritually. More than any other single book, Vayikra sets the tone and establishes the central themes of biblical and rabbinic Judaism throughout the ages.

...

For Judaism to be able to assist us in living, it must reflect all life. Judaism must be the haven in which we can safely channel and express the entire range of human impulses and drives, confront our own subconscious, relive our own past, face and share our deepest anxieties. If it cannot be at least this, then it is nothing.



Sacrifice horrifies and stuns precisely because it embodies so many subconscious drives and terrors. We need not reinstitute sacrifice to be able to benefit from recalling this ancient practice in the safe context of a worship service. Are you afraid of death? Confront it by reading about sacrifice. Are you ridden with guilt? Represent and conquer your guilt in the Yom Kippur ritual of the scapegoat and sacrifice.



Our ancestors turned to animal sacrifice because they saw in it a way to express deep rage, feelings of inadequacy and guilt. They could use the rite of sacrifice as a means of facing their terror of death and the unknown. They could, through sacrifice of animals, see their own frailty, their own mortality, and their own bloodiness.



In our age, a period of sanitized religion and everyday violence, escalating drug abuse and rising poverty, the practice of our ancestors has something yet to teach. And so we read Sefer Vayikra, and learn to see our fears in the eyes of an animal going to the slaughter, in the cries of the victims of sacrifice.

What he is suggesting is, in imagination, to follow the sacrifices at the appropriate times in the yearly cycle as they were held in the Temple before its destruction and at Yom Kippur, because he sees this as a need in man.

I thought I agreed with Maimonides in this which I'd read first, that sacrifice was something acquired by the Jews in a journey to non-sacrifice: (The Role Of Sacrifices)Sacrifices allow us to reach out to God using our physical and emotional drives. By Rabbi Steven Weil), and not with Weil until I read the first I posted here which, after initially confirming my abhorrence for the whole idea of sacrifice, made we wonder if the rabbi didn't have a point.

Perhaps that need, if there is such a thing, is perpetual if Christ set in place in response the crucifixion and eucharist to it. Coming out as it did from a society deeply steeped in all the nuances of animal sacrifice to atone for guilt and so on there isn't, probably, any variation missing in the variety of form and reasons for sacrifice.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
My view is still that God didn't give the system of sacrifice and doesn't need it (Jeremiah etc.),

Myrrh, if you are going to persist with this line of reasoning please answer my post way back on April 27th.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
They're certainly not taking everything written in the Torah as coming from God and Jeremiah particularly goes against "And Moses said, Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the LORD our God." by saying "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you."

Yes Myrrh, we have talked about this before, which is why I can't see why you have brought it up again.

A few chapters later in Jeremiah 17 we have this picture of what God does require:

"People will come from the towns of Judah and the villages around Jerusalem, from the territory of Benjamin and the western foothills, from the hill country and the Negev, bringing burnt offerings and sacrifices, grain offerings, incense and thank offerings to the house of the LORD."

Jeremiah 17: 26

So, two options:

1. Jeremiah was so mentally retarded that he (or the final redactor of the book) could not spot the complete contradiction.

or ...

2. Jeremiah was not contradicting God's commands about sacrifice but criticising the Israelite abuse of sacrifice.

You choose.


 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
Then why did Jesus say (twice) to the sacrifice and purity mad Pharisees 'Go and learn what this means, "mercy I desire and not sacrifice" (Mt 9:13; 12:7, quoting, of course, from Hosea 6:6)?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Then why did Jesus say (twice) to the sacrifice and purity mad Pharisees 'Go and learn what this means, "mercy I desire and not sacrifice" (Mt 9:13; 12:7, quoting, of course, from Hosea 6:6)?

Whatever else Jesus means here the context makes it clear on both occasions that he is not talking about literally animal sacrifices.

In Matthew 9 he seems to have in mind ritual purity laws and in Matthew 12 it is to do with Sabbath observance.

So the point is about not letting Torah observance getting in the way of mercy. I don't see any reference to the sacrificial system here.

...if Jesus was arguing over the temple sacrifices themselves you might have a point!
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
[. You changed (quite possibly inadvertently) the goalposts a few posts back when you started saying that we need to respond in order for the soteriological transaction to take place. Before that, the question was different. It was the claim that Christ needed to suffer our punishment before God would forgive us (or in your terms, offer forgiveness). The two questions are not related although oddly people keep claiming they are, that is, that without PSA all soteriological models are universalist. This is just not the case.

I'm not arguing that a response from us is not required. I'm rather arguing that if Christ was acting according to the will of the Father, the Father's desire was for us to be saved from the consequences of our sin before atonement was made - and under the basic PSA model we're back to the paradox of a judge who personally forgives but is held to a higher authority and therefore cannot.

OK That Christ ingiving up his life, acted according to God's will is a given as is the Father's desire for us to be saved.

The sticking point as always is what applies or activates the benefit of the cross. and further why there is in fact a benefit from it at all.

Forgiveness is the mechanism by which God restores one to himself. However, that is where we must leave agreement I fear, since it is my view that forgiveness cost Christ his life since sin was keeping us from its benefit until Christ died.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Piers Plowman
I am far more interested, however, in your contention that CV models are more wedded to the spirit of the present age (in a bad way) than are more strictly Anselmian reconstructions. Do you care to elaborate?

Yes, I'm puzzled by this, too, Piers. I think that I would say that CV is increasingly appreciated because it is so profoundly counter-cultural. It's not merely that, in modern society, people have difficulty in escaping from a "tit for tat" morality, nor yet the idea that forgiveness would be a nice idea, but is impractical, true though both those statements are. Rather it is the fact that forgiveness is seen as weakness, even a moral fault, that the only resolution to wrong is not, as the Gospel declares, love, but violence. I cannot see how anyone could regard CV-like values as anything other than deeply subversive.

Of course, it always has been subversive, but that subversiveness is at least as plain now as it has ever been.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Johnny, I'm not convinced any atonement model is transactional in the sense you mean and PSA is no exception. There are two parts in any atonement model, it seems to me.

1. How are the gates of heaven opened?
2. How do we walk through them?

The penal substitutionary bits of PSA are to do with part 1. The moral guilt problem (thanks for that phrase, JJ) is the barrier to our salvation that Christ has removed for us by taking responsibility for our sins and paying for them with his passion and with his life itself on the cross. Part 2 is a separate question - what must we

Similarly for CV, the enemy that bars the way to eternal life is death (=sin =Satan) and Christ defeats that in his own death and resurrection. Atonement is complete, the gates of heaven are open,

I'm probably missing something important, but I can't see it.

Isn't that the problem of the whole 59 pages? What I'm missing is How death is actually defeated.

Could you say that death is defeated as a by product of the defeat of sin. And sin is defeated because a life was given for it. A perfect life, a sinless life.

The problem has never been death, it has always been sin that is the barrier between man and God and God and man
 
Posted by piers ploughman (# 13174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Then why did Jesus say (twice) to the sacrifice and purity mad Pharisees 'Go and learn what this means, "mercy I desire and not sacrifice" (Mt 9:13; 12:7, quoting, of course, from Hosea 6:6)?

Whatever else Jesus means here the context makes it clear on both occasions that he is not talking about literally animal sacrifices.

In Matthew 9 he seems to have in mind ritual purity laws and in Matthew 12 it is to do with Sabbath observance.

So the point is about not letting Torah observance getting in the way of mercy. I don't see any reference to the sacrificial system here.

...if Jesus was arguing over the temple sacrifices themselves you might have a point!

I think God's opinion of the Temple sacrificial system was made entirely clear in 70 CE, don't you?

And it sounds as though I'm not the only one who would appreciate a clearer and more elaborate adumration of your contention that the CV 'model' is wedded to the spirit of the age and soon to be widowed.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally quoted by Johhny S
If Satan is 'just' a creature then why can't God treat him like any other creature - i.e. he loves him and longs to share heaven with him but can only do that through repentance and cleansing of sin?

Well, of course that is what some ultimate reconciliationist hope(d) for, notably, I think, Origen.

But we are really only in the realms of speculation here. The bible doesn't teach us unequivically about Satan's origin. We can say he was a creature, because, the Godhead aside, all things were created. What it means to be "just" a creature, I really don't feel there is evidence enough for any of us to pronounce upon.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Johnny, I'm not convinced any atonement model is transactional in the sense you mean and PSA is no exception. There are two parts in any atonement model, it seems to me.

1. How are the gates of heaven opened?
2. How do we walk through them?

The penal substitutionary bits of PSA are to do with part 1. The moral guilt problem (thanks for that phrase, JJ) is the barrier to our salvation that Christ has removed for us by taking responsibility for our sins and paying for them with his passion and with his life itself on the cross. Part 2 is a separate question - what must we

Similarly for CV, the enemy that bars the way to eternal life is death (=sin =Satan) and Christ defeats that in his own death and resurrection. Atonement is complete, the gates of heaven are open,

I'm probably missing something important, but I can't see it.

Isn't that the problem of the whole 59 pages? What I'm missing is How death is actually defeated.

Could you say that death is defeated as a by product of the defeat of sin. And sin is defeated because a life was given for it. A perfect life, a sinless life.

The problem has never been death, it has always been sin that is the barrier between man and God and God and man

Well, I would agree with you right up to the last line - and then you stand the argument directly on its head. No, the problem is not sin, the problem is, and has always been death, the corruption and ultimate decay/destruction of creatures whom God loves, and so to reconcile the universe to Himself. Of course, sin is the root of that problem, that decay, and so its effects must be undone, but the aim of the atonement is to destroy death, and thus bring all God's children to eternal life. Again, let's use that medical metaphor. Is the purpose of an oncologist to destroy cancer, or is it to bring the sufferer to full health? I submit it is the latter, though in order to accomplish it, she must do the former.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
I think God's opinion of the Temple sacrificial system was made entirely clear in 70 CE, don't you?

Yes, and interestingly the book of Hebrews can make the same point about the old covenant (with its sacrificial system) being obsolete while still affirming the sacrifice of Jesus.


quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
And it sounds as though I'm not the only one who would appreciate a clearer and more elaborate adumration of your contention that the CV 'model' is wedded to the spirit of the age and soon to be widowed.

[Confused] You haven't commented on the two examples I gave yet?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
There are two parts in any atonement model, it seems to me.

1. How are the gates of heaven opened?
2. How do we walk through them?


Isn't that the problem of the whole 59 pages? What I'm missing is How death is actually defeated.

The problem has never been death, it has always been sin that is the barrier between man and God and God and man

No, the problem is not sin, the problem is, and has always been death, the corruption and ultimate decay/destruction of creatures whom God loves, and so to reconcile the universe to Himself. Of course, sin is the root of that problem,
I would say the problem is far simpler than that. Both the problem and its solution are precisely analogous to virtually all the problems that we encounter.

When something is wrong you:
It's all about information and its application.

The solution to every problem is the successful application of superior information.

In this case, humanity's collective decision to serve itself rather than serve God gave rise to issues that would eventually destroy the human race unless something were done.

All God really did in response was to provide the information necessary to allow humanity to reverse its decision of its own free will.

This is solving the problem.

The fact that it takes a long time and is not yet complete should not be an issue to anyone who has ever studied the complexities of societal change.

I think that if we understand the simplicity of this overall pattern it makes it easier to grapple with underlying issues such as:
If we understand that this is just about restoring a system to working order just like restoring any kind of system to working order, these questions aren't that hard to answer. It's not that mysterious.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
My view is still that God didn't give the system of sacrifice and doesn't need it (Jeremiah etc.),

Myrrh, if you are going to persist with this line of reasoning please answer my post way back on April 27th.
Sorry, must have missed it in the coming and going. Will take a look, although it will probably be a couple of days before I can get back to it.


quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:


Yes Myrrh, we have talked about this before, which is why I can't see why you have brought it up again.

I brought it up because I'd only just read it, and it made me think more about what I meant by 'need'.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

...these questions aren't that hard to answer. It's not that mysterious.

Go on then. Why was Christ's death not just 'something that happened' but rather an active part of God's plan - a la Acts 2: 23?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
My view is still that God didn't give the system of sacrifice and doesn't need it (Jeremiah etc.),

Myrrh, if you are going to persist with this line of reasoning please answer my post way back on April 27th.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
They're certainly not taking everything written in the Torah as coming from God and Jeremiah particularly goes against "And Moses said, Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the LORD our God." by saying "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you."

Yes Myrrh, we have talked about this before, which is why I can't see why you have brought it up again.

A few chapters later in Jeremiah 17 we have this picture of what God does require:

"People will come from the towns of Judah and the villages around Jerusalem, from the territory of Benjamin and the western foothills, from the hill country and the Negev, bringing burnt offerings and sacrifices, grain offerings, incense and thank offerings to the house of the LORD."

Jeremiah 17: 26

So, two options:

1. Jeremiah was so mentally retarded that he (or the final redactor of the book) could not spot the complete contradiction.

or ...

2. Jeremiah was not contradicting God's commands about sacrifice but criticising the Israelite abuse of sacrifice.

You choose.


I wouldn't choose either. I don't know how both views are in there, Jeremiah, as it's written, swings between the two. It does have the feel of being written by different people sometimes. However, if both were written by Jeremiah I'd say he was capitulating in the second since he's having a go at other practices, again, and here he's saying, look, if only you do this one thing, don't carry burdens on the Sabbath, then the glorious reign of davidic kings will re-appear and sacrifices at the Temple and all.. so, squashed into that it appears to be a strengthening of the pharisaical practices, keeping the Sabbath strictly more important than the commandments. Christ told us what he thought of that.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
  • 3. Why did Christ need to be rejected and murdered?

...these questions aren't that hard to answer. It's not that mysterious.

Go on then. Why was Christ's death not just 'something that happened' but rather an active part of God's plan - a la Acts 2: 23?
The basic plan, according to the Bible, was simply to impart the information needed for humanity to change its ways. This goal and means is stated repeatedly in both the Old Testament and the New. This is the central reason why Christ is the Word of God.

Christ's rejection and death are partly nothing more than an extreme enactment, or fulfilment, of what people had been doing all along - rejecting the Word of God.

In this world this had the effect of bringing secret evils into the light. So the gospels shine a light on the fact that God came into the world and we rejected and killed Him. Christians have responded to this news by accepting this message and adopting Christ's teachings as the truth.

But the more powerful effect of this action is something that we aren't aware of, although the gospels speak openly about it. This is that all people in this physical world are surrounded by angels and others in the spiritual world. The effect of Christ's work, and of His crucifixion, on them was many times greater than the effect on people in the world. It had the effect of exposing and subduing the hosts of hell which are called the devil and satan. It broke the gates of hell. It spiritually liberated humanity from the oppression of the powerful hells that surrounded each person.

All of this, though, is really nothing more than the effect of information - the effect of Christ's words and actions as recorded in Scripture.

It is not quite as simple and direct as saying that God spoke and people changed - but almost.

It is, rather, that God spoke repeatedly in different ways. Humanity consistently rejected the message, except for a few. But eventually the Word was too powerful. It could not be destroyed or denied. It gained power, and is gaining it still.

The mechanism is that people can and will learn to be different. Humanity is progressing, and information is the driver.

This is what Jesus said time and time again. All the metaphors revolve around this theme. God came into the world as the Word of God. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness cannot extinguish it.

[ 10. June 2008, 01:20: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This is what Jesus said time and time again. All the metaphors revolve around this theme. God came into the world as the Word of God. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness cannot extinguish it.

While John's gospel comes close to salvation being just a message, John does qualify that. The gospel writers saw the good news being about both what Jesus said and what he did...

e.g. "The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
Mark 1: 1

(Mark obviously saw all 16 chapters (of both word and deed) as the gospel.)

Likewise the disciples were keen to pass on not only the words of Jesus but the 'event' too.

e.g. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life."
1 John 1: 1

So, all in all, you have explained the message of the cross, but you still haven't explained the event - what did God do at the cross?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I wouldn't choose either. I don't know how both views are in there, Jeremiah, as it's written, swings between the two. It does have the feel of being written by different people sometimes.

Whether it was all written by Jeremiah or not, the final redactor obviously saw the book as one unit which we have to deal with.

I don't understand your approach to it though - you seem to be saying that you accept the bits that fit your theory and reject the bits that don't.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
so, squashed into that it appears to be a strengthening of the pharisaical practices, keeping the Sabbath strictly more important than the commandments. Christ told us what he thought of that.

Where does Jesus say that God does not require sacrifice? (As opposed to his ministry bringing the on going need for sacrifice to an end?)

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus has a wonderful opportunity to make the point you want him to in Matthew 5: 21-27 when discussing bringing a gift to the altar. There he makes the point that the sacrifice is useless if detached from genuine heart repentance. However, he does not say that the sacrifice itself is pointless, or not what God really wants.

"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift."

If Jesus taught what you say he did, then why does he not even allude to it here?

I have to say that it comes across to me that there is a large disjuncture between what you wish were in the text and what is actually there.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
As I see it, the big problem with the issue of sacrifice is that the word carries with it all sorts of associations, some of which are true to the scriptures, and some of which are not. Common useage of the word, (probably as common now as in the aincient middle east) is the concept of propitiation - basically a bribe directed towards God. "God's in a bad mood because of our sins, let's cook some lamb for him, the smell will make the Divine glands salivate. This is sometimes found in the OT, but not from God's perspective, and where it is found, the scriptural writers are keen to rebut it. The most obvious example is Abraham and Isaac. God confronts Abraham's cultural assumptions of the meaning of sacrifice.

I think I have said before on this thread that ther purpose of sacrifice in the OT is always to point the people back towards the covenant. The covenant was sealed (like many vassal treaties in the AME) with a sacrifice. The purpose of the ongoing sacrificial sacrifice ministry is to point people back to the initial sovereign choosing, by God, of the Jewish people, and point them forward to the completion in the Messiah. It had nothing to do with placating an angry God. That was an essentially pagan notion. In as much as it threw the people back onto grace, the undeserved choosing of Abraham from amongst the nations, it was efficatious in effecting a change in them (expiation, if you like). It not so much made the people acceptable to God, rather it put an already acceptable people in a place where they were able to access the grace that was already offered. In as much as it did not fulfil that purpose, sacrifice was just an empty religious service, accomplishing nothing. The covenant was what mattered.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
While John's gospel comes close to salvation being just a message, John does qualify that. The gospel writers saw the good news being about both what Jesus said and what he did...

Yes, it is about the message and the fulfilment of the message. The solution to every problem is not just the information about how to fix it, but actually fixing it.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So, all in all, you have explained the message of the cross, but you still haven't explained the event - what did God do at the cross?

He enacted the carrying out of the message, which Jesus spoke of as obedience to the Father. The heart of the message is that the human preference of worldly over heavenly things must be reversed. The worldly must be sacrificed in favor of the heavenly. Jesus reversed it to the extreme point of allowing His own physical death, fulfilling this sacrifical theme.

What God did at the cross was finish the work of encountering and overcoming all of the hellish forces that gave worldly and self-centered desires priority over heavenly ones. Jesus stated repeatedly that this was what He was doing. All the metaphors about sacrifices, offerings, and ransom are about reversing these priorities. Not that the physical world is in any way evil, but that God's design is for the material to serve the spiritual, not vice versa.

The mechanism at work at the cross is the same one that operates with anyone who struggles to change a habit or overcome an addiction.

Addictions are hard to overcome because a physical dependence is reinforced by a person's unseen inner spiritual associations. They combine to intensify your desires and prevent you from changing. But if you can successfully refrain from the compulsion, a day at a time, its force grows gradually weaker. The reason that it becomes weaker is that God changes your inner environment as you change your behavior. It works especially well if you actively seek God's help, as twelve-step groups have shown over the years.

This mechanism on the cross meant that Jesus was encountering all of the hellish forces that would cause Him to value His physical life ahead of the life of the spirit. The desire for life itself is the most central of all physical desires. Willingly sacrificing His life broke the power of these forces so completely that all of humanity was liberated by it. This is because He was God Himself. Not that the cross by itself did this, but it did it as the culmination of all of Christ's work, which He refers to numerous times in the gospels.

So it is not just the message but the fulfilment of the message. This is why the gospels harp so frequently on the theme of fulfilling the Scriptures. The divine truth itself needed to be applied to the problem. The problem was the priority that humanity gave to worldly things like riches and power, instead of to heavenly things like loving God and the neighbor.

The cross, then, did two things:
These two effects of the cross are not that difficult to understand, in my opinion, and they are fairly clearly laid out in Scripture. It is also common sense that information is central to the task of solving earth's problems.

Still, the details of how Christ did this can be confusing. The numerous metaphors employed throughout the Bible are devices to explain these details in simple, tangible ways. They are designed to be unpacked as a person grows in their understanding of the real message. Unfortunately, they can also be misconstrued, as I believe has happened with PSA.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
This is sometimes found in the OT, but not from God's perspective, and where it is found, the scriptural writers are keen to rebut it.

That's a strange thing to say JJ.

All anyone would have to do is cite examples in the OT where it is not rebutted (e.g. Leviticus ... all of it) and your argument falls down.


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The most obvious example is Abraham and Isaac. God confronts Abraham's cultural assumptions of the meaning of sacrifice.

[Confused] Child sacrifice yes, animal sacrifice no.

I think you've been reading too much Steve Chalke. [Biased]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

But what did Jesus' death and resurrection achieve on a physical level? And, more importantly, how is that connected to what he achieved on a spiritual level?
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
JJ and Johnny,

Sorry to wade into this ueber-long thread again but I found what JJ said very interesting.

I've been doing some background reading about notions of expiation/propitiation as well as the usage of the term 'hilasterion' along with the meanings behind OT covenantal sacrifice.

I agree with JJ that the dynamic of OT sacrifice (as well as the usage of hilasterion in the LXX as well as in the NT, tying in with it's Hebrew term) points away from propitiating an angry God (which fits more with pagan perceptions of the deities) towards restoring communion between Man and God via a cleansing (and thus expiating) of human Sin begun in repentance.

I know the usage of the terms are subtle but I see OT sacrifice (at least that detailing with sin offerings) as providing the repentant human a means of 'washing away' the stain of Sin and making oneself able to be in the company of a Holy God. Implicit within this dynamic (repentance-expiation) is that the Sin no longer remains and that the person has, thus, entered into increased holiness themself. Thus (to pick up other language) sanctification is synonymous with Atonement. The approach that makes Atonement an act of turning away a wrathful God from a sinful person (who remains sinful none-the-less) turns out to be a exercise in pure fiction (God declaring someone to be what they are not) and leads to a separation between sanctification and Atonement, which has led to the notion of Justification (legal fiction) THEN Sanctification (the outworking).

Christ's shed blood doesn't just provide a covering to hide our Sin from God, but is the means of cleansing from Sin, so that being Holy and being declared 'Just' are synonymous. Without holiness (beginning with repentance) there is no Atonement. In his broken body our corrupt humanity is destroyed and in his resurrection we are united to a new ontology - a sinless one.

The Cross was where the body was broken, where the blood was shed - and this fits into the prior system of OT covenantal sacrificial thinking, but the Resurrection is a new thing altogether - totally outside the OT sacrifice system, but no less part of how God expiates our Sin. PSA puts all it's weight on the Cross (as do all the sacrificial/satisfaction models) but the data of the NT positively demands a balance shared between the Cross and the Resurrection.

Picking this thinking up within the NT sacramental mindset, the Eucharist has thus taken over from the OT sacrificial offerings summing up the totally (Guilt offering, Thanksgiving offering etc...) of the OT system AND including within it Resurrectional thinking (the new 'soma' of Christ, the wedding feast of the bridegroom and bride - the union between humanity and the new Adam) but - like the OT offerings - still requires repentance to 'make it so'. In fact to approach the chalice without self-examination and repentance is to present oneself, uncleansed, before a Holy God - something which Paul warned the Corinthians about, with very real physical consequences. But this is another topic [Biased]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
This is sometimes found in the OT, but not from God's perspective, and where it is found, the scriptural writers are keen to rebut it.

That's a strange thing to say JJ.

All anyone would have to do is cite examples in the OT where it is not rebutted (e.g. Leviticus ... all of it) and your argument falls down.


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The most obvious example is Abraham and Isaac. God confronts Abraham's cultural assumptions of the meaning of sacrifice.

[Confused] Child sacrifice yes, animal sacrifice no.

I think you've been reading too much Steve Chalke. [Biased]

Are you really contending that the OT supports the notion that the purpose of sacrifice was to turn away God's anger, rather than to point people towards their covenant relationship with God? I'd have thought all that was pretty standard evo fare. If you do hold to the first point of view, then why, in your view, does God require sacrifice?

I'll do some looking up to support my assertion, if you like, but it won't be today.

My point about the issue of Abraham and Isaac is that, leaving aside the issue of Human Sacrifice, it is the mindset that, by in some way denying myself, my hopes, etc, that I can earn God's favour. The point is surely that God has provided the Lamb.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
This is sometimes found in the OT, but not from God's perspective, and where it is found, the scriptural writers are keen to rebut it.

All anyone would have to do is cite examples in the OT where it is not rebutted (e.g. Leviticus ... all of it) and your argument falls down.
Not at all. God does seemingly command sacrifices and burnt offerings in Scripture, but He also points out in numerous places that He is not actually interested in sacrifices but obedience. In Jeremiah He even denies that He ever commanded sacrifces at all:
quote:
Jeremiah 7:21 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: “Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat meat. 22 For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. 23 But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.’ 24 Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but followed the counsels and the dictates of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward. 25 Since the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have even sent to you all My servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them. 26 Yet they did not obey Me or incline their ear, but stiffened their neck. They did worse than their fathers.
27 “Therefore you shall speak all these words to them, but they will not obey you. You shall also call to them, but they will not answer you.

God is interested in obedience, not sacrifices. Sacrifice was a universal worship practice in the ancient world. God merely tolerated it in guiding Israel towards Him. Jesus abolished it. Jesus seems to me to clearly support what JJ says:
quote:
Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Matthew 9:13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

Matthew 12:7 But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.

Mark 12:33 And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

Matthew 16.26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?"

The phrase “what will a man give in exchange for his soul” is a reference to sacrifices, harking back to Micah 6 “shall I give the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”

Animal sacrifice was merely a crude and repugnant ancient worship practice arising from a misunderstanding of the messianic prophecies found in very many ancient religions. Israel's scarificial practices were carefully prescribed so that they were able to symbolize something good. But in themselves they were barbaric and the prophets, who came later, pointed this out.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But what did Jesus' death and resurrection achieve on a physical level? And, more importantly, how is that connected to what he achieved on a spiritual level?

On a physical level they exposed humanity's rejection of God, inspiring them to change their ways. On a physical level the resurrection meant that God Himself was now visible in this world, His truth made clear to those who wish to follow Him. The result is that people can hear and obey Him.

This same process is even more powerful on a spiritual level. The diabolical and satanic desire to destroy God is much less ambiguous than the corresponding human desire. Its exposure and defeat was similarly much more absolute. Similarly, the clarity of the divine truth from the Lord's glorified, resurrected human is much greater with those in heaven. The result is that people can hear and obey Him.

It's all about hearing and obeying God. This is the result of His life, His teaching, His conflicts with the ideas, practices and politics of the day, and His crucifixion and resurrection. People can now hear and obey in a way that they could not before His coming. This is the gospel being preached to all people that they might believe and follow Him, and be saved.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
This is sometimes found in the OT, but not from God's perspective, and where it is found, the scriptural writers are keen to rebut it.

That's a strange thing to say JJ.

All anyone would have to do is cite examples in the OT where it is not rebutted (e.g. Leviticus ... all of it) and your argument falls down.

Do you want to cite some examples then... [Biased]

IIRR it was Moses prayer that caused God to relent.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Wow Richard ... just a few thoughts!? [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Implicit within this dynamic (repentance-expiation) is that the Sin no longer remains and that the person has, thus, entered into increased holiness themself. Thus (to pick up other language) sanctification is synonymous with Atonement. The approach that makes Atonement an act of turning away a wrathful God from a sinful person (who remains sinful none-the-less) turns out to be a exercise in pure fiction (God declaring someone to be what they are not) and leads to a separation between sanctification and Atonement, which has led to the notion of Justification (legal fiction) THEN Sanctification (the outworking).

Christ's shed blood doesn't just provide a covering to hide our Sin from God, but is the means of cleansing from Sin, so that being Holy and being declared 'Just' are synonymous. Without holiness (beginning with repentance) there is no Atonement. In his broken body our corrupt humanity is destroyed and in his resurrection we are united to a new ontology - a sinless one.

Have you really thought through the implications of this fully?

What if this righteousness / holiness is not imparted? (I mean there isn't on going evidence of decrease of sin in your life?) Then your life makes the gospel to be the fiction.

I mean it, this is serious stuff. The more I follow Christ the more aware I become of my sin. According to the gospel you have just outlined that must demonstrate that I am not united with Christ.

I'm not advocating that we can trust in Christ and then live how we please (and I want to stress that) just pointing out the implications of what you are saying. As I look around the worldwide Christian church today you are basically casting doubt over the salvation of about 90% of her.


quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
PSA puts all it's weight on the Cross (as do all the sacrificial/satisfaction models) but the data of the NT positively demands a balance shared between the Cross and the Resurrection.

True PSA does focus much more on the death, but that only shows that other models are needed - it does not, in and of itself, prove anything about PSA.

Equally, you have to come to terms with the fact that Paul is quite happy, on occasions, to glory in the gospel in terms only of Christ's death. Hence if PSA is necessarily a denial of the resurrection so then does Paul.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Sorry Guys, I've got to go soon ... and it is hard work trying to keep up with three of you!

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Are you really contending that the OT supports the notion that the purpose of sacrifice was to turn away God's anger, rather than to point people towards their covenant relationship with God?

Why not both?


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My point about the issue of Abraham and Isaac is that, leaving aside the issue of Human Sacrifice, it is the mindset that, by in some way denying myself, my hopes, etc, that I can earn God's favour. The point is surely that God has provided the Lamb.

[Confused] Exactly. The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Classic PSA.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
On a physical level they exposed humanity's rejection of God, inspiring them to change their ways. On a physical level the resurrection meant that God Himself was now visible in this world, His truth made clear to those who wish to follow Him. The result is that people can hear and obey Him.

Come on Freddy. You are basically saying that it didn't achieve anything objective - it is just the 'message' that counts. [Razz]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Come on Freddy. You are basically saying that it didn't achieve anything objective - it is just the 'message' that counts. [Razz]

You can't really divorce the message from what it accomplishes. Christ came as a light into the world. Whatever was accomplished happened as a result of that light.

It is foolish to say that this didn't do anything objective. All things were created through the Word of the Lord.

In any case, it is more coherent than the PSA response to that question. How is it better to say that the objective accomplishment of the cross is the payment of a debt to the Father? That's just barbaric. Or would you say something else?
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Thus (to pick up other language) sanctification is synonymous with Atonement.

[Overused]

Amazing! That's exactly it! Thank God you put it in those terms!

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I mean it, this is serious stuff. The more I follow Christ the more aware I become of my sin.

And this is very natural... The more sincere we become to ourselves, the more we realize how far we are from God. This is a good thing, because we can begin our repentance. And repentance is a major thing.

In repentance we begin to find ourselves.

This does not mean that a man of God still for example cheats on his wife, or cheats on his clients, or whatever... These things are not his sins. There is sin and there is sin. There are things we must leave behind when we want to follow Christ, and it's no good fooling ourselves that since all are sinful, I, who cheat on my wife, overprice the products I sell, and swear at others when I drive my car, am a Christian. I am not a Christian, and unless I leave these things behind, I cannot begin being one.

That kind of sin is off by definition for the beginning of Christian life. Do you want to keep having your affair? Fine, but not bullshit yourself and Christians that you are a Christian.

Of course, even when these things are off, this does not mean that sin is removed. Far from it, like you said, it is then that we realize how sinful we are.

And as we move on, we find the healing to our passions. Christianity is supposed to bring that healing at some point, to those that sincerely follow Christ's true gospel. But even when the passions are healed, and one does not e.g. see a woman to lust after her any more, or get troubled in his sleep with strange dreams, or when one finds peace during a busy day, or whatever, even then our sin is before us, and we ask even more fervently for God's mercy. Sin becomes equated with createdness, and we pray for the whole Adam, for the entire creation, as if it was for ourselves. We are all one, and those advanced in the Way, literally bear the burden of the whole Universe. And thus they act in an expiatory manner for us.

Expiation does not end with Jesus Christ, but it's something the Saints do too. To the extent, that when there are no more Saints, to bear the burden of the world, the Universe will end. Or, to put it in Apostle Paul's words, the presence of the Saints into the world prevents the Antichrist from appearing, and thus keeps the End away.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
According to the gospel you have just outlined that must demonstrate that I am not united with Christ.

We explained that there is sin and there is sin, but I want to make a further comment on "I'm not united with Christ".

Do you really think you are that special that you are united with Christ? Or that most religious people are?

I pray to God that I do not fall under that trap, and my not being united with Christ be in front of me, because then there is a chance of repentance. If I, and I speak about me personally, think that I'm united with Christ the way I'm supposed to be, then that would render me blind and without the potential of waking up and starting to see my brokenness.

Who am I to be united with Christ? May he grant me repentance, but right now, the best thing, the most beneficial thing to my soul is for me to repent and cry upon God out of the depths of my heart because I'm not united with Christ.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As I look around the worldwide Christian church today you are basically casting doubt over the salvation of about 90% of her.

I will quote elder Sophrony, this great Saint of Orthodoxy. He said that authentic Christianity is not being preached. Of course, he knew by experience what authentic Christianity is, because he was living our God, but that says much imo. To the best of my knowledge, what he said is true.

Of course, that says little about what will happen in Judgment, but it says much about what happens now. If by "casting doubt over the salvation of about 90% of Christianity" you meant what will happen when we get judged, then I don't know, because what will happen then is beyond our understanding, and we shouldn't be thinking in these terms, but of you meant that we do not live salvation now, then yes, we do not live salvation.

For my part, I resonate with something an ancient desert father once said. I read the New Testament, he said, and I find myself back in the Old Testament. This awareness, that I and the wold I live in is pre-Christian I find important. You might disagree with my view, but here it is.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Equally, you have to come to terms with the fact that Paul is quite happy, on occasions, to glory in the gospel in terms only of Christ's death. Hence if PSA is necessarily a denial of the resurrection so then does Paul.

Let's take for example something he wrote in the first epistle to Timothy. I have in mind chapter three, verse sixteen.

Christian piety, according to Paul, is God manifesting in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached unto the Gentiles, trusted in the world, ascended into Glory.

No mention of the crucifixion, yet no less than the wholeness of the mystery of Christian faith!

It's little wonder that in the Credo, when we attribute to Christ our salvation, we do that when we speak about Christ's Incarnation and not the Crucifixion. If things were different, we would have said that he came for us, and was crucified for us men and for our salvation, but we say the exact opposite. Sure, he was crucified for us, this is undeniable, but descended from the Heavens for us and for our salvation. I don't know if it's clear what I mean here...

[ 10. June 2008, 12:37: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Johnny,

Thanks for engaging with my thoughts.

Yes, I have thought through the implications of what I'm saying and am taking scripture seriously when it says, 'Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God' and 'Without Holiness no man can see God' - however...I'm not trying to cast anything on anyone, God alone is the Judge of each person and it is only before Him that we have to give an account. It's not for nothing that we Orthodox say 'Lord have mercy' more than any other phrase!

But...this is also tempered by the knowledge of God and that he is 'good and Loves all mankind', 'slow to anger and quick to show mercy'. Like you, I see increasing Sin in my life and just how deep and pervasive it goes but this doesn't cause despair but an increased desire to be cleansed by God knowing that the mere turning to him is met with a prodigious reception.

This is serious stuff and calls for wise balance - a failure to appreciate the depth of the love of God could tip one into paranoia re: their Sin (?Luther...) but, likewise, a failure to fully understand the nature of, and the way and need to overcome, Sin can lead to the excesses or guilt ladeness of much of what I see in contemporary protestant evangelicalism.

Fortunately I see salvation in terms of a lifelong (and perhaps beyond) process. So the failure of any Christian to show holiness (however we might dare to judge such a condition) is only valid for 'today' and heaven alone knows where the path will lead 'tomorrow'.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Do you really think you are that special that you are united with Christ? Or that most religious people are?

That's more a note to self, rather than a judgement on Johnny S!!!
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Christian piety, according to Paul, is God manifesting in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached unto the Gentiles, trusted in the world, ascended into Glory.

No mention of the crucifixion, yet no less than the wholeness of the mystery of Christian faith!

It's little wonder that in the Credo, when we attribute to Christ our salvation, we do that when we speak about Christ's Incarnation and not the Crucifixion.

That's right. The crucifixion, though vital, is not central to the message. The fact that Christ was rejected is part of the pattern from the beginning. Every prophet was rejected.

The point is not that He was rejected and murdered, but rather that He cannot die and will not be rejected. Our ancestors rejected Him, but our descendants will hear and obey Him. That's the point. The world will be changed.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Sorry Guys, I've got to go soon ... and it is hard work trying to keep up with three of you!

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Are you really contending that the OT supports the notion that the purpose of sacrifice was to turn away God's anger, rather than to point people towards their covenant relationship with God?

Why not both?
Well, for one reason, because it goes against a whole bible's worth of teaching about a changeless and perfectly loving God. It would make us manipulators of God.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My point about the issue of Abraham and Isaac is that, leaving aside the issue of Human Sacrifice, it is the mindset that, by in some way denying myself, my hopes, etc, that I can earn God's favour. The point is surely that God has provided the Lamb.

[Confused] Exactly. The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Classic PSA.
Now, now, John - you know better than that [Disappointed] . Show me any way in which a PSA interpretation of the atonement is favoured over a CV one, based on this passage. CVers consider that Christ is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world as well, as I'm sure you realise . [Two face]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
it is hard work trying to keep up with three of you!

Richard, JJ, and I are all on the same page. Wouldn't it be easier just to come over to our side? [Cool]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Ah, wake up, check my emails and reply to at least 4 people on the CV thread. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
There is sin and there is sin.

No, there is just sin.

Richard please note - this is one direction where your views might take you. Interesting since you are (rightly IMO) concerned about a perceived Protestant antinominism. Yet, this path also leads you to a place where we have to turn a blind eye to sin.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Fortunately I see salvation in terms of a lifelong (and perhaps beyond) process. So the failure of any Christian to show holiness (however we might dare to judge such a condition) is only valid for 'today' and heaven alone knows where the path will lead 'tomorrow'.

Where is the assurance in this? Sounds to me as if you are hoping that God is merciful, but not really sure.

I'm with you all the way (on your post) but actually see a Protestant understanding of salvation much more robust than the one you describe.

So in the book of Hebrews we do see a centred-set (a journey towards God and we will only 'know' when we reach him / the destination). However, elsewhere, e.g. John's gospel, we see a centred-set (the moment I believe I cross over from death to life). The Protestant model can hold both in tension - it may be that I have not understood you (if so, sorry) but I don't see that tension in what you have written so far.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, for one reason, because it goes against a whole bible's worth of teaching about a changeless and perfectly loving God. It would make us manipulators of God.

I meant both at the same time.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Now, now, John - you know better than that [Disappointed] . Show me any way in which a PSA interpretation of the atonement is favoured over a CV one, based on this passage. CVers consider that Christ is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world as well, as I'm sure you realise . [Two face]

Yer, I knew you'd say that. But that is my point. We are stuck in a circular argument. You guys keep claiming that really the bible teaches CV only but then when we look we come up with descriptions that are consonant with both.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Sorry for the quadruple post - I've got to go to work!

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Richard, JJ, and I are all on the same page. Wouldn't it be easier just to come over to our side? [Cool]

“Powerful you have become, the dark side I sense in you.”
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by JohnnyS
We are stuck in a circular argument. You guys keep claiming that really the bible teaches CV only but then when we look we come up with descriptions that are consonant with both.

There's a big difference between "consonant with" and "evidence supporting"; there are many scriptures which it is possible to gloss in a PSA friendly way. The question remains: is such glossing exegesis or eisegesis. You think it's the former, I think it's the latter

And, of course, I don't claim that CV is the only scriptural model. Sacrifice, exemplar, ransom all have their place. Note the omission from my list! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
JJ

Can't remember (and this thread is too long to trace!) how you see substitution and expiation. To get versical

"Its only the 'P'
That's a problem for me".

(Reminder, I owe Johnny a post on expiation/propitiation. Sorry Johnny, I started doing some research on that point and got side tracked. I'll get back).
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
JJ

Can't remember (and this thread is too long to trace!) how you see substitution and expiation. To get versical

"Its only the 'P'
That's a problem for me".


Don't think you could get a cigarette paper between us on that, Barnabas. Love the rhyme, by the way. I'll have to remember that!
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Fortunately I see salvation in terms of a lifelong (and perhaps beyond) process. So the failure of any Christian to show holiness (however we might dare to judge such a condition) is only valid for 'today' and heaven alone knows where the path will lead 'tomorrow'.

Where is the assurance in this? Sounds to me as if you are hoping that God is merciful, but not really sure.
This is no different from Calvinism though in that although a Calvinist may believe that someone may be predestined to heaven, the evidence of that predestination is faith and clearly some people possess faith and then lose it - hardline Calvinists then seem to say that this shows the faith was not saving faith. Seen from within time rather from God's perspective, this means that one's faith is only valid for today. It doesn't matter really whether repentance is evidence of saving faith (Protestant, loosely) or the means through which faith leads to salvation (Orthodox, loosely).

But I think you can take this too far in the other direction. I've been reading Rowan Williams on the desert fathers and he says something like, although the fathers were driven by the belief that it is very possible to lose your faith/salvation (replace with terms appropriate to the terminology of the reader) they were not primarily trying in their ascetic disciplines to bring about their own salvation through self-improvement or even worse self-justification but rather by being constantly reminded of their need for mercy, for the saving presence of God. This self-knowledge leads to a continual true repentance that is salvific and casts out fear because the work of saving/sanctifying has been, is being and will be done by Christ.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
I remember the story of one father, who, when asked how he feels he is going to heaven, he said, "truly, I'm going where Satan was cast". This can be misunderstood in all sorts of ways, but imo the key is that the Saint is able to glorify God, while, at the same time, be without any excuse, in front of the Judge, and accept the just Judgment, with thanksgiving for God. To see oneself beneath the entire creation is key, but to do so in a healthy way (i.e. in grace), and not in a depressed nor in a horrified kind of way.

Like Richard said, it's little surprise that we say Lord have mercy so many times, nor that we use "Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me" as an unceasing prayer. This is a very deep prayer, which ends up being full of thanksgiving, and in solidarity with the whole Adam.

In Orthodox theology we have this expression, charmolype, joysorrow. It's a state of being when one feels sorrow for his personal sin, and for the pain of the world, but at the same time feels the joy the Spirit's presence brings to him. My sin - other's pain (and not sin! we are not to condemn others!) & joy from above.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
Johnny,

Interesting points.

You are right to raise the issue of Assurance. I think the 'quest' for assurance is responsible for many ecclesial and theological movements and theories. In fact it was during my time in NFI, whilst I was part of the preaching team working through a series in Hebrews, that I started to think differently on exactly this topic (with a bit of help from N T Wright!) from the other pastors around me, which set me on the path I've followed.

Life lived without any substantial ('hypostatic' c.f. Heb 12:1) 'hope' would be a desperate existence and we know that God doesn't want us to be without hope, but I would - perhaps - want to push the envelope back a bit and examine just what is the basis of any hope we have.

There is an approach which places our hope in the evidence of a 'moral life', our ability to keep certain commandments. This approach is centered on human will and actions. Yet 'morality' can be quite a slippery concept and oft gives way to 'keeping the rules', which can become legion and include such things as 'which atonement theory are you signed up to?' or 'which church do you attend on Sunday'. We so desire assurance that we create boundaries within which we declare ourselves to be 'in', a declaration that - in turn - reinforces the boundaries and so on in an ever vicious legalistic cycle.

I would suggest that it is THIS approach which leads us to the ignorance of Sin, since as long as we are not being unfaithful to our spouse, driving within the speed limits, not drinking alcohol or smoking, attending church every Sunday and reading the right translation of the bible and holding to the 'right' theology THEN we have 'assurance' (even if we are angry, envious, proud, gossips etc..etc..... [Roll Eyes] ).

Yet the opposite approach is problematic as well where we place everything with God's will and actions. He alone decides who is 'in' and administers salvation at random. However what confidence do we have that we are thus 'in'? What evidence is there that we are one of the chosen? And if salvation is an aorist-tense event what do we do when/if any such evidence is subsequently found to be lacking or neglected? GreyFace made this point well above.

Let's examine a better way..... [Biased]

Taking the lead from scripture I think we need to consider:

1) The way the Spirit provides us with confidence/hope
2) That the text refers to 'synergia', God and Us 'working together'

Firstly the Spirit.

The NT uses the Greek loan word 'Arrabon' (a deposit or engagement ring) to refer to the presence and experience of the Spirit. A down-payment which guarantees the rest of the sum. The presence of the Spirit results in the heartfelt cry 'Daddy!' and intimately unites us as brothers in Christ and children to the Father. An experience of loving relationship which is the sole basis of Christian assurance.

But the text is also clear that it is in humility and true repentance (and self-disclosure) that one 'acquires' the Spirit. God exalts the humble and restores the broken hearted. So the only entry point to authentic confidence is via humility.

However, humility is probably one of the slipperiest virtues to attain - if you aim for it, you end up proud! Instead, it must be attained almost as a 'side effect' of other disciplines - which is the second point we need to examine - that aspect of salvation which require US to work.

Paul is quite clear that we are expected to WORK re: our own salvation but not via any attempts at moralism or possessing better doctrines or theology, instead through acquiring humility. But make no mistake, humiliation (making oneself humble) is the only 'work' we bring to the table - in response God also 'works' to unite us with his Spirit and Son, to exchange our fallen humanity for a corrupt-less one and, thus, to manifest within us His own Holiness.

Humility is hard and often only comes through humbling circumstances - personal failure, radical self-realisation, opposition etc...all things that God can (and does) use to produce his salvation within us.

Make no mistake, pride occurs within every human and within every Church (so the Orthodox are not automatically those who are most humble as should be patently obvious [Votive] ), but - for me - the key issue is whether ones 'tradition' provides means of self-disclosure and radical self-realisation or, instead, reinforces groundless self-justification (through external 'hoops') and, thus, false assurance.

Finally, to drag this over-long response back to the thread in question, it should be clear therefore that ones thinking re: Atonement fundamentally underpins the success in the quest for true assurance.
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I've been reading Rowan Williams on the desert fathers and he says something like, although the fathers were driven by the belief that it is very possible to lose your faith/salvation (replace with terms appropriate to the terminology of the reader) they were not primarily trying in their ascetic disciplines to bring about their own salvation through self-improvement or even worse self-justification but rather by being constantly reminded of their need for mercy, for the saving presence of God. This self-knowledge leads to a continual true repentance that is salvific and casts out fear because the work of saving/sanctifying has been, is being and will be done by Christ.

GreyFace, I didn't see this on my first read so am delighted that Rowan makes essentially the same point as I did. Ascetism is NOT 'earning' ones salvation, but making oneself more open to God's saving Grace. If he didn't respond in free Grace then all the spiritual disciplines in the world would fail.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
There's a big difference between "consonant with" and "evidence supporting"; there are many scriptures which it is possible to gloss in a PSA friendly way. The question remains: is such glossing exegesis or eisegesis. You think it's the former, I think it's the latter

I'm not talking here about proof-texts for PSA, but rather texts that presuppose a world where God the Father has wrath against humanity.

e.g. "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him"
John 3: 36

How do interpret such passages which speak of God's wrath against humanity?

I don't think that the argument is really over PSA per se but rather whether or not God's is angry with sinful people. PSA is merely an attempt to explain the cross once you have answered that question in the affirmative. I think the real issue is wrath (or whatever else you want to call it.)

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
This self-knowledge leads to a continual true repentance that is salvific and casts out fear because the work of saving/sanctifying has been, is being and will be done by Christ.

Are you speaking to me or just trying to admit to yourself that, deep down, you're a Calvinist really? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:

Finally, to drag this over-long response back to the thread in question, it should be clear therefore that ones thinking re: Atonement fundamentally underpins the success in the quest for true assurance.

What can I say, other than my experience of Protestantism is different to yours?

I have found all you say you are looking for in an evangelical protestant expression of faith.

I fully agree with your last point - atonement is essential to assurance. And from your NFI background you will know how central Ephesians 2:1-10 is to popular evangelical doctrine. A passage full of nasssty Calvinistic speak and yet one which climaxes with the claim that we are saved in order to do good works.

As I say, our experience must be different, because what you are reacting against I only recognise as caricatures. I've come across them occasionally but I've never seen them as authentic expressions.

Hey, hang around Orthodoxy long enough and I'm sure you'll spot them there too.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
And from your NFI background you will know how central Ephesians 2:1-10 is to popular evangelical doctrine. A passage full of nasssty Calvinistic speak and yet one which climaxes with the claim that we are saved in order to do good works.

It reminds me of the expession "real presence" as if a presence might not be real. The same with Paul's passage. Paul is speaking about people "actually" getting a new life, and not about people being thought of by God as living a new life, or being imputed with new life... How this is Calvinistic, is beyond me!
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
It reminds me of the expession "real presence" as if a presence might not be real. The same with Paul's passage. Paul is speaking about people "actually" getting a new life, and not about people being thought of by God as living a new life, or being imputed with new life... How this is Calvinistic, is beyond me!

Sigh.

While forensic righteousness is often considered a reformed doctrine it is not really what Calvinism is all about. I was referring to things like total depravity (being dead in our sins) and thus unable to save ourselves ... in need of God's grace. Those kind of things that are in Ephesians 2 and central to Calvinism.

Of course you could have found that out just by googling 'Calvinism'.... so that raises a VERY BIG question - why don't you?
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Richard Collins (# 11515) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
from your NFI background you will know how central Ephesians 2:1-10 is to popular evangelical doctrine. A passage full of nasssty Calvinistic speak

I would say a passage full of Orthodox and Apostolic insight (ole Jean's thoughts came somewhat late in the day [Biased] ).

All teasing aside, I have a lot more time for the Calvinism of Calvin himself (rather than later versions of what 'Calvinism' was [Disappointed] ) and find him a lot more sacramental than most modern evangelicals who go around calling themselves 'Calvinists'.

Which raises a point about exactly 'which' protestantism one is speaking about, since it is pluriform in thought and nature. Unfortunately the caricatures you see are more common than I think you realise (which makes me wonder how 'round the houses' you been in the evangelical movement - honest question, not a jest).

And as for the faults in Orthodoxy, don't worry I have my eyes wide open. One can find representations of it even here on the ship (those who have ears to hear let them hear). Combine that with ethnicism and the assumption that there must have been a Great Entrance at the Last Supper (sorry, 'in' joke) makes for enough pitfalls to avoid. But for all the faults I believe the theology to be wholly more faithful to scripture and more 'joined up'.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:

All teasing aside, I have a lot more time for the Calvinism of Calvin himself (rather than later versions of what 'Calvinism' was [Disappointed] ) and find him a lot more sacramental than most modern evangelicals who go around calling themselves 'Calvinists'.

Yep, it is an irony lost on many that Calvin did not come up with the 5 points of Calvinism. Often the disciples are more zealous than their teacher.

quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Which raises a point about exactly 'which' protestantism one is speaking about, since it is pluriform in thought and nature. Unfortunately the caricatures you see are more common than I think you realise (which makes me wonder how 'round the houses' you been in the evangelical movement - honest question, not a jest).

Fair question. I admit that I've not really got any experience of RC or Orthodoxy... just visiting them while on holiday.

However, I think my experience of Protestantism is pretty varied - Brethren, Baptist Union, Anglican (of liberal, Charismatic and ConEvo flavours), FIEC, Elim, Ichthus, Methodist - and I'm only including churches that I have worshipped at regularly (over a period of time), rather just attending once! As you can see the theme is that they are all 'low' ... sorry!
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
There's a big difference between "consonant with" and "evidence supporting"; there are many scriptures which it is possible to gloss in a PSA friendly way. The question remains: is such glossing exegesis or eisegesis. You think it's the former, I think it's the latter

I'm not talking here about proof-texts for PSA, but rather texts that presuppose a world where God the Father has wrath against humanity.

e.g. "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him"
John 3: 36

How do interpret such passages which speak of God's wrath against humanity?

I don't think that the argument is really over PSA per se but rather whether or not God's is angry with sinful people. PSA is merely an attempt to explain the cross once you have answered that question in the affirmative. I think the real issue is wrath (or whatever else you want to call it.)


I think I agree with you here, John. For you, wrath towards sinners is a manifestation of God's holiness. For me, it is a libel against His nature.

Part of the problem is the use of the word wrath, and the fact that it is commonly held to be synonymous with anger. I don't think this is helpful in understanding how we read the text. A better translation (i.e. one that doesn't carry with it so much baggage) is indignation. I think the meaning carried by such a word is much more nuanced than "anger". It implies, not only a sense of "this should not be so" (which in itself is different from anger) but also, "I am determined to do something to bring about a change in this situation in such a way as to remove the cause of this indignation". Now I think we had this discussion some time ago with Numpty, and I will accept that PSA is (or would be, were it proved to be a scriptural doctrine) consonant with such texts, but I hope that you can see that a non-penal interpretation of these same texts is similarly valid.

The point I am making is that these and similar texts, on their own, are not "killer" texts.

Those who hold, as you do (though tentatively, I suspect) that God is actually, apart from the work of Christ, angry at sinners, and, but for that Work, would ultimately actively destroy them in some manner, have to come to some way of interpreting God's "position", whereby it is possible to hold the view that He can simultaneously perfectly love one of His creatures whilst actively willing that creature's destruction. This seems to me akin to a belief that God can create a square circle, because
by definition to love someone is to want the best for that person. Any attempt to reconcile these two seems, to me, to be mere sophistry.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:

Finally, to drag this over-long response back to the thread in question, it should be clear therefore that ones thinking re: Atonement fundamentally underpins the success in the quest for true assurance.

What can I say, other than my experience of Protestantism is different to yours?

I have found all you say you are looking for in an evangelical protestant expression of faith.

I fully agree with your last point - atonement is essential to assurance. And from your NFI background you will know how central Ephesians 2:1-10 is to popular evangelical doctrine. A passage full of nasssty Calvinistic speak and yet one which climaxes with the claim that we are saved in order to do good works.


I must say, I've never been too convinced that Ephesians 1&2, or even Romans 8 can be used as an argument for "Calvinism". Paul doesn't seem to be talking about people's salvation, but rather how they should live in the light of that salvation. The feel of it seems to me to be "Look, God has a whole set of of things that you, and you alone, can do for Him, and I guess He knows what He is doing, so, however inadequate you feel, get on with it."

I think there are scriptural themes about God's sovereignty and our salvation, but I don't think those passages say anything about them per se.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Those who hold, as you do (though tentatively, I suspect) that God is actually, apart from the work of Christ, angry at sinners, and, but for that Work, would ultimately actively destroy them in some manner, have to come to some way of interpreting God's "position", whereby it is possible to hold the view that He can simultaneously perfectly love one of His creatures whilst actively willing that creature's destruction. This seems to me akin to a belief that God can create a square circle, because
by definition to love someone is to want the best for that person. Any attempt to reconcile these two seems, to me, to be mere sophistry.

I really like how you put this, JJ. It comes near to the heart of the problem with PSA, in my opinion.

It just seems so much simpler to believe that God loves all of humanity, and that the Incarnation is about the fact that humanity was beginning to harm itself, so He intervened. He did this by coming into the world and acting to change human thought and behavior without interfering with human freedom.

Wrath has nothing to do with it.

The Bible describes it as wrath because of our anthropomorphic needs. It is easy for us to understand that God hates and punishes sin, because this is how humans react to harmful things. It is not so easy for a child to understand that the parents want him or her to go to bed because staying up would be harmful. It doesn't seem harmful, so the child mainly responds to the wishes and potential anger of the parents.

But this isn't how God really works. We know this from a careful reading of the Bible. PSA seems to miss this.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Thanks JJ - thoughtful as usual. With your square circle I think we are getting to the heart of the matter.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
"I am determined to do something to bring about a change in this situation in such a way as to remove the cause of this indignation".

But what if the recipient of God's love refuses to let God remove the cause?

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I hope that you can see that a non-penal interpretation of these same texts is similarly valid.

On their own I would agree with you. However, how do all the many references to God's destruction of the wicked fit into your scheme? (As it happens our church is working its way through Revelation at the moment! [Eek!] )


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Those who hold, as you do (though tentatively, I suspect) that God is actually, apart from the work of Christ, angry at sinners, and, but for that Work, would ultimately actively destroy them in some manner, have to come to some way of interpreting God's "position", whereby it is possible to hold the view that He can simultaneously perfectly love one of His creatures whilst actively willing that creature's destruction.

I'm trying not to split hairs here but ( [Big Grin] ) I have never claimed that God actively wills their destruction just that, as you put it, 'he must remove the cause of this indignation.'


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
This seems to me akin to a belief that God can create a square circle, because
by definition to love someone is to want the best for that person. Any attempt to reconcile these two seems, to me, to be mere sophistry.

Which is why I don't try to square circles.

If you will indulge me suddenly having a pious turn - I simply trust in the same Jesus who taught the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 as the Parable of the Tenants in Luke 20.

I can't square circles, but neither can I deny that there are squares and there are circles.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But what if the recipient of God's love refuses to let God remove the cause?

Jesus does seem to account for this. He constantly speaks about those who will hear Him and those who will not hear Him. Different outcomes for each.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I hope that you can see that a non-penal interpretation of these same texts is similarly valid.

On their own I would agree with you. However, how do all the many references to God's destruction of the wicked fit into your scheme? (As it happens our church is working its way through Revelation at the moment! [Eek!] )
What does it matter how many references there are? The idea that God destroys the wicked is universally present in both Testaments. The question is how you understand this idea so as to make it consistent with the similarly ubiquitous statements about God's great love for His creation.

The best way to reconcile this, it seems to me, is to interpret all of the references to God's anger and desire to destroy the wicked as being akin to a loving parent who desires the welfare of a less-than-cooperative child. There is no real anger there. But the child will perceive it as anger.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you will indulge me suddenly having a pious turn - I simply trust in the same Jesus who taught the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 as the Parable of the Tenants in Luke 20.

I can't square circles, but neither can I deny that there are squares and there are circles.

I assume you mean the forgiveness of the prodigal son compared with the harshness towards the one who hid his talent.

Again, the two are perfectly consistent if you assume that God wills nothing but the welfare of both, and that the anger is written into the story because that is how we perceive it.

When the criminal is sentenced he thinks the judge is doing it to him, but he has really done it to himself. It is like someone who jumps off a building and then rails against a God who he perceives as angrily slamming him to the ground.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I assume you mean the forgiveness of the prodigal son compared with the harshness towards the one who hid his talent.

No, that was tenant and not talent.

I was comparing the action of the 'Father' in both parables - forgiveness in one, killing the unrepentant in the other.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is like someone who jumps off a building and then rails against a God who he perceives as angrily slamming him to the ground.

I think they would be more concerned with the 'anger' of the ground than God at that precise moment!

I'm serious. I'm quite happy to go with you on the anthropomorphism angle here, but what are we left with? You've still got God sending the 'wicked' to destruction. What real difference does it make what emotion we attribute to God when he does it?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
No, that was tenant and not talent.

Yes, that's it. Sorry. Anyway, same message.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm quite happy to go with you on the anthropomorphism angle here, but what are we left with? You've still got God sending the 'wicked' to destruction. What real difference does it make what emotion we attribute to God when he does it?

It makes all the difference in the world.

In one case the destruction originates in God - God harms us when we fail to do His will. In the other it originates in man - we harm ourselves when we fail to do His will.

So in the one case we have a God who is angry and wanting to harm us. In the other we have a God who sees us harming ourselves and wants to help us.

Your answer to this comparison in the past has been to point out that God set up the system, so He in effect is the cause of whatever happens. I think that the answer to that is that God set up the best possible system. He realized that allowing for freedom of choice and alternative actions would open up the possibility of imperfection and harmful actions. But this is, in the long run, a better system than one without choices.

So God is not the author of bad choices and their consequences.

Neither is He angry.
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
Barnabas62 drew my attention today to this thread from my safety blanket in Kerygmania.

You were looking at the “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” saying in Hosea 6:6 (and picked up in Matt. 9:13 and 12:7). I was also thinking about that same passage, but in the context of the herem OT rule of war Keryg thread. The two concepts (mercy and sacrifice) being played off here didn't seem to me to fit well in opposition, if the sacrificial system was being referred to. Surely, I thought, something like "unforgiveness" or "hatred" would be better opposed to 'mercy'? Part of the answer for me lies in redefining the Greek word used for 'mercy' (eleos), both in Matthew and the LXX translation of Hosea.

From my reading, I see the context of Hosea 6 in terms of the suzerain-vassal covenant, where loyalty brings protection and disloyalty brings destruction.
quote:

1] “Come on! Let’s return to the Lord!
He himself has torn us to pieces, but he will heal us!
He has injured us, but he will bandage our wounds!
2] He will restore us in a very short time;
he will heal us in a little while,
so that we may live in his presence.
3] So let us acknowledge him!
Let us seek to acknowledge the Lord!
He will come to our rescue as certainly as the appearance of the dawn,
as certainly as the winter rain comes,
as certainly as the spring rain that waters the land.”

4] What am I going to do with you, O Ephraim?
What am I going to do with you, O Judah?
Your faithfulness is as fleeting as the morning mist;
it disappears as quickly as dawn’s dew!
5] Therefore, I will certainly cut you into pieces at the hands of the prophets;
I will certainly kill you in fulfillment of my oracles of judgment;
for my judgment will come forth like the light of the dawn,
6] because I want loyalty, not simply sacrifice;
acknowledging of God, not simply burnt offerings.

7] At Adam they broke the covenant;
Oh how they were disloyal to me!

On this basis, I'd read “sacrifice” and “burnt offerings” (v.6b) as parallel metaphors for “loyal obedience” and “mercy” as “return to loyalty by those in rebellion.” This fits well with the Prodigal Son parable, where the indignation of the obedient and loyal older brother is offset against the return-to-loyalty-from-rebellion younger son. The younger son is equivalent to the 'mercy' and the older to the 'sacrifice' in Hosea.

For what it's worth. Right; I'll tramp back out of Sheol and pop my feet back up in Keryg.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
On this basis, I'd read “sacrifice” and “burnt offerings” (v.6b) as parallel metaphors for “loyal obedience” and “mercy” as “return to loyalty by those in rebellion.” This fits well with the Prodigal Son parable, where the indignation of the obedient and loyal older brother is offset against the return-to-loyalty-from-rebellion younger son. The younger son is equivalent to the 'mercy' and the older to the 'sacrifice' in Hosea.

For what it's worth. Right; I'll tramp back out of Sheol and pop my feet back up in Keryg.

Very nice as always, Nigel. I think that's a great comparison. Thanks. [Overused]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
You are right Freddy. We've been here before and are not really making progress in this area.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that the answer to that is that God set up the best possible system...So God is not the author of bad choices and their consequences.

So God created the world (set up the best possible system) but is not the author of consequences to our actions ... go figure. [Ultra confused]


quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
From my reading, I see the context of Hosea 6 in terms of the suzerain-vassal covenant...

Isn't that what you see everything in the light of Nigel? [Biased]
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
From my reading, I see the context of Hosea 6 in terms of the suzerain-vassal covenant...

Isn't that what you see everything in the light of Nigel? [Biased]
Absolutely! If the shoe fits, walk a mile in it!
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So God created the world (set up the best possible system) but is not the author of consequences to our actions ... go figure. [Ultra confused]

I don't see why it is so hard to get your head around this idea.

Yes He created the world with its laws of physics and everything else. In creating this He certainly knew that glass would break when dropped and that people would suffer and die if they have no food. But He is not responsible for the dropping of glass or the lack of food.

It is certainly easier to imagine that if He created it He must be the author of everything having to do with it. This is why the Bible, and especially the Old Testament, takes this approach.

But the logical ramifications of this position are completely untenable. They make God the author of evil, predestine all things, and deny human freedom of choice. They essentially make Him angry and capricious. A God to be feared but not loved.

The Bible, of course, strenuously opposes those conclusions - creating irreconcilable contradictions.

You can go with those ideas if that is all that makes sense to you. It just seems so much more logical and comprehensively biblical to postulate a God of love, incapable of anger, who created a universe that includes stable laws and their consequences because this is the best possible way to guide humanity to happiness.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Absolutely! If the shoe fits, walk a mile in it!

Okay then - are you the Suzerain or the lowly vassal?


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
He is not responsible for the dropping of glass or the lack of food.

No one is claiming that he is. But surely the creator of the universe must be responsible for so making the world that these are the consequences.

Being responsible for something is not the same as actively wanting it to happen.

[ 13. June 2008, 14:18: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Being responsible for something is not the same as actively wanting it to happen.

This is where the concept of permission comes in. God created the universe and permits evil to exist there. He permits glasses to break and people to be hungry.

He is responsible in the sense that He made those things possible. He is not responsible in the sense that He does not actively want them to happen, but permits them for the sake of more important long term goals.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Being responsible for something is not the same as actively wanting it to happen.

This is where the concept of permission comes in. God created the universe and permits evil to exist there. He permits glasses to break and people to be hungry.

He is responsible in the sense that He made those things possible. He is not responsible in the sense that He does not actively want them to happen, but permits them for the sake of more important long term goals.

It's not even that complex, Freddy. The issue isn't so much that God permits evil, it is that evil is itself a manifestation of cause and effect. The whole system could not possibly funtion at all (or at least, it would be so profoundly different a system that it would not be the rationally governed, predictable (from a scientific pov) universe which we inhabit), without the underlying principle of cause and effect. Therefore, any possible creation which in any way relies on scientific laws to structure it, inherently has the possibility of negative as well as positive effects. Any imaginably different system would be, quite literally, an absurdity, or, if you prefer, a square circle.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Thanks, JJ! That expresses it better than I did.

So why do people continue to struggle with this, to me, obvious truth?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Therefore, any possible creation which in any way relies on scientific laws to structure it, inherently has the possibility of negative as well as positive effects.

But don't you see what you have done?

By breaking it all down to 'cause and effect' you have made the positive effects merely the counter balance to the negative effects.

God's love for me is as active / personal as gravity!

JJ and Freddy in your desire to see God only as a God of love you have made it impossible to see him as 'love' at all.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[QUOTE]Those who hold, as you do (though tentatively, I suspect) that God is actually, apart from the work of Christ, angry at sinners, and, but for that Work, would ultimately actively destroy them in some manner, have to come to some way of interpreting God's "position", whereby it is possible to hold the view that He can simultaneously perfectly love one of His creatures whilst actively willing that creature's destruction. This seems to me akin to a belief that God can create a square circle, because
by definition to love someone is to want the best for that person. Any attempt to reconcile these two seems, to me, to be mere sophistry.

Interesting.

I think you have a problem here with defining what love is.

God can desire the best can't he? At the same time as rejecting the disease of sin which he finds unacceptable?

Is it sophistry to say that God's love and justice met at the cross and the resultant formula adds up to love being offered by God to man consequent to the admission (by man,) of his flawed and warped nature. Consequent to repentance in other words.

Ergo. The glorious heart of the gospel!

Love meets wrath equals sacrifice, mix with repentance eguals salvation. (Now that's a nice arminian equation.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Therefore, any possible creation which in any way relies on scientific laws to structure it, inherently has the possibility of negative as well as positive effects.

But don't you see what you have done?

By breaking it all down to 'cause and effect' you have made the positive effects merely the counter balance to the negative effects.

God's love for me is as active / personal as gravity!

JJ and Freddy in your desire to see God only as a God of love you have made it impossible to see him as 'love' at all.

Don't think so, Johnny. That little word "all" again. JJ's words do not rule out Grace as an overarching principle. He just doesn't mention it.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't think so, Johnny. That little word "all" again. JJ's words do not rule out Grace as an overarching principle. He just doesn't mention it.

I realise that - but it still seems like having cake and eating it to me.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
It does a bit to me too - and it also connects to the dualism point of yours which I'm working on. At least in my mind. It's all part of the same piece, I think. A work still in progress. (Like me)
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
By breaking it all down to 'cause and effect' you have made the positive effects merely the counter balance to the negative effects.

God's love for me is as active / personal as gravity!

JJ and Freddy in your desire to see God only as a God of love you have made it impossible to see him as 'love' at all.

Huh? [Confused]

Yes, God's love is active and personal. I don't grasp your objection here. So if God's love is universal and constant like gravity then it becomes an impersonal force? Does that follow? [Confused]

I also don't understand what you mean by "having your cake and eating it too." I recall you making that point before and leaving me confused. [Confused]

[ 14. June 2008, 09:37: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I also don't understand what you mean by "having your cake and eating it too." I recall you making that point before and leaving me confused. [Confused]

Okay. Let me quote Jude from the Florida revival thread to show where I think this is going:

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
The Christian group I've been attending seems to be going towards the "if you're not healed it's because you lack faith" stance. Whenever they pray for somebody who is seriously ill, they pray for a cure. This often leads to disappointment, does it not? Yes, ideally we would prefer if the person suffering from terminal cancer was somehow completely healed. But sometimes God decides that a person has suffered enough and should come to live with him.

Incidentally, these people also reject the theology behind "the Lord gives and the Lord takes away". They believe that it's the devil only who takes our loved ones from us.

Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that you or JJ would go along with the group Jude refers to but (ISTM) that it is consistent with the worldview you are espousing...

... either you have to say that the devil causes all the bad stuff to happen (hence wacko city above) or that it is all cause and effect and therefore God is unable to intervene (almost deist.)

[ 14. June 2008, 13:06: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Johnny S,

It is very natural that you ask questions about the end of the road. I think it's important that we establish repentance as the beginning of the road, lest we fall into assurance that comes not from God but from self, which leads not to God, but to eternal loss of God. Regarding repentance, there is something elder Sophrony said.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
This self-knowledge leads to a continual true repentance that is salvific and casts out fear because the work of saving/sanctifying has been, is being and will be done by Christ.

Elder Sophrony of Essex, said that:

quote:
When we become so conscious of our frailty that our spirit despairs, somehow, in an unknown fashion, a wondrous light appears, proclaiming life incorruptible. When the darkness within us is so appalling that we are paralyzed with dread, the same light will turn black night into bright day. When we properly condemn ourselves to eternal infamy and in agony descend into the pit, suddenly strength from Above will lift our spirit to the heights. When we are overwhelmed by the feeling of our own utter nothingness, the uncreated light transfigures and brings us like sons into the Father’s house. How are these contrasting states to be explained? Why does our self-condemnation justify us before God? Is it not because there is truth in this self-condemnation and so the Spirit of Truth finds a place for Himself in us?
So, as long as we keep away from the deceit of "we are saved", and so long as we go on with our repentance, and we are not repentant in name only, but we go on and follow the implications of repentance and self-realization, God will justify us, while we condemn ourselves.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QUOTE]The Bible describes it as wrath because of our anthropomorphic needs. It is easy for us to understand that God hates and punishes sin, because this is how humans react to harmful things. It is not so easy for a child to understand that the parents want him or her to go to bed because staying up would be harmful. It doesn't seem harmful, so the child mainly responds to the wishes and potential anger of the parents.

But this isn't how God really works. We know this from a careful reading of the Bible. PSA seems to miss this.

Now if I unpack this correcrly Freddy, what you are saying is:

The Bible doesn't really say what it says, it says something else.

The Bible not only doesn't say what it says, but by not saying it, it actually means what I believe.

Well done Nice piece of reasoning.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I wouldn't choose either. I don't know how both views are in there, Jeremiah, as it's written, swings between the two. It does have the feel of being written by different people sometimes.

Whether it was all written by Jeremiah or not, the final redactor obviously saw the book as one unit which we have to deal with.

I thought I'd dealt with it, either there is more than one author or there is only one going through life changes or there is more than one author and Jeremiah going through life changes.

quote:
I don't understand your approach to it though - you seem to be saying that you accept the bits that fit your theory and reject the bits that don't.
? Not sure what you mean here. My theory is, it's a book.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
so, squashed into that it appears to be a strengthening of the pharisaical practices, keeping the Sabbath strictly more important than the commandments. Christ told us what he thought of that.

Where does Jesus say that God does not require sacrifice? (As opposed to his ministry bringing the on going need for sacrifice to an end?)

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus has a wonderful opportunity to make the point you want him to in Matthew 5: 21-27 when discussing bringing a gift to the altar. There he makes the point that the sacrifice is useless if detached from genuine heart repentance. However, he does not say that the sacrifice itself is pointless, or not what God really wants.

"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift."

If Jesus taught what you say he did, then why does he not even allude to it here?

I have to say that it comes across to me that there is a large disjuncture between what you wish were in the text and what is actually there.

The general system of sacrifice in the Temple was for sins, and so I think his remark that it's repentance that's required, and this has been done away with in Christianity. The teaching, from St John the Forerunner, was repentance, not sacrifice. This is the continued teaching in the OT from the prophets, if you can find it through all the other interests which went into its creation.

Since the destruction of the TEmple the non-Christian Jews adapted to be without the sacrificial priesthood, we kept it. We still offer the sacrifice, we keep the offering of the gifts on the altar.

quote:
(Holy Eucharist)

Orthodox Theology sees the Holy Eucharist as a sacrifice and this is affirmed in the words of the Priest, when he says, during the Eucharistic Canon, "Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee on behalf of all and for all." The sacrifice offered at the Eucharist is Christ Himself, but He Who brings the sacrifice is also Christ. Christ is, at one and the same time, High Priest and Sacrifice. In the prayer before the Great Entrance, the Priest prays: "For Thou art the Offerer and the Offered, the Receiver and the Received, 0 Christ our God...."

..

According to the Orthodox Church, then, the Eucharist is not just a reminder of Christ's sacrifice or of its enactment, but it is a real sacrifice. On the other hand, however, it is not a new sacrifice, nor a repetition of the Sacrifice of the Cross upon Golgotha. The events of Christ's Sacrifice - the Incarnation, the Institution of the Eucharist, the Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven, are not repeated during the Eucharist, yet they become a present reality. As one Orthodox theologian has said, "During the Liturgy we are projected in time to that place where eternity and time intersect, and then we become the contemporaries of these events that we are calling to mind" [P. N. Evdokimov, L'Orthodoxie, p. 241]. Thus the Eucharist and all the Holy Liturgy is, in structure, a sacrificial service.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Sorry, missed some coding.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I wouldn't choose either. I don't know how both views are in there, Jeremiah, as it's written, swings between the two. It does have the feel of being written by different people sometimes.

Whether it was all written by Jeremiah or not, the final redactor obviously saw the book as one unit which we have to deal with.
I thought I'd dealt with it, either there is more than one author or there is only one going through life changes or there is more than one author and Jeremiah going through life changes.

quote:
I don't understand your approach to it though - you seem to be saying that you accept the bits that fit your theory and reject the bits that don't.
? Not sure what you mean here. My theory is, it's a book.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
We still offer the sacrifice, we keep the offering of the gifts on the altar.

Right. So after arguing for pages and pages and pages that God does not require sacrifice you now say that he does.

I agree, Jeremiah is not the one changing his mind.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But this isn't how God really works. We know this from a careful reading of the Bible. PSA seems to miss this.

Now if I unpack this correcrly Freddy, what you are saying is:

The Bible doesn't really say what it says, it says something else.

The Bible not only doesn't say what it says, but by not saying it, it actually means what I believe.

No I'm saying that you need to read the Bible carefully. When you do you see both that there are are apparent contradictions and you are able to resolve them.

Are you saying that there are no apparent contradictions in the Bible? How do you pick which to go with?

[ 15. June 2008, 13:40: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
We still offer the sacrifice, we keep the offering of the gifts on the altar.

Right. So after arguing for pages and pages and pages that God does not require sacrifice you now say that he does.
Isn't Myrrh saying that they keep what the gifts and sacrifices were all about in the first place?

God didn't really ever require sacrifices. They were symbols for what He really did and does require - repentance, obedience to His will, and love that is offered from the heart.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
My recent comments about dualism have been prompted by the book of Revelation. At our church we have been working our way through it over the past weeks.

I've got to speak on chapter 12 next week. [Eek!]

Various things that strike me:


Anyway, just to explain what got me thinking about dualism.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The victory over Satan is important to the book of Revelation but very much subordinated to the main theme

What do you see as the main theme?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Hence the defeat of Satan is just one victory painted on a far-wider canvas. Any atonement model which puts that victory centre stage just doesn't quite fit.

How do you read chapters 19-22, then? Don't these describe a final victory over Satan and the paradise that then results?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't Myrrh saying that they keep what the gifts and sacrifices were all about in the first place?

Whatever gymastics the quote she gave goes through, the wording is clear about one thing - 'it is a real sacrifice.'

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
What do you see as the main theme?

Vindication of God's servants, destruction of the unjust, to make way for the new heaven and new earth.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
How do you read chapters 19-22, then? Don't these describe a final victory over Satan and the paradise that then results?

Yes they do describe that, but that is just one subplot. Indeed the last judgment and the destruction of the ultimate enemies - death and Hades - happens after Satan is thrown into the fire.

So the final victory over Satan is important but it is only part of a bigger story.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't Myrrh saying that they keep what the gifts and sacrifices were all about in the first place?

Whatever gymastics the quote she gave goes through, the wording is clear about one thing - 'it is a real sacrifice.'


Of course it is, definitely not a 'symbolic' or 'memorial'; very real a presence at the last supper, the Passover Lamb is food for the journey.

I'm sure I've mentioned before that we continue the sacrificial priesthood of the Temple..

..and God never required bloody sacrifices for sin, and if not of humans - the sacrifice of children was prevalent - neither of animals. Sadly, it's what man has often required and Christ obliges. I'm pretty sure that it was common in the first couple of centuries to see the eucharist offering as an end to all the Temple sacrifices, and, with Christ as High Priest in the order of Melchesedek this takes us back through the Jewish priesthood (family connections again) to pre-davidic take-over of Jerusalem and so connecting with Abraham and the bread and wine.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Johnny, a quick p.s., the Orthodox sacrifice isn't 'another' sacrifice, offered again and again, it's the same one, the last one, and it's Christ that's offered and does the offering (I lay down my life). It can get quite complicated explaining it,(*), but for us Christ is present as High Priest and we're present as the Body of Christ - hence the "Thine of Thine own we offer to Thee, in all and for all."

(*)quite apart from the different way we use and understand symbol, as containing the reality, we're present in the eternal moment of it even as we continue it in time, and, it's bound up with our theology of theosis, not a straight 'propitiation' for sins outside of this, we have repentance for that, but more qurbana (spelling?), approach to God.

A couple of pages which might help: (Holy Eucharist)

(Development of Christian Worship)


Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

A couple of pages which might help: (Holy Eucharist)

(Development of Christian Worship)


Help who? These two sites both make it crystal clear - for the Orthodox sacrifice is at the heart of Christian worship.

Now this is a bit of a tangent since actually both CV and PSA can utilise the image of sacrifice - however you were the one who keep trying to say that God doesn't actually require sacrifice.

How on earth do either of those sites defend your position? [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

A couple of pages which might help: (Holy Eucharist)

(Development of Christian Worship)


Help who? These two sites both make it crystal clear - for the Orthodox sacrifice is at the heart of Christian worship.

Now this is a bit of a tangent since actually both CV and PSA can utilise the image of sacrifice - however you were the one who keep trying to say that God doesn't actually require sacrifice.

How on earth do either of those sites defend your position? [Ultra confused]

? I'm really not sure what position you think I'm defending here. That God doesn't require sacrifice is a fact, that we're a continuation of the sacrificial priesthood is a fact, that our brief is to remember where we came from as Christ organised is a fact, that God does not require innocent blood shed in order to forgive sins is a fact.


Tposition I'm defending here is that as it's a Passover event which has nothing to do with sin offerings of any description whatsoever those who need a blood offering because of their own doctrines about sin can be accomodated as this is a form of slavery, and Christ sets us free.


Myrrh
Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I give up. You are being as a clear as mud.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

(Development of Christian Worship)

The following quote is taken from the site above:

"These elements constituted the revealed manner in which the worship and sacrifice of Israel were to be made to God. Again, the primary function here was that of sacrifice: the offering of an animal to propitiate and atone (make amends or reparation) for the sin of God's people. The belief of the early Church was that the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and His subsequent resurrection supplanted all temple sacrifice as a means of propitiation and atonement. In the sacrifice of Himself, Jesus Christ becomes the propitiation for all of mankind's sins; He is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Thereafter, for Christians, there was no need for an additional sacrifice. The Good News of Jesus Christ is that sins are forgiven in Him, and in Him Christians are reconciled to the Father."
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[QUOTE]Those who hold, as you do (though tentatively, I suspect) that God is actually, apart from the work of Christ, angry at sinners, and, but for that Work, would ultimately actively destroy them in some manner, have to come to some way of interpreting God's "position", whereby it is possible to hold the view that He can simultaneously perfectly love one of His creatures whilst actively willing that creature's destruction. This seems to me akin to a belief that God can create a square circle, because
by definition to love someone is to want the best for that person. Any attempt to reconcile these two seems, to me, to be mere sophistry.

Interesting.

I think you have a problem here with defining what love is.

God can desire the best can't he? At the same time as rejecting the disease of sin which he finds unacceptable?

Is it sophistry to say that God's love and justice met at the cross and the resultant formula adds up to love being offered by God to man consequent to the admission (by man,) of his flawed and warped nature. Consequent to repentance in other words.

Ergo. The glorious heart of the gospel!

Love meets wrath equals sacrifice, mix with repentance eguals salvation. (Now that's a nice arminian equation.)

Right, catching up [Help]

I find there is no inherent link between God "rejecting the disease of sin, which He finds unacceptable" and forgiveness being consequent on repentance.

The sophistry to which I was referring wat the line of reasoning that goes something like "God loves us perfectly, yet he chooses to (or is constrained by his holiness to) exclude us from eternal life unless we do x or y. My submission is that it is sophistry to try to hold these two "truths" in dynamic tension; sophistry, because the very definition of love contains within it the desire for the well-being of the object of that love.

What would not be sophistry would be to allow this contradiction to drive us back to the scriptures to examine where we might have misunderstood them.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QUOTE]The Bible describes it as wrath because of our anthropomorphic needs. It is easy for us to understand that God hates and punishes sin, because this is how humans react to harmful things. It is not so easy for a child to understand that the parents want him or her to go to bed because staying up would be harmful. It doesn't seem harmful, so the child mainly responds to the wishes and potential anger of the parents.

But this isn't how God really works. We know this from a careful reading of the Bible. PSA seems to miss this.

Now if I unpack this correcrly Freddy, what you are saying is:

The Bible doesn't really say what it says, it says something else.

The Bible not only doesn't say what it says, but by not saying it, it actually means what I believe.

Well done Nice piece of reasoning.

No, Freddy is being honest and attempting to wrestle with the problem which I've articulated above. Because you understand the scriptures in a particular way, that doesn't mean that is what the scriptures "really say".

Actually, on certain issues, my theology is nearer to yours than to Freddy's, but I always appreciate the scholarly and honest way in which he addresses the issues, and I think that we should try to avoid what are clearly unhelpful caricatures of the positions of those with whom we disagree.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Therefore, any possible creation which in any way relies on scientific laws to structure it, inherently has the possibility of negative as well as positive effects.

But don't you see what you have done?

By breaking it all down to 'cause and effect' you have made the positive effects merely the counter balance to the negative effects.

God's love for me is as active / personal as gravity!

JJ and Freddy in your desire to see God only as a God of love you have made it impossible to see him as 'love' at all.

Hmmn, I clearly didn't express myself too well here. The specific point I was addressing was the argument that makes God responsible for evil in the world. I was pointing out that, in a world where the main physical processes are capable of scientific analysis, then there must be some truth in cause and effect. In some way, we could describe physical "laws" as merely different expressions of cause and effect.

Of course, there is some thinking that says every subatomic particle is consciously held to a certain behaviour by the active intervention of God, and that the regularity of the physical world is just a manifestation of God's faithfulness. This does, at least, put the lie to deism. But I think that such a system would make God the ordainer of evil, and that isn't, IMV, the overall message of Scripture.

However, if one adopts an orthodox position, rather than the extremes of deism and pantheism, God indeed does interact with His creation, most notably, as far as this thread is concerned, in the Atonement. That intervention is directed, in this case, at undoing the harm that we bring upon ourselves as the "effect" of the "cause" of sin, our own and that of others.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I give up. You are being as a clear as mud.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

(Development of Christian Worship)

The following quote is taken from the site above:

"These elements constituted the revealed manner in which the worship and sacrifice of Israel were to be made to God. Again, the primary function here was that of sacrifice: the offering of an animal to propitiate and atone (make amends or reparation) for the sin of God's people. The belief of the early Church was that the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and His subsequent resurrection supplanted all temple sacrifice as a means of propitiation and atonement. In the sacrifice of Himself, Jesus Christ becomes the propitiation for all of mankind's sins; He is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Thereafter, for Christians, there was no need for an additional sacrifice. The Good News of Jesus Christ is that sins are forgiven in Him, and in Him Christians are reconciled to the Father."

Johnny I really don't see where the problem is here, I've never denied seeing Christ's death as propitiation has been part of the Church view, Hebrews and liturgy, but it's seen as a doing away with all that and remembered as such, we don't continue making such sacrifices but remember by being present at the last, but, and this is a big but, we could never say that God ever required it, we don't have that sort of God and we can't take it out of context of Passover which is not sacrifice as propitiation for sins, so, Christ fulfilling this leviatical system is what God has done for us (because that is where we came from) and so what we were burdened with and we remember it by participating in it.

Sins for us are not legal infractions against God, but missing the mark of our perfection in being like God, we have the free will to interact with that we're created in image and likeness and so:

St. Anthony the Great:
"God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honour Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honour Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God’s goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind."

The eucharist sacrifice is primarily our participation in the divinity of Christ as Christ fully participated in our humanity, to the death, but not death without the resurrection, we are with Christ in being the offering and the giving of it having become in baptism of the Body of Christ. Not sanctification as from a forensic deal done with God (I got muddled about Calvin in another discussion) to turn out Christ's who don't sin after guilt has been removed, but actual participation in Christ in his direct divinity, theosis, which is understood as St Anthony says above.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
What do you see as the main theme?

Vindication of God's servants, destruction of the unjust, to make way for the new heaven and new earth.
That makes sense to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
How do you read chapters 19-22, then? Don't these describe a final victory over Satan and the paradise that then results?

Yes they do describe that, but that is just one subplot. Indeed the last judgment and the destruction of the ultimate enemies - death and Hades - happens after Satan is thrown into the fire.

So the final victory over Satan is important but it is only part of a bigger story.

Sorry, I guess I would conflate all of those things under the heading "defeat of Satan." The bigger story, then, is God's victory over all the forms of destruction and evil that threaten humanity.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
However, if one adopts an orthodox position, rather than the extremes of deism and pantheism, God indeed does interact with His creation, most notably, as far as this thread is concerned, in the Atonement. That intervention is directed, in this case, at undoing the harm that we bring upon ourselves as the "effect" of the "cause" of sin, our own and that of others.

Okay, I think I see where we struggle.

You cannot accept God being totally sovereign because that makes him the cause of evil.

I cannot accept evil being outside of God's control for then we would have no certain hope that he will defeat evil.

Either way I think you hit a brick wall.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
but, and this is a big but, we could never say that God ever required it, we don't have that sort of God

[brick wall] Where does it say that in the websites you cited?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
However, if one adopts an orthodox position, rather than the extremes of deism and pantheism, God indeed does interact with His creation, most notably, as far as this thread is concerned, in the Atonement. That intervention is directed, in this case, at undoing the harm that we bring upon ourselves as the "effect" of the "cause" of sin, our own and that of others.

Okay, I think I see where we struggle.

You cannot accept God being totally sovereign because that makes him the cause of evil.

I cannot accept evil being outside of God's control for then we would have no certain hope that he will defeat evil.

Either way I think you hit a brick wall.

I've no problem at all with the idea of God being ultimately totally sovereign, I just don't believe He micro-manages the whole of the universe in the sort of way that would make Him responsible for evil. And, of course, I believe that He has, in Christ, already defeated evil. We're just working through its death throes.

I also think that you are conflating "God is in control of evil" with "God will defeat evil". Actually, my view is that evil is, by definition, that which is not under the rule of God, but that the purpose of the atonement is to bring all things in subjection to Christ. If that is so, then clearly, all things are not now in subjection to Christ.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I've no problem at all with the idea of God being ultimately totally sovereign, I just don't believe He micro-manages the whole of the universe in the sort of way that would make Him responsible for evil. And, of course, I believe that He has, in Christ, already defeated evil. We're just working through its death throes.

Yes! I like that. We're just working through the death throes.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I also think that you are conflating "God is in control of evil" with "God will defeat evil". Actually, my view is that evil is, by definition, that which is not under the rule of God, but that the purpose of the atonement is to bring all things in subjection to Christ. If that is so, then clearly, all things are not now in subjection to Christ.

I like this too.

One way of looking at it that I find helpful is to understand that evil is not a gigantic force that opposes God. Rather, evil is a bothersome human tendency, like a dog's urgent desire to chase cars. God's combat with evil is like finding a training method that will rid the dog of this urgent desire without actually chaining the dog up.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I also think that you are conflating "God is in control of evil" with "God will defeat evil". Actually, my view is that evil is, by definition, that which is not under the rule of God, but that the purpose of the atonement is to bring all things in subjection to Christ. If that is so, then clearly, all things are not now in subjection to Christ.

Ummh... sort of. I can see what you are getting at but if evil is 'out of God's control' then it cannot be certain that God will defeat it.

This has got nothing to do with big God and small Satan. Doesn't classical literature (never mind David & Goliath) not teach us that the little guy can easily win?


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
evil is a bothersome human tendency

And it is exactly that kind of description which, IMNSHO, minimises the true horror of evil and sin.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Hey, I just noticed something.

We've just hit 3000! [Yipee]

Do we all get a silver clock now?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Johnny S

I've been all round the houses on dualism and some more of the journey may come out in more detailed discussions. But I believe that all orthodox Christian expressions are in opposition to all dualistic expressions for a very simple reason. We believe that there is a supreme good, namely God Himself. We do not believe there is a supreme evil. That is true now and will be manifestly true when "the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ, and He shall reign for ever and ever". A kind of shorthand for the book you are studying.

I think your argument must be that it is somehow self-contradictory to believe what I've just written, and truly do believe, without PSA (or in my case, adding the P to the SA I do most definitely believe). Well I find much to agree with in JJ's recent posts. I'm just going to say Grace again ....
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
3,000! We're alive! And according to the Styx we're not a live Dead Horse either. (Gallops away, Gracefully ...)
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I also think that you are conflating "God is in control of evil" with "God will defeat evil". Actually, my view is that evil is, by definition, that which is not under the rule of God, but that the purpose of the atonement is to bring all things in subjection to Christ. If that is so, then clearly, all things are not now in subjection to Christ.

Ummh... sort of. I can see what you are getting at but if evil is 'out of God's control' then it cannot be certain that God will defeat it.

This has got nothing to do with big God and small Satan. Doesn't classical literature (never mind David & Goliath) not teach us that the little guy can easily win?

Well that would be so, apart from the fact that Jesus' death and resurrection demonstrates the triumph of good over evil. And, guess what, it is by becoming the "little guy" that God chooses to defeat what seems to us to be the giant of sin and death.

If you don't believe that evil is that which is outside of God's rule, then how do you interpret "your Kingdom come" in the Lord's prayer? Clearly, Jesus is urging us to pray for the future fulfilment of the basilea of God. That, to me, implies that there are, currently, those things which are outwith the Kingdom.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

I'm just going to say Grace again ....

Out of the fulness of the heart, the mouth speaks! Thank you for your kind words.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
If you don't believe that evil is that which is outside of God's rule, then how do you interpret "your Kingdom come" in the Lord's prayer?

Good point - I suppose it is all wrapped around what it means for 'his will to be done on earth as it is in heaven'.

I'm not sure.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
but, and this is a big but, we could never say that God ever required it, we don't have that sort of God

[brick wall] Where does it say that in the websites you cited?
Sob. [Smile] It's a given. We do not worship a juridical God, who punishes for sins seen as infractions in his court, which comes from Augustine's doctrines. 99.9 recurring of Orthodox have probably never heard of Augustine or his doctrines or have any idea of such a relationship with God. Neither did the Jews in the OT for all their elaborate system of sacrifices. (*).

We have a relational understanding of sin, as "All have missed the mark and fallen short of God's glory" which is the literal meaning of Greek hamartia, in which sin is understood as sickness necessitating healing not punishment to cure for restoration to God's glory as the St Anthony excerpt I posted, a relationship with the being of God in whose image and likeness etc., who only bestows blessings, to change ourselves to allow God to shine in us. Hence, we have Christ's teaching, to perfect our love to that of God who loves enemies and friends equally.

(*)(Qorbanot: Sacrifices and Offerings)



Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It's a given.

Can't you see how frustrating this is - this game we keep playing?

When people from different traditions discuss things of course their basic assumptions will be different. But for genuine dialogue to take place we must all be open about those assumptions and explain where they come from.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Neither did the Jews in the OT for all their elaborate system of sacrifices. (*).

(*)(Qorbanot: Sacrifices and Offerings)


Er, Myrrh, that is a modern Jewish website. Do you think maybe that they would have to say that about sacrifice (i.e. post fall of Jerusalem) ... or, er, they wouldn't be Jews anymore?

Hebrews 9: 22 is crystal clear about this - "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness". I wouldn't expect a Jew to accept that but any orthodox Christian is going to have to wrestle with it in a way a Jew doesn't have to bother with.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The sophistry to which I was referring wat the line of reasoning that goes something like "God loves us perfectly, yet he chooses to (or is constrained by his holiness to) exclude us from eternal life unless we do x or y. My submission is that it is sophistry to try to hold these two "truths" in dynamic tension; sophistry, because the very definition of love contains within it the desire for the well-being of the object of that love.

What would not be sophistry would be to allow this contradiction to drive us back to the scriptures to examine where we might have misunderstood them.

OK lets consider the contradiction.

God is loving (Jn 3:16)

God is Holy (Hebrews 12:29 'Our God is a consuming fire.' Heb 10:31 'It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.'

Now, how do we become meat in the sandwich between his love and his holiness?

Well we are the objects of that love but the sin in us and that we do is the object of his hatred.

What to do if you are him?

Oh I know, pick me! I'll go and take that sin on myself without becoming guilty of it! Thereby I will break its power and salvage its victims?

Question. How will they take advantage of my action?

Answer, They will have to repent and accept by faith that I have 'bought' 'redeemed' them

Now you keep saying you don't see the scriptures my way.. Fine! Feel free. However, It is not mere sophistry to construct a model whereby a sinner has his God die for him from a motive of love.

Or, am I missing your point? again.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But this isn't how God really works. We know this from a careful reading of the Bible. PSA seems to miss this.

Now if I unpack this correcrly Freddy, what you are saying is:

The Bible doesn't really say what it says, it says something else.

The Bible not only doesn't say what it says, but by not saying it, it actually means what I believe.

No I'm saying that you need to read the Bible carefully. When you do you see both that there are are apparent contradictions and you are able to resolve them.

Are you saying that there are no apparent contradictions in the Bible? How do you pick which to go with?

I apologise for that vindictive comment Freddy.

My issue is that I think we'll one day find the wrath is all too real.

By the way, apparent contradictions are no problem neh? They are only apparent.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The sophistry to which I was referring wat the line of reasoning that goes something like "God loves us perfectly, yet he chooses to (or is constrained by his holiness to) exclude us from eternal life unless we do x or y. My submission is that it is sophistry to try to hold these two "truths" in dynamic tension; sophistry, because the very definition of love contains within it the desire for the well-being of the object of that love.

What would not be sophistry would be to allow this contradiction to drive us back to the scriptures to examine where we might have misunderstood them.

OK lets consider the contradiction.

God is loving (Jn 3:16)

God is Holy (Hebrews 12:29 'Our God is a consuming fire.' Heb 10:31 'It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.'

Now, how do we become meat in the sandwich between his love and his holiness?

Well we are the objects of that love but the sin in us and that we do is the object of his hatred.

What to do if you are him?

Oh I know, pick me! I'll go and take that sin on myself without becoming guilty of it! Thereby I will break its power and salvage its victims?

Question. How will they take advantage of my action?

Answer, They will have to repent and accept by faith that I have 'bought' 'redeemed' them

Now you keep saying you don't see the scriptures my way.. Fine! Feel free. However, It is not mere sophistry to construct a model whereby a sinner has his God die for him from a motive of love.

Or, am I missing your point? again.

Not sure whether you are missing my point or not, but as I see it, there is an incompatibility between the fact that God is love, about which we both agree, and the implications which you derive from the fact that God is holy, about which fact we both also agree. The sophistry to which I referred was the attempt to hold to both the fact of God's love and the particular implications which you draw from the fact that God is holy.

If one were to accept the premise that you hold, as outlined by yourself, then I guess that PSA, despite the lack of specific biblical evidence supporting it, is as good any rational and humanly devised explanation of how it might all work. (I know that this is contentious, but I guess that even the Trinity doesn't have explicit scriptural backing.)

However, I don't accept the premise that you are working from. I don't accept that God is angry against sinners. There is no constraint in God's holiness that compels Him to answer sin with punishment, either our own, or Christ's. To argue that there is is a misunderstanding of holiness. It isn't about punishment, about who's to blame, it's about fixing the problem.

All this about reconciling the conflicting imperatives within the Godhead, satisfying His love and His justice, is addressing a problem that doesn't exist. If I might be so irreverent, God is the ultimate integrated personality.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

However, I don't accept the premise that you are working from. I don't accept that God is angry against sinners. There is no constraint in God's holiness that compels Him to answer sin with punishment, either our own, or Christ's. .

Well Ro 6;23 states that the wages of sin is death.

I'd suggest his anger can be against sin and his love still toward the sinner as the cliche goes.

God is in my view constrained to expiate sin. If you choose to say that is punishing it that is a mere linguistic connotation. The reality is that sin is a barrier between us and him that only Christ's death can overcome. Heb 9:26 "(Christ,).. was manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

However, I don't accept the premise that you are working from. I don't accept that God is angry against sinners. There is no constraint in God's holiness that compels Him to answer sin with punishment, either our own, or Christ's. .

Well Ro 6;23 states that the wages of sin is death.
Yes, and I agree with that, as you know. The outcome of sin is bondage to corruption. Without the redeeming work of Christ, we could not have eternal life. That doesn't mean that such death is a divine punishment, merely that it is a consequence. And if this is the case, then the P of PSA becomes redundant.

quote:


I'd suggest his anger can be against sin and his love still toward the sinner as the cliche goes.




Yes, and I'd agre with you. So why are we talking about a penal schema?

quote:


God is in my view constrained to expiate sin. If you choose to say that is punishing it that is a mere linguistic connotation. The reality is that sin is a barrier between us and him that only Christ's death can overcome. Heb 9:26 "(Christ,).. was manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

No argument from me here, save that I balk at the word "constrained". Expiation (the remedying of the problem of sin) is precisely how I see the atonement.

quote:
The reality is that sin is a barrier between us and him that only Christ's death can overcome. Heb 9:26 "(Christ,).. was manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

Arrgh, you've done it again! Just when I think, yes, yes, that's right, you lob in a final sentence that completely stands the argument on its head. Sin isn't a barrier to God's love. He loves sinnners (which, considering my track record, is a good thing). There is no "barrier" in the sense that God excludes us from His presence because of our sin. What there is is an ontological problem (apart from Christ, we are slaves to sin and death, and thus something needs to be done if we are not to suffer eternal corruption) plus a self-imposed separation caused by the shame and blindness that sin brings upon us.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
So, JJ, what you really think is that you can't separate sin and sinners?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So, JJ, what you really think is that you can't separate sin and sinners?

Hmm, really don't understand how you got that from what I wrote. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It's a given.

Can't you see how frustrating this is - this game we keep playing?
It may well be a game to you, but I'm taking it seriously..

quote:
When people from different traditions discuss things of course their basic assumptions will be different. But for genuine dialogue to take place we must all be open about those assumptions and explain where they come from.
How many times do you need to me to say that it comes from Christ? How many times that it comes from holding to the continuing tradition as organised by Christ in Jerusalem? I'm truly sorry to have found that from Augustine you have ended up with a God so different that you can't recognise the God Christ teaches us to strive for in perfecting ourselves. You've exchanged the ever merciful God of OT understanding in relationship of familial being with man and the explanation from Christ of how that is being in kind with ourselves, of all mankind created in image and likeness, in teaching us about perfection, for a God who has damned all creation to hell in a juridical relationship and arbitrarily chooses some of his robotic creation, lacking free will, to save for some strange reason known only to himself... We know where your God comes from, from the 4th century and that is well documented, and, the Orthodox have known nothing about such a God for the last 16 hundred years because Augustine was never translated into Greek, the common language of empire at the time and for centuries after. We didn't change Gods.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Neither did the Jews in the OT for all their elaborate system of sacrifices. (*).

(*)(Qorbanot: Sacrifices and Offerings)


quote:
Er, Myrrh, that is a modern Jewish website. Do you think maybe that they would have to say that about sacrifice (i.e. post fall of Jerusalem) ... or, er, they wouldn't be Jews anymore?
Or maybe you think you understand their doctrines better than they do themselves?


quote:
Hebrews 9: 22 is crystal clear about this - "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness". I wouldn't expect a Jew to accept that but any orthodox Christian is going to have to wrestle with it in a way a Jew doesn't have to bother with.
You assume that someone writing about Christ from a tradition of sacrifice who in joy at the freedom Christ has given them links it to Yom Kippur has detailed understanding of the sacrificial system better than a learned Jew of today when it's obvious that merely by linking it to Yom Kippur the writer in Hewbrews got it wrong..? Again, Christ's crucifixion is a PASSOVER event which has NOTHING to do with sin offering of any kind, bloody or not.

Blood was considered, and still is, holy and precious to the Jews as containing the life force and used in certain of the sacrifices to emphasise their importance. It is not and was not considered essential for forgiveness of sins, for atonement. Why is this so hard to explain to those who think God requires blood to expiate our guilt? What kind of heathen God is this who requires the sacrifice of the innocent for your guilt?? As came in from the surrounding people who still offered human sacifices? Do you really think that by offering someone else's life force you become free from sin? You become a murderer.

This is how it was explained: "The passage that people ordinarily cite for the notion that blood is required is Leviticus 17:11: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to provide atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that atones for the soul." But the passage that this verse comes from is not about atonement; it is about dietary laws, and the passage says only that blood is used to obtain atonement; not that blood is the only means for obtaining atonement. Leviticus 17:10-12 could be paraphrased as "Don't eat blood, because blood is used in atonement rituals; therefore, don't eat blood."

And as explained, repentance was necessary in any sacrifices for atonement. The sacrificial was added into the practices as Jeremiah said, and as the prophets taught we still teach, that what God requires of us is mercy not sacrifice, to love our neighbour as ourselves.

Leviticus 19:18
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

These are books of the history of the long relationship with God as revealed to a particular people, and all of it useful for instruction.., especially in noting when they got it wrong.

And the first thing they got wrong was to change the instruction from 'thou shalt not murder' to 'thou shalt not murder thy own people but genocide of others is OK'.

Thank God for Christ.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
evil is a bothersome human tendency

And it is exactly that kind of description which, IMNSHO, minimises the true horror of evil and sin.
I don't think so. Evil and sin are enormously horrific. They destroy life. But their horror is only horror to us, not in the grand scheme of things.

Evil and sin are horrific to God because He loves us and so He suffers when we suffer, but not because He Himself is in any way threatened by them. They are not a powerful force that He has to struggle with. To Him they are like our dogs' troubling tendency to chase cars. The question is how to keep the dog from chasing cars without taking him off the streets altogether?

[ 17. June 2008, 11:49: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It may well be a game to you, but I'm taking it seriously..

You misunderstand me. It is not a game to me. My point was that I am getting (even more) frustrated because you are turning it into a game.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
How many times do you need to me to say that it comes from Christ?

No more. You keep saying it - I'd like you to show me how it comes from Christ. Every time you try, you seem to get very confused over what Christ did and didn't say.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm truly sorry to have found that from Augustine you have ended up with a God so different that you can't recognise the God Christ teaches us to strive for in perfecting ourselves.

[brick wall] What is it with you and Augustine? Is it some kind of repressed passion? Go back over these past 3000 posts - I can't remember ever mentioning him. He's not even from my church tradition! [Roll Eyes]


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

Or maybe you think you understand their doctrines better than they do themselves?

You assume that someone writing about Christ from a tradition of sacrifice who in joy at the freedom Christ has given them links it to Yom Kippur has detailed understanding of the sacrificial system better than a learned Jew of today when it's obvious that merely by linking it to Yom Kippur the writer in Hebrews got it wrong..? ?

[Ultra confused] No. I am claiming that the writer of Hebrews might give us a better view of Leviticus than a present day Jew because he lived 2000 years closer to the events in question. And, most importantly, he lived at a time when the levitical priesthood was actually functioning.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is how it was explained: "The passage that people ordinarily cite for the notion that blood is required is Leviticus 17:11: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to provide atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that atones for the soul." But the passage that this verse comes from is not about atonement; it is about dietary laws, and the passage says only that blood is used to obtain atonement; not that blood is the only means for obtaining atonement. Leviticus 17:10-12 could be paraphrased as "Don't eat blood, because blood is used in atonement rituals; therefore, don't eat blood."

Yes, I read it. I see where you get some of your ideas from too. It too asserts things without giving any evidence. The Hebrew bible has no divisions marked 'This is about atonement' or 'this is just a dietary law.' Even if it was a dietary law it would a law based on atonement being made by blood.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
but, and this is a big but, we could never say that God ever required it, we don't have that sort of God

[brick wall] Where does it say that in the websites you cited?
Sob. [Smile] It's a given. We do not worship a juridical God, who punishes for sins seen as infractions in his court, which comes from Augustine's doctrines. 99.9 recurring of Orthodox have probably never heard of Augustine or his doctrines or have any idea of such a relationship with God. Neither did the Jews in the OT for all their elaborate system of sacrifices. (*).

We have a relational understanding of sin, as "All have missed the mark and fallen short of God's glory" which is the literal meaning of Greek hamartia, in which sin is understood as sickness necessitating healing not punishment to cure for restoration to God's glory as the St Anthony excerpt I posted, a relationship with the being of God in whose image and likeness etc., who only bestows blessings, to change ourselves to allow God to shine in us. Hence, we have Christ's teaching, to perfect our love to that of God who loves enemies and friends equally.

(*)(Qorbanot: Sacrifices and Offerings)



Myrrh

I'm interested in the meaning of hamartia - my Greek is very rusty but I thought the 'missing the mark' was a metaphor from bows and arrows missing the target. Where does the notion of sickness come into it, please?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Sin isn't a barrier to God's love. He loves sinnners (

That is the sentence that made me think you can't separate sin and sinners in your thinking.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
evil is a bothersome human tendency

And it is exactly that kind of description which, IMNSHO, minimises the true horror of evil and sin.
I don't think so. Evil and sin are enormously horrific. They destroy life. But their horror is only horror to us, not in the grand scheme of things.

Evil and sin are horrific to God because He loves us and so He suffers when we suffer, but not because He Himself is in any way threatened by them. They are not a powerful force that He has to struggle with. To Him they are like our dogs' troubling tendency to chase cars. The question is how to keep the dog from chasing cars without taking him off the streets altogether?

To say God and evil are in a struggle is a dualism that I don't think J has ever suggested.

Evil and God,(IMO) tussle over us as the battlefield. The battle is for our hearts.

Evil has power only if we are not released from its clutches by Christ's victory (I know you'll agree)

or,

We choose, as Christians, to allow its power to overcome us because we are, as John puts it, 'loving darkness reather than light.'

Another quite Arminian statement which betrays me as one who thinks you can voluntarily give it all away once you've had it.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Sin isn't a barrier to God's love. He loves sinnners (

That is the sentence that made me think you can't separate sin and sinners in your thinking.
Nope, still can't see how you derive that. God can still hate sin, but not find it a barrier. Just like the surgeon can hate cancer, but not find it a barrier between her and her patient. Even if the cancer is self-inflicted (say, by smoking).

[ 18. June 2008, 09:15: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
God can still hate sin, but not find it a barrier. Just like the surgeon can hate cancer, but not find it a barrier between her and her patient. Even if the cancer is self-inflicted (say, by smoking).

OK If sin is not a barrier, why the Sinai experience? Why the whole sacrifice system? Why the Babylonian captivity ? and perhaps most fundamentally,

Why the cross?
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Jamat
To say God and evil are in a struggle is a dualism that I don't think J has ever suggested.

No, I think this is only dualism if God and evil are equally powerful, equally eternal. There is no shortage of language used by Jesus to indicate there is a very real struggle going on for the world. That stuggle is not negated because we know the outcome. After the successful landings of D-Day, everyone (except, perhaps, Hitler) knew that the Nazis, surrounded by more powerful enemies, were doomed. Yet the fiercest fighting of the whole war was still to occur.

I am thinking of verses like Matt 12:22-29 which certainly imply such a struggle.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
No, I think this is only dualism if God and evil are equally powerful, equally eternal.

Quite right. Dualism is a rather maleable word that is banded about a lot. I mean it the way JJ uses it here.

The struggle is very real. But if God is in the blue corner and Satan is in the red (dragon) corner then it is no contest.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
God can still hate sin, but not find it a barrier. Just like the surgeon can hate cancer, but not find it a barrier between her and her patient. Even if the cancer is self-inflicted (say, by smoking).

OK If sin is not a barrier, why the Sinai experience? Why the whole sacrifice system? Why the Babylonian captivity ? and perhaps most fundamentally,

Why the cross?

OK, this is a bit like rewriting the whole thread, but....

Why Sinai (do you mean the actual Mt Sinai, giving of the Law thing)? For the same reason Moses wore the veil - the problem was with us encountering God, the shock to our system, if you like. A concession to our weakness.

Why sacrifice? Because sacrifice pointed people back to the covenant of grace. I think we've covered that one quite extensively.

Why the Babylonian captivity? Not sure what that has to do with whether or not there is a barrier between mankind and God.

Why the cross? Because Jesus, in dying, breaks the power of death, releasing us from our bondage to sin and death, and allowing us to be made anew in the likeness of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, to share in His resurrection.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by Jamat
To say God and evil are in a struggle is a dualism that I don't think J has ever suggested.

No, I think this is only dualism if God and evil are equally powerful, equally eternal. There is no shortage of language used by Jesus to indicate there is a very real struggle going on for the world. That stuggle is not negated because we know the outcome. After the successful landings of D-Day, everyone (except, perhaps, Hitler) knew that the Nazis, surrounded by more powerful enemies, were doomed. Yet the fiercest fighting of the whole war was still to occur.

I am thinking of verses like Matt 12:22-29 which certainly imply such a struggle.

I agree completely; did I say different?

You do agree with me that the only real contest between them is the one for our souls?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Why the Babylonian captivity? Not sure what that has to do with whether or not there is a barrier between mankind and God.

I presume Jamat is referring to references like:

"Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed, that her sin has been paid for, that she has received from the Lord's hand double for all her sins."
Isaiah 40: 2
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
God can still hate sin, but not find it a barrier. Just like the surgeon can hate cancer, but not find it a barrier between her and her patient. Even if the cancer is self-inflicted (say, by smoking).

OK If sin is not a barrier, why the Sinai experience? Why the whole sacrifice system? Why the Babylonian captivity ? and perhaps most fundamentally,

Why the cross?

OK, this is a bit like rewriting the whole thread, but....

Why Sinai (do you mean the actual Mt Sinai, giving of the Law thing)? For the same reason Moses wore the veil - the problem was with us encountering God, the shock to our system, if you like. A concession to our weakness.

Why sacrifice? Because sacrifice pointed people back to the covenant of grace. I think we've covered that one quite extensively.

Why the Babylonian captivity? Not sure what that has to do with whether or not there is a barrier between mankind and God.

Why the cross? Because Jesus, in dying, breaks the power of death, releasing us from our bondage to sin and death, and allowing us to be made anew in the likeness of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, to share in His resurrection.

I forgot why the fig leaves?

So all in all that is quite a few 'barrier' thingys you listed.

The captivity by the way was cos he was totally hacked off by their continual idol worship ie sin variant. he seems to have found it a barrier...somehow.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by Jamat
To say God and evil are in a struggle is a dualism that I don't think J has ever suggested.

No, I think this is only dualism if God and evil are equally powerful, equally eternal. There is no shortage of language used by Jesus to indicate there is a very real struggle going on for the world. That stuggle is not negated because we know the outcome. After the successful landings of D-Day, everyone (except, perhaps, Hitler) knew that the Nazis, surrounded by more powerful enemies, were doomed. Yet the fiercest fighting of the whole war was still to occur.

I am thinking of verses like Matt 12:22-29 which certainly imply such a struggle.

I agree completely; did I say different?

You do agree with me that the only real contest between them is the one for our souls?

I agree that the only contest between them that we can know of for certain is the contest for us, souls and bodies. However, I have a feeling that the bigger contest is for the whole nature of the cosmos. Is it ruled by might, or by love (and, hence, the renunciation of might). There are a few fascinating hints to this effect in Paul's writings. But this is largely speculation.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Jamat:
I forgot why the fig leaves?

So all in all that is quite a few 'barrier' thingys you listed.

The captivity by the way was cos he was totally hacked off by their continual idol worship ie sin variant. he seems to have found it a barrier...somehow.


Are you really saying that the fig leaves were there so that the One who sees all things couldn't see their naughty bits? Surely, it is rather a mark of shame that they felt , thus a concession to their comfort, not God's.

I don't think any of the things I listed could be considered a barrier between God and sinners. There is no sense in God wanting to keep those people away from Him, far from it. Thge problem isn't at His end, as John Wimber used to say.

The Babylonian captivity seems to me to be a case more of God disciplining those he loves, rather than separating Himself from them because of their Sin. We know that God was still calling His people into relationship, even if they had no temple through which that relationship had traditionally been mediated. Did they feel forsaken, yes? Were they forsaken? We know that they were not.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Why the Babylonian captivity? Not sure what that has to do with whether or not there is a barrier between mankind and God.

I presume Jamat is referring to references like:

"Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed, that her sin has been paid for, that she has received from the Lord's hand double for all her sins."
Isaiah 40: 2

Thank you.

Also Jer 22:8.9 "Why has the Lord done this to this city?...
Because they have forsaken the covenant of the Lord and bowed down to other Gods and served them."
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
There is no sense in God wanting to keep those people away from Him, far from it. Thge problem isn't at His end, as John Wimber used to say.

The Babylonian captivity seems to me to be a case more of God disciplining those he loves, rather than separating Himself from them because of their Sin. We know that God was still calling His people into relationship, even if they had no temple through which that relationship had traditionally been mediated. Did they feel forsaken, yes? Were they forsaken? We know that they were not.

Isn't this glass half full/empty stuff?

In disciplining them he separated himself from them. Of course he still loved them but it was all about the seriousness of sin

"Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.." Is 59:2
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[]Are you really saying that the fig leaves were there so that the One who sees all things couldn't see their naughty bits? Surely, it is rather a mark of shame that they felt , thus a concession to their comfort, not God's.

You are right of course. They did the leaves, not him.

However, he gave them a more protective covering of skins later.

For which an animal gave its life...because of the barrier that now existed.

We've been here before but I think this was the first sacrifice which expiated sin. It IMO enabled God to temporarily cover their sin and continue to have a modicum of fellowship with them. Hebrews explains why it was temporary. "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin.."
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
There is no sense in God wanting to keep those people away from Him, far from it. Thge problem isn't at His end, as John Wimber used to say.

The Babylonian captivity seems to me to be a case more of God disciplining those he loves, rather than separating Himself from them because of their Sin. We know that God was still calling His people into relationship, even if they had no temple through which that relationship had traditionally been mediated. Did they feel forsaken, yes? Were they forsaken? We know that they were not.

Isn't this glass half full/empty stuff?

In disciplining them he separated himself from them. Of course he still loved them but it was all about the seriousness of sin

"Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.." Is 59:2

In what sense did He separate Himself from the people of Israel? He separated them from their land/posessions, but not from Him.

And that Isaiah 59 verse specifically says that it is the sin that prevents the people from seeing the face of God, blinds them to His presence. But His presence is still there, it's just that they can't see it. That face of God, though hidden from human "sight" is still looking at them with love.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
There is no sense in God wanting to keep those people away from Him, far from it. Thge problem isn't at His end, as John Wimber used to say.

The Babylonian captivity seems to me to be a case more of God disciplining those he loves, rather than separating Himself from them because of their Sin. We know that God was still calling His people into relationship, even if they had no temple through which that relationship had traditionally been mediated. Did they feel forsaken, yes? Were they forsaken? We know that they were not.

Isn't this glass half full/empty stuff?

In disciplining them he separated himself from them. Of course he still loved them but it was all about the seriousness of sin

"Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.." Is 59:2

In what sense did He separate Himself from the people of Israel? He separated them from their land/posessions, but not from Him.

And that Isaiah 59 verse specifically says that it is the sin that prevents the people from seeing the face of God, blinds them to His presence. But His presence is still there, it's just that they can't see it. That face of God, though hidden from human "sight" is still looking at them with love.

The relevant point is that sin IS a barrier dress it up how you like.

It is not whether sin keeps them from him or him from them. The answer to that is BOTH!
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
The relevant point is that sin IS a barrier dress it up how you like.

It is not whether sin keeps them from him or him from them. The answer to that is BOTH!

I'm sorry, but asserting your point is not the same as demonstrating it.

And, actually, it matters a great deal whether we separate ourselves from God, or God separates Himself from us. In the former, the separation is not God's will, but rather a symptom of our rebellion, in the latter it is God's will, and a manifestation of the holiness of God. I submit that the latter is a misunderstanding of the nature of holiness, and I have yet to see any evidence in support of it.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Evil and God,(IMO) tussle over us as the battlefield. The battle is for our hearts.

Yes, that is how I think of it too. So the question is really how God affects our hearts, in order to free us from evil's influence.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Evil has power only if we are not released from its clutches by Christ's victory (I know you'll agree)

or,

We choose, as Christians, to allow its power to overcome us because we are, as John puts it, 'loving darkness reather than light.'

Yes, that is how I see it.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Another quite Arminian statement which betrays me as one who thinks you can voluntarily give it all away once you've had it.

Yes, you can give it away once you've had it. At any point you can choose to go with evil rather than with God.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
And, actually, it matters a great deal whether we separate ourselves from God, or God separates Himself from us. In the former, the separation is not God's will, but rather a symptom of our rebellion, in the latter it is God's will, and a manifestation of the holiness of God. I submit that the latter is a misunderstanding of the nature of holiness, and I have yet to see any evidence in support of it.

I agree.

God continually invites us into His presence and continually wishes to give us His blessings. We are the ones that prevent this from happening by our rebellion.

Not that we wouldn't like to enjoy His blessings and be rebellious at the same time, but this isn't how it works. Why? Because it wouldn't be good to be able to do this. [Biased]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
The relevant point is that sin IS a barrier dress it up how you like.

It is not whether sin keeps them from him or him from them. The answer to that is BOTH!

I'm sorry, but asserting your point is not the same as demonstrating it.

And, actually, it matters a great deal whether we separate ourselves from God, or God separates Himself from us. In the former, the separation is not God's will, but rather a symptom of our rebellion, in the latter it is God's will, and a manifestation of the holiness of God. I submit that the latter is a misunderstanding of the nature of holiness, and I have yet to see any evidence in support of it.

Would it be evidence to suggest that God is light (1Jn 1:5) and that light (God) has no fellowship with darkness 2 Cor 6:14)

There ya go! Hard evidence!
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Hey, I just noticed something.

We've just hit 3000! [Yipee]

Do we all get a silver clock now?

This thread is like a black hole
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This thread is like a black hole

I'm sure that Leo would agree with you there - no chance of any light escaping from it.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It may well be a game to you, but I'm taking it seriously..

You misunderstand me. It is not a game to me. My point was that I am getting (even more) frustrated because you are turning it into a game.

I'm sorry you think that, it certainly isn't intentional on my part and I hope you can accept that I'm not.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
How many times do you need to me to say that it comes from Christ?

No more. You keep saying it - I'd like you to show me how it comes from Christ. Every time you try, you seem to get very confused over what Christ did and didn't say.

You're moving the goal posts here. Your gripe was "When people from different traditions discuss things of course their basic assumptions will be different. But for genuine dialogue to take place we must all be open about those assumptions and explain where they come from."

I've told you where they've come from, from the continuing tradition of the people Christ organised in Jerusalem, by word and by epistle. I'm having a real problem understanding why you're having difficulty with this.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm truly sorry to have found that from Augustine you have ended up with a God so different that you can't recognise the God Christ teaches us to strive for in perfecting ourselves.

quote:
[brick wall] What is it with you and Augustine? Is it some kind of repressed passion? Go back over these past 3000 posts - I can't remember ever mentioning him. He's not even from my church tradition! [Roll Eyes]
I didn't know there were Baptists who had rejected Augustine's Original Sin explanation for mankind's relationship with God. What Baptist tradition is this? (I'm genuinely interested here in case you still think I'm playing a game, as I see it there are so many thousands of different Protestant groups claiming the others have got some nuance wrong from the basic OS doctrine of Augustine.)


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

Or maybe you think you understand their doctrines better than they do themselves?

You assume that someone writing about Christ from a tradition of sacrifice who in joy at the freedom Christ has given them links it to Yom Kippur has detailed understanding of the sacrificial system better than a learned Jew of today when it's obvious that merely by linking it to Yom Kippur the writer in Hebrews got it wrong..? ?

quote:
[Ultra confused] No. I am claiming that the writer of Hebrews might give us a better view of Leviticus than a present day Jew because he lived 2000 years closer to the events in question. And, most importantly, he lived at a time when the levitical priesthood was actually functioning.
The Jews have a continuing tradition of studying the Torah and from this the accompanying works as developed through the millenniums which are arguments about meaning, commentaries. The arguments continue as each generation takes up the baton as seen in the variety of Jewish thinking today, from the ultra Orthodox to the liberal - not really different than at the time of Christ's incarnation when there were different sects and arguments between them ongoing. From wiki (Torah Study)

You appear to think that the Jews have lost connection with that time, which perhaps explains why you're having difficulty accepting my answer above. The Jews of today know what Passover meant two thousand years ago because the tradition of teaching the meaning is repeated ever year and so passed on; of all the festivals it is the one which defines the Jewish nation - described as the 'birth' of nation, the highlight of the year and specific acts have to carried out in celebrating it. Look up Passover at aish.com for the basic teaching and see Starlight's excellent post somewhere near the beginning of this discussion, May 27 2007. It's about freedom from slavery into a covenant with God, not anything else and as Paul says, before the Law was given there was no sin, and so, until Mt Sinai no guilt.

Here's a bit from aish:
quote:
EGYPT - THE EPITOME OF INDEPENDENCE FROM GOD

Passover is the holiday which represents the birth of the Jewish nation. Prior to the exodus, the Jewish people were considered in utero, not yet born. When a fetus is in its mother's womb, it is completely part of its mother, dependent on everything she does, eating what she eats, drinking what she drinks. It doesn't yet have a life of its own.

Egypt was known at that time as the only country not dependent on rain for its livelihood. The Nile would overflow and water all the fields. Therefore Egyptians felt completely independent of God, with no need to look heavenward and hope for rain. Pharaoh expressed this feeling when he said, "Mine is the Nile and I created me" (Ezekiel 29:3).

Therefore, while the Jewish people were in Egypt as a fetus, eating what their "mother" ate as an intrinsic part of that nation, that was their essence as well, completely disconnected from the spiritual and from God. They didn't yet have their own inherent existence and identity.

The freedom Christ gives as the Passover lamb is this, a new beginning, and from whatever it is that is enslaving us.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is how it was explained: "The passage that people ordinarily cite for the notion that blood is required is Leviticus 17:11: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to provide atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that atones for the soul." But the passage that this verse comes from is not about atonement; it is about dietary laws, and the passage says only that blood is used to obtain atonement; not that blood is the only means for obtaining atonement. Leviticus 17:10-12 could be paraphrased as "Don't eat blood, because blood is used in atonement rituals; therefore, don't eat blood."

quote:
Yes, I read it. I see where you get some of your ideas from too. It too asserts things without giving any evidence. The Hebrew bible has no divisions marked 'This is about atonement' or 'this is just a dietary law.'
You'll have to do your own research if you want more on this, the Jewish studying methods are intense, and noisy by all accounts as the meanings argued, referring to whole body of knowledge.

quote:
Even if it was a dietary law it would a law based on atonement being made by blood.
But, before the law there was no guilt, so no need for atonement, bloody of otherwise.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It's about freedom from slavery into a covenant with God, not anything else and as Paul says, before the Law was given there was no sin, and so, until Mt Sinai no guilt.

I give up. You are obviously only trying to wind me up.

No one who has ever read Romans 1-3 ... no, no one who has ever met someone else who has ever read Romans 1-3 ... I take it back, no one who has ever walked passed someone who has ever read Romans 1-3 could possibly make your statement above and not just be yanking my chain.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
but, and this is a big but, we could never say that God ever required it, we don't have that sort of God

[brick wall] Where does it say that in the websites you cited?
Sob. [Smile] It's a given. We do not worship a juridical God, who punishes for sins seen as infractions in his court, which comes from Augustine's doctrines. 99.9 recurring of Orthodox have probably never heard of Augustine or his doctrines or have any idea of such a relationship with God. Neither did the Jews in the OT for all their elaborate system of sacrifices. (*).

We have a relational understanding of sin, as "All have missed the mark and fallen short of God's glory" which is the literal meaning of Greek hamartia, in which sin is understood as sickness necessitating healing not punishment to cure for restoration to God's glory as the St Anthony excerpt I posted, a relationship with the being of God in whose image and likeness etc., who only bestows blessings, to change ourselves to allow God to shine in us. Hence, we have Christ's teaching, to perfect our love to that of God who loves enemies and friends equally.

(*)(Qorbanot: Sacrifices and Offerings)



Myrrh

I'm interested in the meaning of hamartia - my Greek is very rusty but I thought the 'missing the mark' was a metaphor from bows and arrows missing the target. Where does the notion of sickness come into it, please?
Yes, it means missing the mark, the same meaning as chayt unrelated to any concept of sin, but which was then used to further define different kinds of sin and in this attributed to unintentional sin, chait/chatat. As Bathsheba to David saying of Solomon and herself, if he didn't become king they would become chaitaim, would miss the mark of their potential. (I'm not really sure of the spellings here, different systems and so on, harmatia/amartia, besides any mistakes of my own.)

Without particularly transferring that meaning into it, though it could relate to 'Father forgive them for they know not what they do', missing the mark is the perfection Christ teaches to work towards in the healing ministry of Christ, from being in disunion with God and neighbour and so ourselves in our being.


St. John Chrysostom: "Did you commit sin? Enter the Church and repent for your sin; for here is the physician, not the judge; here one is not investigated, one receives remission of sins"

Theosis is in knowing God for ourselves in ourselves, which is what God wants for us as in Christ's prayer in John and achieved by 'putting the head into the heart', the pure in heart shall see God which means that all thinking must be trained to be centred in love in relationship and not centred in a juridical base, or any other kind of rationalising of relationship, and anything that misses the mark of this is a sin.

Having rambled a bit, I'm not sure I've answered your question.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It's about freedom from slavery into a covenant with God, not anything else and as Paul says, before the Law was given there was no sin, and so, until Mt Sinai no guilt.

I give up. You are obviously only trying to wind me up.

No one who has ever read Romans 1-3 ... no, no one who has ever met someone else who has ever read Romans 1-3 ... I take it back, no one who has ever walked passed someone who has ever read Romans 1-3 could possibly make your statement above and not just be yanking my chain.

I'm really at a loss here, what does Paul's diatribe against the Jews in Rome for not keeping the Law to do here? Same argument, in principle if not in detail, as Christ's against those who taught the law and broke the commandments, against hypocricy.

25For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Paul is angry because, as he says, the Gentiles have the law written in the heart and their own conscience convicts them, the Jews aren't the only ones with the law, and especially not those he's addressing who teach it but break it and yet think themselves superior because 'they have the law'...

But, if you mean some intepretation relating this back to Augustine's Original Sin you're on a hiding to nothing, Paul knew of no such doctrine. As has been said here before, Jewish teaching, and therefore Paul's, is that we're born as Adam and Eve, with free will to do either good or evil, with good the default position if we check with our hearts.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This thread is like a black hole

I'm sure that Leo would agree with you there - no chance of any light escaping from it.
I disagree. We are inches away from solving the whole thing. [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
as Paul says, before the Law was given there was no sin, and so, until Mt Sinai no guilt

So Paul was simply mistaken when he wrote, for example, "We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin." Romans 3: 9 ?


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
But, if you mean some intepretation relating this back to Augustine's Original Sin

Now that you have found Augustine I hope that you'll be happy together. Be happy, settle down, even have kids. But don't agonise too much over whether they will be sinners or not.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
as Paul says, before the Law was given there was no sin, and so, until Mt Sinai no guilt

So Paul was simply mistaken when he wrote, for example, "We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin." Romans 3: 9 ?
Romans 4 13For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.


15Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
But, if you mean some intepretation relating this back to Augustine's Original Sin

Now that you have found Augustine I hope that you'll be happy together. Be happy, settle down, even have kids. But don't agonise too much over whether they will be sinners or not. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Please, just tell me. Do you teach the Original Sin doctrine? If not, what kind of Baptist are you? Where can I find out more?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
[QUOTE]\Please, just tell me. Do you teach the Original Sin doctrine? If not, what kind of Baptist are you? Where can I find out more?

Myrrh

The lady doth protest too much methinks.

Have you noticed a tendency to sin within yourself at times Myrrh?
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Tendencies do not prove original sin. Tendencies might well be the result of one's personal screwing up, of one's personal passions. I am to blame, instead of "if only it wasn't of that Adam dude..."
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The relevant point is that sin IS a barrier dress it up how you like.

It is not whether sin keeps them from him or him from them. The answer to that is BOTH!

I'm sorry, but asserting your point is not the same as demonstrating it.

And, actually, it matters a great deal whether we separate ourselves from God, or God separates Himself from us. In the former, the separation is not God's will, but rather a symptom of our rebellion, in the latter it is God's will, and a manifestation of the holiness of God. I submit that the latter is a misunderstanding of the nature of holiness, and I have yet to see any evidence in support of it.

I would say the separation God makes from sin is God's will though not his desire. I would submit that perhaps none of us understand his holiness but that we must recognise there is such a quality in the being we worship that demands a cleansing and a purification in those that approach him, of a nature that is impossible for them to accomplish themselves.

Hence the cross.

Col 2:14 "He canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us."

Jn 3:36 "..he who does not obey the son shall not see life but the WRATH of God abideth on him."

To me this is hard evidence that God has, if you like, a 'judicial' case against sin.

What could be more gracious in a God of love than to dispose of this wrath by subsuming it into himself on the cross.

What could be more obstinate in man but to deny God has a problem with sin? To deny this is to, essentially, deny the need for any atonement.

[edited to fix a mangled mess of UBB]

[ 20. June 2008, 21:26: Message edited by: Jason I. Am ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
[QUOTE]\Please, just tell me. Do you teach the Original Sin doctrine? If not, what kind of Baptist are you? Where can I find out more?

Myrrh

The lady doth protest too much methinks.

Have you noticed a tendency to sin within yourself at times Myrrh?

Certainly, and I know who to blame for we pray: and lead us not into temptation..

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
15Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
don't agonise too much over whether they will be sinners or not.

Sin and transgression are different words. They are different words in English and they are different words in Greek. Apparently the only language where they are the same is Myrrh.

Of course one cannot transgress a law until the law has been given, but the whole point of Paul's argument is to prove that all of humanity (Jew and Gentile alike, pre and post the Torah) are sinners.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Please, just tell me. Do you teach the Original Sin doctrine?

For the 2,564,908th time this has got nothing to do with this debate. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

It is related, but you could be either CV or PSA (or indeed umpteen other models) whether or not you believe in OS.

You do not need a doctrine of OS to see in Romans (and elsewhere) that Paul saw everyone to be sinners.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
[QUOTE]\Please, just tell me. Do you teach the Original Sin doctrine? If not, what kind of Baptist are you? Where can I find out more?

Myrrh

The lady doth protest too much methinks.

Have you noticed a tendency to sin within yourself at times Myrrh?

Certainly, and I know who to blame for we pray: and lead us not into temptation..

Myrrh

So you blame:
God?
Devil?
Yourself?

Assuming you blame the Devil, how come he has ground to tempt one created in God's image?

Assuming you blame yourself, What is the origin of your weakness?

Either way, your theology is up a tree in a flood.

Of course you could say God. but the Bible does say in James 1:13 that God can neither be tempted by sin neither tempts any man.

Is there a 4th alternative?

Or is Augustine starting to look pretty attractive?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Sin and transgression are different words. They are different words in English and they are different words in Greek. Apparently the only language where they are the same is Myrrh.

Of course one cannot transgress a law until the law has been given, but the whole point of Paul's argument is to prove that all of humanity (Jew and Gentile alike, pre and post the Torah) are sinners.

Yes, that's what he says, but by sinners he means those who sin, sin an act. 1 Timothy 1:9
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

1 Timothy 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Paul persecuted and murdered Christians, in his zeal as he says even chasing them into other countries.


As Christ says, Matthew 9:13
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

What you (generic you of OS) are doing is to read this as if there were no righteous, even when Paul says that by faith there were righteous like Abraham before the law was given, and that even the Gentiles have as the law written in their hearts where they can see the difference between their own and others good and evil acts. You condemn everyone to being in a wholly sinful nature and so make nonsense of Christ's words that we become like little children to enter into heaven. What? Should we become guilty and damned and without God's grace, estranged from Him unable to do good?

Matthew 12:31
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

It is blasphemy to deny Christ's words on the innocence of children by dismissing the possibility of righteousness in human nature.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Please, just tell me. Do you teach the Original Sin doctrine?

quote:
For the 2,564,908th time this has got nothing to do with this debate. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

It is related, but you could be either CV or PSA (or indeed umpteen other models) whether or not you believe in OS.

You do not need a doctrine of OS to see in Romans (and elsewhere) that Paul saw everyone to be sinners.

But Christ didn't.

Mark 2:17
When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Matthew 5:6
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Christ does not deny there is righteousness in man, neither does Paul, they haven't taken it out of all meanings of sin and transgression.

So, of what use is PSA for those who do not accept there are no righteous and who do not accept that God requires sacrifice?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

So you blame:
God?
Devil?
Yourself?

Assuming you blame the Devil, how come he has ground to tempt one created in God's image?

Assume nothing is your safest bet.., but not the Devil unless you think God the Father this is addressed to is the Devil..

quote:
Assuming you blame yourself, What is the origin of your weakness?
Why should I blame myself who have had no say in creation of myself?


quote:
Either way, your theology is up a tree in a flood.
Ah, does this mean my theology has saved me from destruction of the wicked?

quote:
Of course you could say God. but the Bible does say in James 1:13 that God can neither be tempted by sin neither tempts any man.
So who led Christ into the desert to be tempted? Isn't the one who conceives of murder and organises it to be done by another as guilty of the crime as the one he uses as the instrument of it?


quote:
Is there a 4th alternative?

Or is Augustine starting to look pretty attractive?

Yuk! Sorry, couldn't help that... <grin> Why do you think, from everything I've said in this discussion, that I could possibly find a Manichean who denies the goodness of God's creation attractive? Who posits a God that judges man guilty of disobedience while pretending to give him free will and condemns him to death. Who has damned all his creation born as man to graceless estrangement making it eternal if we die before getting baptised, and then not everyone, and then only those he's predestined to be saved, and that arbitrarily regardless of man's goodness, and then requires bloody human sacrifice of another to atone for sins he's already damned us to committing without free choice to do good, the list goes on. I give thanks I don't believe in his God and am doubly grateful that I'm without his grace and estranged from him since for me hell is certainly to have him as my God...

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What you (generic you of OS) are doing is to read this as if there were no righteous,

Yes, watch my evil manipulation of the text, see how when I quote Paul:

"As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;" (Romans 3: 10, quoting Ecclesiastes 7: 20)

I subtly twist his words to make him mean, "As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one"


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Christ does not deny there is righteousness in man, neither does Paul, they haven't taken it out of all meanings of sin and transgression.

So, of what use is PSA for those who do not accept there are no righteous and who do not accept that God requires sacrifice?

As I keep saying this is a complete tangent and so this is my last reply to this issue.

For someone so fixated about OS it would help if you understood what the doctrine actually teaches - OS has never taught that there is no goodness in humanity. Men and women were created good and still bear their creator's image. The doctrine of sin teaches that this image, while still present, has been spoilt by sin.

Indeed, the full quotation from Ecclesiastes 7 sums it up perfectly - "There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins."

OS has never said that there is no good in us, just that all humanity is sinful. A statement that one would think is self-evident. [Roll Eyes]

Anyway, your fixation with OS is a tangent. So I won't be posting on OS again on this thread.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

So you blame:
God?
Devil?
Yourself?

Assuming you blame the Devil, how come he has ground to tempt one created in God's image?

Assume nothing is your safest bet.., but not the Devil unless you think God the Father this is addressed to is the Devil..

quote:
Assuming you blame yourself, What is the origin of your weakness?
Why should I blame myself who have had no say in creation of myself?


quote:
Either way, your theology is up a tree in a flood.
Ah, does this mean my theology has saved me from destruction of the wicked?

quote:
Of course you could say God. but the Bible does say in James 1:13 that God can neither be tempted by sin neither tempts any man.
So who led Christ into the desert to be tempted? Isn't the one who conceives of murder and organises it to be done by another as guilty of the crime as the one he uses as the instrument of it?


quote:
Is there a 4th alternative?

Or is Augustine starting to look pretty attractive?

Yuk! Sorry, couldn't help that... <grin> Why do you think, from everything I've said in this discussion, that I could possibly find a Manichean who denies the goodness of God's creation attractive? Who posits a God that judges man guilty of disobedience while pretending to give him free will and condemns him to death. Who has damned all his creation born as man to graceless estrangement making it eternal if we die before getting baptised, and then not everyone, and then only those he's predestined to be saved, and that arbitrarily regardless of man's goodness, and then requires bloody human sacrifice of another to atone for sins he's already damned us to committing without free choice to do good, the list goes on. I give thanks I don't believe in his God and am doubly grateful that I'm without his grace and estranged from him since for me hell is certainly to have him as my God...

Myrrh

So you can't answer the issue? Thought not.

If there an intelligible reply in your post, I can't understand it
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What you (generic you of OS) are doing is to read this as if there were no righteous,

Yes, watch my evil manipulation of the text, see how when I quote Paul:

"As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;" (Romans 3: 10, quoting Ecclesiastes 7: 20)

I subtly twist his words to make him mean, "As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one"

Yes, I'm watching you do it. Are we everything that follows?


11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

15Their feet are swift to shed blood:

16Destruction and misery are in their ways:

17And the way of peace have they not known:

18There is no fear of God before their eyes.


Really? What, all of us? All mankind? Yes, I do think it evil manipulation to cherry pick to prove a doctrine contrary to what is also seen in the OT and specifically to Christ's teaching which points this out as coming from his God, and in the process to malign Paul who had Jewish issues with being under the law and, which is the context of this quote, him arguing with his own on several fronts.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Christ does not deny there is righteousness in man, neither does Paul, they haven't taken it out of all meanings of sin and transgression.

So, of what use is PSA for those who do not accept there are no righteous and who do not accept that God requires sacrifice?

quote:
As I keep saying this is a complete tangent and so this is my last reply to this issue.

It's not a tangent, it's two prongs of three in the heart of the matter. PSA's claim is that all are sinners, I'm saying this isn't Christ's teaching, not even Paul's (as he admits righteousness in faith alone against those who argue that righteousness is only possible in the law, that anyway the Gentiles have the law written in their hearts and know the difference between good and evil and their own conscience convicts or excuses them and that'll do nicely as they too will be sorted in the final judgement, and so on). Take away that premise of PSA's that we are all sinners and its reason for existence disappears. So why did Christ die for us if we're not all sinners?


And the second prong is also relevant here to PSA because contrary to OT and Christ's teaching, God requires mercy not sacrifice; repentance which is a change of mind and a new beginning and a return to a God who is good rather than yet more blood shed in propitiating the wrath of an angry god in vicarious excuses because he demands blood satisfaction to soothe his hurt honour, justice or whatever which actually makes him evil, the father of certain pharisees who didn't know and couldn't see Christ's father so enamoured were they of this idea of who and what God is.


quote:
For someone so fixated about OS it would help if you understood what the doctrine actually teaches - OS has never taught that there is no goodness in humanity. Men and women were created good and still bear their creator's image. The doctrine of sin teaches that this image, while still present, has been spoilt by sin.
I'm not going to argue about massa damnata here or some PSA variation on it, what's common in PSA and Augustine's Original Sin is the premise that all are born sinners, fallen humanity, damned because guilty of sin in a juridical relationship with God, the third prong, and the basis of his OS doctrine which is the same basis as PSA.

quote:
Indeed, the full quotation from Ecclesiastes 7 sums it up perfectly - "There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins."
There you go again.

You blithely dismiss Christ's teaching and substitute your own.


quote:
OS has never said that there is no good in us, just that all humanity is sinful. A statement that one would think is self-evident. [Roll Eyes] [quote]

Oh, please. Get real here. OS teaches that everyone born is damned in sin and any good in us is irrelevant to this, which you continue to teach here in pushing that there are no righteous, not even one, making nonsense of both OT and NT righteous and Christ a liar.


[quote]Anyway, your fixation with OS is a tangent. So I won't be posting on OS again on this thread.

If it annoys you so much for me continue using it as shorthand for the above which you share with him I'll stop using it as such, since you think it muddies the waters, maybe it does, there were others who thought as he did although he is noted for being the great expounder of it, however, the third prong central to your teaching is of the same base on which Augustine built up his theory, man in a juridical relationship with God which sees God requiring punishment for the guilt of sin as "Augustine summarizes, distinguishing between guilt and punishment: 'Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that he might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment'. [6]" (Punished in our Place: A Reply to Steve Chalke on Penal Substitution Dr Garry J. Williams)

So here the summary of my objections to PSA (apart from its inclusion in Passover as I've already described), that we are not all sinners, that God doesn't require sacrifice for atonement of any kind, that we do not have a juridical relationship with God which demands punishment as satisfaction for sin.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So you can't answer the issue? Thought not.

If there an intelligible reply in your post, I can't understand it

I thought I'd answered, I've no need of Augustine's doctrines, and even if I had nothing else I'd reject his ideas which, as I see it and has been noted from the beginning of his first expounding them, have superimposed a Gnostic Manichean view of God and its belief in the evil nature of creation onto our relationship with God as Christ taught and he's done this by twisting texts and Christian teaching which do not support him in creating a hybrid idea of God peculiar to himself, but which has been the bedrock of centuries of some, nuanced variety of, Christian thinking following his basic teaching and presenting this as the default position of the Church when it is no such thing at all.


Myrrh
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Myrrh, if I may intervene, Jamat is asking a personal question.

Of course, you are free not to give an answer to personal questions, but in case you feel it's OK Jamat is asking if you see in your personal life a tendency to sin. And if you do see such a tendency, where does it come from?

Personally, I do see such a tendency in my life. Not a tendency to do specific deeds that a moralist might see as sins, but a tendency to run away from God, a tendency to be slow to respond to Him, a tendency not to fulfill my potential in accordance to His will.

But, like I said earlier, I see this tendency to have arisen through my own disposition, through my personal screwing up, which gives birth to passions, which passions are the tendency Jamat is speaking of.

No need for an original sin here. Instead of Adam's fault, I am personally responsible for my passions, for my disposition of the heart. We are not born that way, but through our own choices passions are born in us. That's my answer.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Ah, thanks Andrew, I thought it was rhetorical, actually after first having read it as personal. Jamat I'll re-read your posts and come back to this later, probably tomorrow.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
No need for an original sin here. Instead of Adam's fault, I am personally responsible for my passions, for my disposition of the heart. We are not born that way, but through our own choices passions are born in us. That's my answer.

Thank you Andrew.

Myrrh, please listen to Andrew. It is quite possible to see that everyone is a sinner (starting from one's own personal experience) without accepting original sin.

The fact that I frequently find myself making wrong choices does not necessarily mean an aceptance of OS.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Yes, I'm watching you do it. Are we everything that follows?

Really? What, all of us? All mankind?

What else does Paul mean in Romans 3? (e.g. 'All have sinned' in verse 23?)

You are barking up the wrong tree here. To admit that we are all sinners does not mean you have to admit to OS.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Indeed, the full quotation from Ecclesiastes 7 sums it up perfectly - "There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins."
There you go again.

You blithely dismiss Christ's teaching and substitute your own.

That's right - I wrote Ecclesiastes. I'm still waiting for the royalties to come through though.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Oh, please. Get real here. OS teaches that everyone born is damned in sin and any good in us is irrelevant to this, which you continue to teach here in pushing that there are no righteous, not even one, making nonsense of both OT and NT righteous and Christ a liar.

Let's get this straight - you are attacking a doctrine held by others and you will not accept their version of the doctrine.

You are telling me what I believe so that you can dismiss it.

Can't you see why some might find this frustrating and pointless? [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Myrrh, if I may intervene, Jamat is asking a personal question.

Of course, you are free not to give an answer to personal questions, but in case you feel it's OK Jamat is asking if you see in your personal life a tendency to sin. And if you do see such a tendency, where does it come from?

Personally, I do see such a tendency in my life. Not a tendency to do specific deeds that a moralist might see as sins, but a tendency to run away from God, a tendency to be slow to respond to Him, a tendency not to fulfill my potential in accordance to His will.

But, like I said earlier, I see this tendency to have arisen through my own disposition, through my personal screwing up, which gives birth to passions, which passions are the tendency Jamat is speaking of.

No need for an original sin here. Instead of Adam's fault, I am personally responsible for my passions, for my disposition of the heart. We are not born that way, but through our own choices passions are born in us. That's my answer.

My question to Myrrh was not intended to be at all personal.

The issue is simply the origin of evil within our nature which is manifestly observable.

Your answer, Andrew, begs the question of why, in the absence of a 'fall' in your and in Myrrh's theology, you share this (admitted) predilection to sin which incidentally Paul the great apostle also acknowledged in Romans 7.

In other words, how did it get there?

This seems to me a very particular problem and relevant to the atonement theme since in my belief system, Christ died for our sinfulness as well as for or committed sins.

The point I would make is that had there been, for instance, a propensity for goodness within us, there may in fact be no committed sins to expiate.

There would be no need for any atonement.

This leaves you with the problem of why the incarnation occurred.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In other words, how did it get there?

The same way "it got there" in Adam! Adam was not created fallen! Yet he fell. Original Sin does not explain the origin of sin, because Adam was not under original sin before he fell.

quote:
This leaves you with the problem of why the incarnation occurred.
On the contrary, in my theology and tradition, the Logos gets Incarnate, Fall or no Fall, ancestral sin or no ancestral sin.

It sounds very Pelagian to think that if there was no sin, man would not be in need of salvation!

Unfortunately, I can't just explain the fullness of Orthodox theology in one post.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In other words, how did it get there?

The same way "it got there" in Adam! Adam was not created fallen! Yet he fell. Original Sin does not explain the origin of sin, because Adam was not under original sin before he fell.

quote:
This leaves you with the problem of why the incarnation occurred.
On the contrary, in my theology and tradition, the Logos gets Incarnate, Fall or no Fall, ancestral sin or no ancestral sin.

It sounds very Pelagian to think that if there was no sin, man would not be in need of salvation!

Unfortunately, I can't just explain the fullness of Orthodox theology in one post.

If it is too complex to explain, just state why after Adam 'fell', there is a greater problem, less potential for godliness and in fact a global judgement within about 6 generations.

Explain also, why one who was created in the divine image, was lowered to a level where divine communication became rare and a system of sacrificial offerings became the norm for those who sought the face of the divine being.

Explain also, why Satan was able to claim that the kingdoms of the world were 'his' to give the Christ on the basis of worship.

Also explain, why no amount of will power or good intentions will ever enable the kind of fellowship with the divine that the first Adam had. (For that it took the divine exchange of the cross.)Johnny touched on this. Why are there so few saints or genuinely 'holy' ones?

By the way there is no claim in my questions that human nature is totally depraved, since without some vestige of the original creation we could no longer recognise the grace that Christ presents us with.

Nor am I attempting to solve the predestiantion problem. In my view one must simply accept the paradox of God's sovereignty versus our choice.

To say Adam in his unfallen state, could fall and so therefore could I, puts me on a level with Adam, without Christ, and does precludes the need for God's intervention through Christ.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
It does put you on a level with Adam. Theologically speaking, we are not that different from him. The entire humanity is the whole Adam. Which is why we can look upon his sin and call it ancestral sin, instead of original sin.

But this does not mean that we don't need Christ, just like we can't say Adam does not need Christ.

Adam needed Christ before he fell, and after he fell.

Before he fell, he needed Christ because he was not created perfect, but immature. On the way to maturity, the Son of God would become man. If we weren't sinful, we wouldn't have crucified him, but he would still have become human. The Incarnation is part of God's original plan for mankind.

But, pray, tell me, don't you see any other importance in Christ than the expiation of our sins? Isn't man's salvation anything more than dealing with sin?

For me, salvation is about the union between the created and the uncreated, and this union pre-supposes the Incarnation. If God does not become man, man cannot become God, and we remain unsaved, even if we were sinless.

One last thing. As far as communion between man and God is concerned, the Old Testament, and the New Testament, are full of theophanies, of God discussing with man as with a friend. In the personal lives of the Orthodox Saints, the unceasing conscious presence of God is a reality. Their life if very different than ours. It's a matter of the disposition of our heart.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
All you say , much of which I agree with, still begs the question of why the 'evil within' is so dominant.

On the question of our parity with Adam, Paul the Apostle does not agree with your thesis. He states that 'In Adam,all died so also in Christ, all shall be made alive.'(1 Cor15:22)
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
By the way there is no claim in my questions that human nature is totally depraved, since without some vestige of the original creation we could no longer recognise the grace that Christ presents us with.

This I do not get. Surely, if we are under our own passions, what we recognize and what we do not recognize is flawed, because of our passions. The passions need to get healed first, before we can see the Grace of God that sustains the very Universe, the countless energies of God, which God is energizing.

Are you saying that we can recognize Christ and accept him as our savior? Because I do not think that's possible when we are under our passions.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
On the question of our parity with Adam, Paul the Apostle does not agree with your thesis. He states that 'In Adam,all died so also in Christ, all shall be made alive.'(1 Cor15:22)

What do you mean? In that passage Paul seems to be saying that death entered creation after Adam sinned. I might not agree with that, seeing that death was part of creation for millions of years before Adam was born, but I don't understand what you mean by referring to that passage.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
All you say , much of which I agree with, still begs the question of why the 'evil within' is so dominant.

[Confused]

It is and it isn't. Look at the babies for example. They are shining with original blessedness, to the extent that we call them "little angels"!

There is something I'd like to say, but don't get me wrong. If it's Adam's fault, then how isn't God an ass, for creating Adam instead of let's say create you in the first place. If evil wouldn't be dominant in you had it not been for Adam, if it's all Adam's fault, then why wouldn't God create you or someone else as the first human person, so that the Fall would be avoided?

It seems to me that to attribute it to Adam, both exaggerates and belittles the importance of sin. It exaggerates it, because it makes it a cosmic force that makes even God become human to deal with it, and it belittles it because it's not really my personal fault, but someone else's fault (much like Adam said to God. It's the serpent and the woman You gave me...)

Also, is this what you think about the Incarnation? That it happened because of Adam's sin? That the Incarnation is about the great victim getting born so that he can get slaughtered???

To put it differently, if we were all sinless, there would be no need for salvation?????? [Eek!]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Andrew, I'm going back to the original post of Jamat's and my thoughts about it.


quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
[QUOTE]\Please, just tell me. Do you teach the Original Sin doctrine? If not, what kind of Baptist are you? Where can I find out more?

Myrrh

The lady doth protest too much methinks.

Have you noticed a tendency to sin within yourself at times Myrrh?

What I saw first off was this evasion again, now with Jamat aiding and abetting Johnny. The lady doth keep asking that pesky question certainly, because one of my argument against PSA here is the 'all sinners' view which I put firmly in the Augustine camp from his OS doctrine which Johnny keeps telling me has nothing to do with his view but won't elaborate.

There have been rather a lot of pages from those far more learned than I on the differences between CV and SA and PSA and the different aspects of sacrifice and so on which I can only follow without contributing except in the little I've said about Passover on which hinges my understanding of Christ's death and resurrection - in which models of salvation such as SA and PSA and even CV can be included but not by giving the doctrines themselves any value apart from the meanings they have for those accepting Christ, however, to give them credibility as the reason/s for Christ's sacrifice does do damage to my understanding of this event and that I think is worth arguing for here.

As Johnny continues to wriggle out of answering so did Jamat who then threw in a question which at first I took to be personal and then wondered if it related back to his first comment and some confirmation of 'all sinners' and 'guilt for sin requiring punishment' and thus more rhetorical, but, which looking at it again still appeared as an evasion - so, I decided to answer it personally without elaborating further and getting stuck in personal and then to take it into another direction altogether which not only answered, truthfully, his question, whether I found in myself a tendency to sin, but did so by rejecting personal responsibility, just to see how he would react to this in view of his doctrines.

And the rest of the exchange is history. I avoided answering personally not because I wouldn't go in that direction, after the first initial twinge of discomfort I thought it could be an interesting exploration, for myself if for no one else, but because this evasiveness is beginning to irritate me and I saw in the direction I did take an answer to another flaw in the PSA doctrine, besides their insistence that we are all sinners they also insist we are all guilty.

Jamat, hope this helps clarify the exchanges we had here and I'll add that this is not an evasion from 'personal', but very much what I include in my understanding of sin in myself. Actually I don't know why I sin, somewhere else I answered "because I can", as a simple statement of what I observe is obvious in myself.

Sometimes I sin sometimes I don't and sometimes I act to the good and sometimes I don't, and that within a mixture of deliberate and spontaneous. But what I do find in myself and in the majority of the people I meet is that good acts prevail and so what I've come to expect by default when meeting people I don't know and I hope that in acting towards others I also show this. Sometimes I have to work a bit harder at it and those times when it isn't spontaneous in me I find as Paul says, my conscience pricks and points out what I'm doing or thinking of doing isn't up to scratch, ..but then I bring to mind Christ's words when I've found myself backing out of helping another because of whatever and then feeling bad about it changing my mind, that I'm at the end of a very long queue.. [Smile]

What I try to work on is not being not a sinner as the first son, but in changing how I view life and becoming more like the second, yes, circumstances might prevent me from actually going to help, but in that moment of agreement to help I've pushed aside all other considerations on my time and effort and living in the moment of giving without thought of reasons for helping or consequences. I've a long way to go.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
oops, I just seen all the other posts. The personal then for Andrew.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
1Cor 15 :22 "As in Adam all died, so therefore in Christ will all be made alive."

In this beautifully balanced statement Andrew, The apostle Paul, writing with scriptural authority, is stating UNCATEGORICALLY that sin entered the world through Adam.

Incidentally, This is a thread about the atonement. You 'Orthodox' guys don't really share the 'givens' of the discussion do you? it is probably therefore not worth pursuing.

Basically, I believe that as a man, I was created in God's image with the proviso that there is a spiritual 'inheritance' of sin resident in my nature.

Consequently, I am quite helpless to change myself. This, only the marvellous Christ can do and it is a long and painful life walk.

I am reminded of John's statement in 1Jn 1:8 that: if we say we have not sinned, then we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
I think, with respect, that your stance brings you quite close to doing that.

In the end, though, none of this is just about theology, it easily becomes simply about pride; mine as well.

You will not be able to change my fundamentals; nor I, yours. However, having come out of RC tradition, I am aware of the weight of history and tradition. We were always taught that scripture and tradition were equal partners. I fear though, that tradition can blind us to scripture at times in the same way Jesus accused the Pharisees of making the word of God of none effect by their traditional additions to it.

My point in the end, is that for me, scripture is fairly unequivocal when it comes to accusing man of sinfulness. And to that problem, a humble acknowledgement of God's saving power through Christ, is the answer.

I wish you well, Myrrh and Andrew.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Yes, I'm watching you do it. Are we everything that follows?

Really? What, all of us? All mankind?

What else does Paul mean in Romans 3? (e.g. 'All have sinned' in verse 23?)

You are barking up the wrong tree here. To admit that we are all sinners does not mean you have to admit to OS.

But that's not what you're doing, you're saying that all are sinners and there are none, not one, righteous. That's Augustine not Paul, and certainly not Christ.

The doctrine that we are all sinners and none righteous is OS. It wasn't taught by the Jews, they don't have such a doctrine under this or any other name, and it isn't NT teaching, it didn't exist until Augustine promoted it from his own ideas and mangling of Scripture.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Indeed, the full quotation from Ecclesiastes 7 sums it up perfectly - "There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins."
There you go again.

You blithely dismiss Christ's teaching and substitute your own.

quote:
That's right - I wrote Ecclesiastes. I'm still waiting for the royalties to come through though.
You wish... [Smile] Your own is taking Ecclesiates out of context. I'll ask you again, are we also all these?

11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17And the way of peace have they not known:
18There is no fear of God before their eyes.


If we're not, then you're quoting Ecclesiastes out of context to prove some doctrine he'd never subscribe to.

15Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun.

13Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

And that as Paul said is also for the Gentile, with or without Christ.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Oh, please. Get real here. OS teaches that everyone born is damned in sin and any good in us is irrelevant to this, which you continue to teach here in pushing that there are no righteous, not even one, making nonsense of both OT and NT righteous and Christ a liar.

quote:
Let's get this straight - you are attacking a doctrine held by others and you will not accept their version of the doctrine.

You are telling me what I believe so that you can dismiss it.

Can't you see why some might find this frustrating and pointless? [Ultra confused]

I'm sorry you're getting so frustrated with this, but as above, I'm not trying to tell you what you believe, but trying to tell you that what you believe, that we are all sinners and there is none righteous and we're all born guilty under a wrathful God who demands penal satisfaction for this, is OS because it comes from OS. In bold some other points in OS from a defence of PSA.

quote:
The narrative of Genesis 2-3 shows that the fall disordered the whole creation, with the serpent seeking to rule Eve, and Eve Adam, and Adam God. Man warred against God and was shut out from his presence. Male-female relations were distorted, and the ground was frustrated. Even the process of life itself, of a new human being coming into the world, became painful. This whole complex of woe was the death threatened in Genesis 2:17. The serpent said that man would not die, but he was wrong. Though he did not die bodily at once, he died spiritually, and then faced an eternity under the wrath of God. The curse of perpetual hostility with God and a disordered cosmos came on the day sin came. (Punished in our Place A Reply to Steve Chalke on Penal Substitution by Dr Garry J. Williams)
And the problem here is still the same as when Augustine created it, it simply doesn't make sense. Man wasn't shut out from God's presence, God went with him; man did not face eternity under the wrath of God, God was ever merciful etc. interacting with man and ever willing to wipe the slate clean on repentance; man did not face the perpetual hostility of God, Moses walked with God as friend. And so on. Augustine's original distortions have been accepted for centuries as the basic teaching, in the West, that it's in the general mindset and while you in your Church might never call it Original Sin or ever refer to Augustine, it's his bog standard doctrine.

I see a lot of arguments about some of the other things Augustine said, double versus single predestination and then all the nuances about grace, works, faith, justification and so on, some of which I find really confusing to follow, and there are some Arminians who moved on to partial depravity and get upset when called semi-pelagians, but, all begin with this idea of separation from an angry God hostile to man who is seen only as sinful and deserving of punishment for eternity for his sins because it's for this particular sin, as called by Augustine, the original one of Adam and Eve's. Actually I think it was Tertullian who first used the word 'original', and if you agree with his rant about it..

And through his original distorted lens PSA makes sense, even though it's contradicted in the relationship Adam and Eve continue to have with God in Genesis and what follows. However, I think, it does have a place within the context of Passover which is freedom from slavery, whatever it is that enslaves an individual, because God so loved the world etc., and which as I see it, is the only real point of unity for all of us who call ourselves Christian.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Thank you Jamat, God bless and keep you.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
But that's not what you're doing, you're saying that all are sinners and there are none, not one, righteous. That's Augustine not Paul, and certainly not Christ.

Stop forcing your view of OS onto other people. You are now using righteous in two different ways:

1. righteous = a generally good person, commended by God.

2. righteous = blameless, a perfect life of obedience to God.

Right across the NT Jesus is portrayed as the only person righteous (in the sense of no. 2) in contrast to the rest of humanity.

For example ...

"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God." 1 Peter 3: 18

Likewise in 1 John, the Apostle makes it clear that:

1. We are all sinners.
2. If we claim that we are not sinners then we are liars.
3. Therefore, we need to be cleansed from our unrighteousness.

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1: 8-9

i.e. the fact that we are not righteous does not mean that there is no good in us but that there is sin in us that needs to be cleansed.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Your own is taking Ecclesiates out of context. I'll ask you again, are we also all these?

Yes, of course we are - in exactly the same way that Paul quotes it ... i.e. neither writer is saying that every single person does all of those things, but rather that it is an accurate summary of humanity as a whole. That is what 'we', i.e. the human race, are like.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm sorry you're getting so frustrated with this, but as above, I'm not trying to tell you what you believe, but trying to tell you that what you believe...

So you are trying to tell me what I believe then? [Roll Eyes]

All I can say is that whatever they pay you for your day job (you know, the one where you have to argue black = white all day long) it ain't nearly enough. [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
You know, Myrhh, it is quite possible to believe that humanity is in some way tainted by the human propensity for sin, which I think John has demonstrated is a theme in scripture, (we could argue as to how major a theme) whilst still believeing that is some way, to a greater or lesser degree, Augustine's understanding of how that works is/was flawed. In fact I'd say that 95% of western christians would hold that view, be they protestant or Catholic. I just don't see the sort of uncritical acceptance of the African Doctor amongst non-Orthodox Christians that you seem to see. Even amongst those who would use the term "Original Sin". Actually, I have a lot of sympathy with some of the things you write. I also think that a juridical understanding of God's dealings with mankind is a distortion of the whole counsel of scripture. I do, however, think you might get your point across more effectively if you engaged with what people actually believed, rather than what you have decided they believe, sometimes in the face of their own testimony.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
You know, Myrhh, it is quite possible to believe that humanity is in some way tainted by the human propensity for sin, which I think John has demonstrated is a theme in scripture, (we could argue as to how major a theme) whilst still believeing that is some way, to a greater or lesser degree, Augustine's understanding of how that works is/was flawed.

It's like the discussion we had a few pages earlier, about ransom, substitution, and court stuff being a theme in scripture. They only become a theme under a particular framework of interpretation, which both conservative and liberal Protestants, if you pardon the characterization, exhibited in this thread.

So, no, at least for me, it has not been demonstrated that the notion of a tainted by conception humanity is a Scriptural theme.

Of course, Johnny, in his quoting from 1 John 1, he stops there, not seeing the whole thing in context. For in 1 John 2, the Apostle says that "The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar" and "Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did" and "you have overcome the evil one".

There is this prayer, from this modern David, Saint Nicholai of Zicha, in his Prayers by the Lake, this modern Psalter:

quote:
For all the sins of men I repent before You, Most Merciful Lord. Indeed, the seed of all sins flows in my blood! With my effort and Your mercy I choke this wicked crop of weeds day and night, so that no tare may sprout in the field of the Lord, but only pure wheat.

I repent for all those who are worried, who stagger under a burden of worries and do not know that they should put all their worries on You. For feeble man even the most minor worry is unbearable, but for You a mountain of worries is like a snowball thrown into a fiery furnace.

I repent for all the sick, for sickness is the fruit of sin. When the soul is cleansed with repentance, sickness disappears with sin, and You, my Eternal Health, take up Your abode in the soul.

I repent for unbelievers, who through their unbelief amass worries and sicknesses both on themselves and on their friends.

I repent for all those who blaspheme God, who blaspheme against You without knowing that they are blaspheming against the Master, who clothes them and feeds them.

I repent for all the slayers of men, who take the life of another to preserve their own. Forgive them, Most Merciful Lord, for they know not what they do. For they do not know that there are not two lives in the universe, but one, and that there are not two men in the universe, but one. Ah, how dead are those who cut the heart in half!

I repent for all those who bear false witness, for in reality they are homicides and suicides.

For all my brothers who are thieves and who are hoarders of unneeded wealth I weep and sigh, for they have buried their soul and have nothing with which to go forth before You.

For all the arrogant and the boastful I weep and sigh, for before You they are like beggars with empty pockets.

For all drunkards and gluttons I weep and sigh, for they have become servants of their servants.

For all adulterers I repent, for they have betrayed the trust. of the Holy Spirit, who chose them to form new life through them. Instead, they turned serving life into destroying life.

For all gossipers I repent, for they have turned Your most precious gift, the gift of speech, into cheap sand.

For all those who destroy their neighbor’s hearth and home and their neighbor’s peace I repent and sigh, for they bring a curse on themselves and their people.

For all lying tongues, for all suspicious eyes, for all raging hearts, for all insatiable stomachs, for all darkened minds, for all ill will, for all unseemly thoughts, for all murderous emotions–I repent, weep and sigh.

For all the history of mankind from Adam to me, a sinner, I repent; for all history is in my blood. For I am in Adam and Adam is in me.

For all the worlds, large and small, that do not tremble before Your awesome presence, I weep and cry out: O Master Most Merciful, have mercy on me and save me!”

This kind of prayer which is exhibited among the Saints, this unity with the whole Adam, is essential, I think, to understand some of the things this thread touches.

[ 24. June 2008, 12:09: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
A farewell post to Jamat

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The relevant point is that sin IS a barrier dress it up how you like.

This reminds me of what Anthony the Great taught, which is pretty much the teaching of the catholic church, as far as I can tell, and it's not something St. Anthony introduced.

"To say that God abhors the wicked is just like saying that the sun hides his light from the blind."

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If it is too complex to explain, just state why after Adam 'fell', there is a greater problem, less potential for godliness and in fact a global judgement within about 6 generations.

Adam did not fall from perfection. It's not that he was created perfect and we aren't. He was created immature, and we are created immature too. Which is why there is wickedness, immaturity, and maturity at the same time in humanity.

Immaturity as a starting point means we are not expected to be an all shining humanity. Don't be too hard on men.

Elijah was hard, I think. He said, everybody fell astray, they worship idols, and they want to murder me. But the Lord begged to differ. There are seven thousand people, Elijah, the Lord said, who have not bowed down before Baal.

"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still."

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My point in the end, is that for me, scripture is fairly unequivocal when it comes to accusing man of sinfulness. And to that problem, a humble acknowledgement of God's saving power through Christ, is the answer.

I wish you well, Myrrh and Andrew.

I agree with your ultimate point.

I wish you well also.

[ 24. June 2008, 12:43: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
So, no, at least for me, it has not been demonstrated that the notion of a tainted by conception humanity is a Scriptural theme.

See, this is exactly what I mean. I didn't say "tainted by conception". You have put those words into my mouth. To say this would, indeed be going further than the Scriptures. I would be very surprised if either Johnny or Jamat believe it. It might have been Augustine's position, and, as far as I know, it may be current Catholic orthodoxy, but it is essentially a speculation about how the universal human experience of sin might have come about. To reject the mechanism is not the same as to deny the experience.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Tainted by virtue of being human then.

It doesn't matter how you put it, if you see for example little babies as tainted, I can't agree with you.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Tainted by virtue of being human then.

It doesn't matter how you put it, if you see for example little babies as tainted, I can't agree with you.

Tainted, ( as in, born into a condition which will tend to lead them into sin) maybe, though the language I would find loaded and unhelpful, guilty, no. If you mean, do I believe that babies are morally corrupt, then certainly I do not. If you mean are they in need of the grace and salvation of God, then yes they are, as are we all. But, as I've said many times before, salvation is not primarily about sin, though freedom from sin is one of its fortunate fruits.

And, to answer your earlier question, yes, if I had never sinned, I would still need God's "salvation", though I'm not sure that would be the best way of putting it in that context. Isn't it Orthodoxy 101 that the presence of God is the salvation of God.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
But that's not what you're doing, you're saying that all are sinners and there are none, not one, righteous. That's Augustine not Paul, and certainly not Christ.

Stop forcing your view of OS onto other people. You are now using righteous in two different ways:

1. righteous = a generally good person, commended by God.

2. righteous = blameless, a perfect life of obedience to God.

Right across the NT Jesus is portrayed as the only person righteous (in the sense of no. 2) in contrast to the rest of humanity.

For example ...

"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God." 1 Peter 3: 18

Likewise in 1 John, the Apostle makes it clear that:

1. We are all sinners.
2. If we claim that we are not sinners then we are liars.
3. Therefore, we need to be cleansed from our unrighteousness.

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1: 8-9

i.e. the fact that we are not righteous does not mean that there is no good in us but that there is sin in us that needs to be cleansed.

So Luke is a liar and Christ called the righteous to repentance?


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Your own is taking Ecclesiates out of context. I'll ask you again, are we also all these?

quote:
Yes, of course we are - in exactly the same way that Paul quotes it ... i.e. neither writer is saying that every single person does all of those things, but rather that it is an accurate summary of humanity as a whole. That is what 'we', i.e. the human race, are like.
Wherever your doctrines come from Johnny, to see humanity as a whole like this, quite apart from being a horribly dark view of humanity, is how you're pushing it for everyone, for every individual, 11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God., which is what Augustine did.

Christ said he didn't come for the righteous, but for sinners to bring them to repentance, He sees that some need him and some don't. So why would the righteous need PSA which does accuse all humanity of being hated by God?


Which is clearly not how Christ or Paul see
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm sorry you're getting so frustrated with this, but as above, I'm not trying to tell you what you believe, but trying to tell you that what you believe...

So you are trying to tell me what I believe then? [Roll Eyes] [/qb][/quote]

That is disingenuous, you keep saying it's what you believe and that's quite apart from chopping off the rest of sentence which puts it in context - 'thatwhat you believe comes from Augustine.

The context is that it goes back to Augustine who sees all humanity in each individual as sinners and unrighteous, therefore all 'needing Christ' etc. and specifically in a juridical relationship where all, righteous and unrighteous, all humanity including babes newly born, are included in "all are sinners and guilty under a wrathful God etc.", and needing PSA, which PSA teaches.

"Man warred against God and was shut out from his presence. ..and then faced an eternity under the wrath of God... The curse of perpetual hostility with God and a disordered cosmos came on the day [Original] sin came"

Is what PSA teaches and that is Augustine.


Myrrh
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Isn't it Orthodoxy 101 that the presence of God is the salvation of God.

Exactly. Which is why we can say, along with the Scriptures, that our salvation was effected before the crucifixion, at the incarnation, and, at the same time, say that our salvation is in the crucifixion, in the resurrection, in the ascension, and, in a sense, will be effected, in the second coming.

We don't "remember" all these things, including the second coming, in the liturgy by accident. There is a reason. We never accepted the equation salvation=Jesus being slaughtered on the cross.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Isn't it Orthodoxy 101 that the presence of God is the salvation of God.

Exactly. Which is why we can say, along with the Scriptures, that our salvation was effected before the crucifixion, at the incarnation, and, at the same time, say that our salvation is in the crucifixion, in the resurrection, in the ascension, and, in a sense, will be effected, in the second coming.

We don't "remember" all these things, including the second coming, in the liturgy by accident. There is a reason. We never accepted the equation salvation=Jesus being slaughtered on the cross.

Well, give or take, I wouldn't disagree with what you write here. I'm not much into PSA myself, as you no doubt have twigged. The point I am making is that, if we are trying to understand one another, it behoves us to examine what those with whom we engage actually believe, rather than go with the caricature which we may carry round with us.

I take it that from your assent to the concept that we all need the salvation of God (You would say the presence of God, which is fair enough, but what you mean by that is, I suspect, more nuanced than a westerner would understand the term), that you would agree that a baby is no less needy of the grace of God than is an adult. After all, why else would Orthodoxen baptise in infancy, and (am I right) communicate even the youngest. I think you are right to understand a difference between Augustine's specific doctrine and Orthodox practise, but I have to tell you that most western Christians that I know, even those who subscribe to PSA, would be quite happy to subscribe to at least the generalities of a schema such as I have outlined above. I would be very surprised if any of the main contributers to this thread understood OS as the pure Augustinian doctrine (unbaptised babies going to hell, inherited guilt) but would instead understand it as babies being as much in need of the grace of God as anyone else, a position not so very far from your own. So why not address the issue in those terms, rather than attacking what most of the posters here would regard as a straw man caricature.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Do you think that in my posts I attack a caricature? I'd be interested to know more. I think the difference is that I see the pre-Fallen Adam in need of salvation as we are.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Do you think that in my posts I attack a caricature? I'd be interested to know more. I think the difference is that I see the pre-Fallen Adam in need of salvation as we are.

As would I (in need of, maybe not as much in need of), given the definition of salvation (ie the presence of God) that you hold. But, as I have said, I think the issue of sin is dealt with by forgiveness. We are forgiven already, but we still need God's grace and mercy.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
You know, Myrhh, it is quite possible to believe that humanity is in some way tainted by the human propensity for sin, which I think John has demonstrated is a theme in scripture, (we could argue as to how major a theme) whilst still believeing that is some way, to a greater or lesser degree, Augustine's understanding of how that works is/was flawed.

Yes it's quite possible to believe that, but how can one unless at the same time one also believes that humanity is somehow not only tainted by the propensity to sin, but also marked with a propensity not to sin?

quote:
In fact I'd say that 95% of western christians would hold that view, be they protestant or Catholic. I just don't see the sort of uncritical acceptance of the African Doctor amongst non-Orthodox Christians that you seem to see. Even amongst those who would use the term "Original Sin".
I really can't see anything in PSA, as I've been reading it described not only in this discussion, which is at all uncritical of this basic doctrine of OS, or any different to those who do say they hold to the OS doctrine, that we're all tainted with this propensity to sin because we're all estranged from God, damned under his curse for being guilty because of OS.


quote:
Actually, I have a lot of sympathy with some of the things you write. I also think that a juridical understanding of God's dealings with mankind is a distortion of the whole counsel of scripture. I do, however, think you might get your point across more effectively if you engaged with what people actually believed, rather than what you have decided they believe, sometimes in the face of their own testimony.
Well this is what I'm finding so frustrating, Johnny says I don't understand him and am telling him what he believes and one doesn't have to believe in OS to believe in PSA, but PSA is by all accounts exactly what Augustine's OS doctrine holds as its basic belief. That we're all born guilty of sin because of OS is standard to both.

And this, as I see it here, is what Johnny in our discussion is refusing to admit is true because I've asked him to show how one can hold to PSA without believing the same thing basic OS teaches which are the points in common, the same beliefs and reasons for them, and I'm still waiting. I have, sincerely, looked for it myself and haven't, yet, found such an explanation of PSA from anyone else either. Is he saying that Dr Garry J. Williams is not giving the standard understanding of the basics which support PSA?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Myrrh:
I really can't see anything in PSA, as I've been reading it described not only in this discussion, which is at all uncritical of this basic doctrine of OS, or any different to those who do say they hold to the OS doctrine, that we're all tainted with this propensity to sin because we're all estranged from God, damned under his curse for being guilty because of OS.

Of course there are shared assumptions in OS as posited by Augustine, OS as posited by others who find evidence for it at some level in the biblical account, but who would reject Augustine's specific teaching, and those who believe in PSA. But to establish a certain correlation of worldview is not the same as establishing a causal relationship. There are plenty who accept OS but disagree with PSA (notably the RCC), plenty who agree with PSA but reject Augustinian doctrine (I would guess Johnny falls into this category), and plenty who reject both.

I could just about accept that PSA would never have become standard doctrine to large parts of the Church without Augustine's preparation, but to assert that PSA is the inevitable result of belief in original sin (or, for that matter, that OS is integral to belief in PSA) is just plain wrong. I say this as no lover of PSA, but if you want to engage with those who do hold the belief, it requires you not only to understand why they hold that belief, but also to accept it when they say that a certain doctrine is not significant in their reasoning. Your quoting from Dr Williams establishes no more than that some PSA advocates also hold to OS (though not, I suspect in Dr Williams case, any understanding that Augustine would have owned).

If you want me to play devil's advocate, I'd happily have a stab at justifying PSA without reference to OS, but merely from the universal experience of sinfulness of which I think most of us (not least St Paul ) share.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I could just about accept that PSA would never have become standard doctrine to large parts of the Church without Augustine's preparation, but to assert that PSA is the inevitable result of belief in original sin (or, for that matter, that OS is integral to belief in PSA) is just plain wrong.

I haven't been saying that PSA is the inevitable result of belief in OS, nor have I been saying that OS is integral to belief in PSA - I have been saying that what Johnny is saying and what I have found in PSA shows that OS is integral.


quote:
I say this as no lover of PSA, but if you want to engage with those who do hold the belief, it requires you not only to understand why they hold that belief, but also to accept it when they say that a certain doctrine is not significant in their reasoning.
Sure, but my gripe here is that Johnny keeps saying it but not showing it, nor is he giving me a standard accepted PSA which doesn't have it.

quote:
Your quoting from Dr Williams establishes no more than that some PSA advocates also hold to OS (though not, I suspect in Dr Williams case, any understanding that Augustine would have owned).
So who are the PSA advocates who don't? And what do they teach?

quote:
If you want me to play devil's advocate, I'd happily have a stab at justifying PSA without reference to OS, but merely from the universal experience of sinfulness of which I think most of us (not least St Paul ) share.
Thanks, but I don't that's going to useful for me here, I've already established, to my satisfaction, that Paul doesn't teach Augustine's OS. I'm really trying to understand what Johnny thinks since he's the one here advocating PSA. All I've been asking for is as above. I can't see how the PSA being argued here can exist if it admits that there is even one righteous, even one not a sinner, even one not guilty, even one not estranged from a wrathful God demanding death for this; and that takes it back directly to Augustine who actually proposed and argued that the universal punishment of mankind in each was by death because of it going back to OS. Augustine puts this firmly, as he read it, in the doctrine that it comes from 'all in Adam sinned therefore all, universally, deserve punishment because they share the guilt'. If I'm told once more that PSA doesn't neccessarily go back to this teaching of Augustine without being given a definite teaching showing how it doesn't and reference to those actually teaching this how as Church doctrine, I'll just give up asking.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Thanks, but I don't that's going to useful for me here, I've already established, to my satisfaction, that Paul doesn't teach Augustine's OS. I'm really trying to understand what Johnny thinks since he's the one here advocating PSA. All I've been asking for is as above. I can't see how the PSA being argued here can exist if it admits that there is even one righteous, even one not a sinner, even one not guilty, even one not estranged from a wrathful God demanding death for this; and that takes it back directly to Augustine who actually proposed and argued that the universal punishment of mankind in each was by death because of it going back to OS. Augustine puts this firmly, as he read it, in the doctrine that it comes from 'all in Adam sinned therefore all, universally, deserve punishment because they share the guilt'. If I'm told once more that PSA doesn't neccessarily go back to this teaching of Augustine without being given a definite teaching showing how it doesn't and reference to those actually teaching this how as Church doctrine, I'll just give up asking.

Hmm, I don't think that it is necessary to believe in the specific doctrine of OS (that is, we inherit not only Adam's propensity towards sin, but also his guilt, through the mechanism of the reproductive act) to believe in universal sinfulness of those who have reached the age of responsibility, and some kind of propensity towards sin in all. The latter can, in my view, be readily inferred from scripture, as well as from experience. Augustinian OS is just one theory that seeks to account for this. You might or might not agree that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", but at least it is there in the scriptures, and to believe it is a true statement is not necessarily to believe in everything Augustine taught under the umbrella of OS. I would say that the distinguishing doctrine of PSA is not that "all have sinned". I believe, as a statement of fact that all have sinned, and I certainly don't believe that PSA is "true". The real distinctive is the understanding of how God deals with that sin which we all have. Does He a) require, as a matter of justice, that sin be dealt with by punishment, the shjedding of blood, and b) send the Son to gladly bear that punishment. If you answer yes to both, you are a signed-up member of the PSA club. If your answer to either or both of those questions is no, or if you think the questions are of themselves invalid, then you will think that PSA is mistaken. The question of OS does not really bear directly on the issue at all.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Hmm, I don't think that it is necessary to believe in the specific doctrine of OS (that is, we inherit not only Adam's propensity towards sin, but also his guilt, through the mechanism of the reproductive act) to believe in universal sinfulness of those who have reached the age of responsibility, and some kind of propensity towards sin in all. The latter can, in my view, be readily inferred from scripture, as well as from experience.

Oh, I thought that PSA teaching was that all are sinners making no distinction between pre and post age of reason. And this propensity to sin bothers me, (I also see it in explanations from Orthdox sources which I put down to Augustine type thinking, red flag comes up when I hear Orthodox talk about 'fall'.. ) which I see as a throw back to Augustine's particular teaching because it doesn't admit of the propensity not to sin when stated like that in isolation, implying that our nature is such that sinning is the default position. I don't see that in people or Scripture, except when someone's venting..


quote:
Augustinian OS is just one theory that seeks to account for this. You might or might not agree that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", but at least it is there in the scriptures, and to believe it is a true statement is not necessarily to believe in everything Augustine taught under the umbrella of OS. I would say that the distinguishing doctrine of PSA is not that "all have sinned". I believe, as a statement of fact that all have sinned, and I certainly don't believe that PSA is "true".
This is where it becomes important for me, Orthodox teaching is that children are born innocent and do not, have not sinned, so the "all" can't, and mustn't, include them.


quote:
The real distinctive is the understanding of how God deals with that sin which we all have. Does He a) require, as a matter of justice, that sin be dealt with by punishment, the shjedding of blood, and b) send the Son to gladly bear that punishment. If you answer yes to both, you are a signed-up member of the PSA club. If your answer to either or both of those questions is no, or if you think the questions are of themselves invalid, then you will think that PSA is mistaken. The question of OS does not really bear directly on the issue at all.
For me it does though, because from Augustine's OS come the ideas that all humanity is sinful and guilty without distinction, which is one prong of my objections to PSA besides the two you mention. It's the whole package of PSA that I find offensive about it, that it degrades God and man and the relationship between them.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
...from Augustine's OS come the ideas that all humanity is sinful and guilty without distinction, which is one prong of my objections to PSA besides the two you mention. It's the whole package of PSA that I find offensive about it, that it degrades God and man and the relationship between them.

I'm in agreement with you here.

Everyone is born innocent and blameless, I agree. Nevertheless, everyone also from birth has a propensity to be self-centered and materialistic, as all animals necessarily are. It's perfectly normal. But in humans it has become exaggerated over the milennia through an increasing load of hereditary and cultural predisposition to addictions, indolence, deceitfulness and other self-destructive instincts less prevalent in the animal world.

The whole point of the Word of God and of the Incarnation is to lead us away from these self-destructive impulses.

The ideas of original sin, and its solution in PSA, are bizarre and childish understandings of God's straightforward and sensible message about these things.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

Everyone is born innocent and blameless, I agree. Nevertheless, everyone also from birth has a propensity to be self-centered and materialistic, as all animals necessarily are. It's perfectly normal. But in humans it has become exaggerated over the milennia through an increasing load of hereditary and cultural predisposition to addictions, indolence, deceitfulness and other self-destructive instincts less prevalent in the animal world. The whole point of the Word of God and of the Incarnation is to lead us away from these self-destructive impulses.

This is what we mean by our term "ancestral sin", the accumulation of it all, the spread of it as Paul says. I think we began using 'original sin' in discussion with western Christians without fully comprehending the vast amount of baggage that comes with it, I certainly did and I see it in Orthodox writings all the time where attempts to say we don't actually see it that way just make it more confusing. But anyway, this 'propensity' still bothers me, as you describe as a tendency from conditioning of society and so on, yes I'd agree we can have that, but it's not the default position in our nature, which is neutral in its ability to choose with the default position being to the good rather than evil. That's one of characteristics of human nature, our propensity to work together and to share and to put others needs before our own. That this is often manipulated to a different end is our history, but if we have any real propensity one way or the other it has to be to the good, as someone said in another discussion, if it wasn't we'd have destroyed ourselves long ago. And that's the default position of God, good; evil isn't an equal, it's a disorder.

But more than good, it is actual love. Which is what saddens me most about PSA and other such doctrines, that it can attribute the deliberate creation of pain, torture of another, to being an expression of God's love.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
But anyway, this 'propensity' still bothers me, as you describe as a tendency from conditioning of society and so on, yes I'd agree we can have that, but it's not the default position in our nature, which is neutral in its ability to choose with the default position being to the good rather than evil.

I don't think that anyone inherently desires to harm others. We prefer peace and good will. But I do think that the default position of any natural living entity, whether humans, dogs, or plants, is whatever benefits its survival and reproduction. Plants have no conscience whatsoever about shouldering each other aside in the quest for light and nourishment. Neither do dogs. Nor do we, unless we are taught to be different.

But this isn't evil. It is simply the law of nature. It does become evil, however, when it is deliberately chosen and practised when we know better.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And that's the default position of God, good; evil isn't an equal, it's a disorder.

Yes, evil is just a disorder. It's a disorder for humans to act like animals, and worse. The default position of God is good - the desire for the survival and happiness of others.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
But more than good, it is actual love. Which is what saddens me most about PSA and other such doctrines, that it can attribute the deliberate creation of pain, torture of another, to being an expression of God's love.

So true.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

If you want me to play devil's advocate, I'd happily have a stab at justifying PSA without reference to OS, but merely from the universal experience of sinfulness of which I think most of us (not least St Paul ) share.

[Overused] That was exactly what I was trying to do. There is a perverse satisfaction filling my heart that you have just had to 'defend' PSA on my behalf! [Big Grin]

JJ your graciousness and patience puts me to shame.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I've already established, to my satisfaction...

Phrases like that explain why it is pointless continuing this discussion.

When you won't even listen to opponents of PSA then dialogue is pointless, for it is no longer dialogue.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freddy:
[QB] I don't think that anyone inherently desires to harm others. We prefer peace and good will. But I do think that the default position of any natural living entity, whether humans, dogs, or plants, is whatever benefits its survival and reproduction.

But this isn't evil. It is simply the law of nature. It does become evil, however, when it is deliberately chosen and practised when we know better.

Well actually Freddy, if you read Paul closely, I think you have to admit thet it is this very law, warring in his members that he describes as the 'law of sin'. he says in Ro 7:21, "I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good." and in vs 20 he has already stated this tendency as, "The sin that dwells in me."

Incidentally, Johnny, if you try cutting mercury, it just rejoins itself. Don't worry; be happy!
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

If you want me to play devil's advocate, I'd happily have a stab at justifying PSA

Go on then! [Big Grin]

[ 26. June 2008, 09:18: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well actually Freddy, if you read Paul closely, I think you have to admit thet it is this very law, warring in his members that he describes as the 'law of sin'. he says in Ro 7:21, "I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good." and in vs 20 he has already stated this tendency as, "The sin that dwells in me."

Yes, in practice that is exactly how it works. This is evil.

I was just making the point that the the urge to survive and reproduce is shared by all living things and is not, in itself, evil. It is actually good.

But, as Paul notes, our natural urges and desires do conflict and react against the desire to do what is right. Self-centered thoughts and actions are naturally not always the same thing as God-centered or other-centered ones. So our natural desires become the desire for sin that Paul speaks of.

What religion does is not root out our natural desires, because these desires associated with survival and reproduction are actually good and necessary. It merely subordinates them, or puts them in their proper perspective and order. This is why God needs to reign.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, in practice that is exactly how it works. This is evil.

[snip]

What religion does is not root out our natural desires, because these desires associated with survival and reproduction are actually good and necessary. It merely subordinates them, or puts them in their proper perspective and order. This is why God needs to reign.

As an Orthodox Christian, I find myself disagreeing with that view. It is not the will in us that is sin, but the wrong use we make of that will. The turning of our natural will from leading to God and other people to leading to our egos.

It's our misuse of our good will that is sinful, and not our natural will itself which is "very good".

While we Orthodox view religion as doing what you described, we also see religion as part of the problem, and not a solution to the problem. The solution is the healing of our passions, not the subordination of our passions, which is possible even in Greek (read: not Christian and pre-Christian) philosophy.

To put it differently, we need God to reign in our hearts, because we need healing, not subordination.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well actually Freddy, if you read Paul closely, I think you have to admit thet it is this very law, warring in his members that he describes as the 'law of sin'. he says in Ro 7:21, "I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good." and in vs 20 he has already stated this tendency as, "The sin that dwells in me."

Yes, in practice that is exactly how it works. This is evil.

I was just making the point that the the urge to survive and reproduce is shared by all living things and is not, in itself, evil. It is actually good.

Freddy, Have you read Orwell's 1984?

You should you know!
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
To put it differently, we need God to reign in our hearts, because we need healing, not subordination.

Andrew, I don't disagree. That is a good perspective. We need to be subordinate to God. When God reigns we are healed.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Freddy, Have you read Orwell's 1984?

You should you know!

I have read 1984. Of course it has been 24 years. [Biased]

What is it you mean about that book?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I've already established, to my satisfaction...

Phrases like that explain why it is pointless continuing this discussion.
Johnny, that's statement of fact, where I've arrived in this, and JJ's kind offer was not what I was asking for here and specifically from you.

quote:
When you won't even listen to opponents of PSA then dialogue is pointless, for it is no longer dialogue.
It might make you feel better to keep pushing that line, but it's not how I see it. The lack of dialogue is on your part.

You've already said that: "PSA does articulate a change of identity - sin is condemned in Christ and his righteousness is imputed to us. The 'receiving the penalty of the curse in Adam' and 'receiving new life in Christ' fits perfectly with PSA."

What I was asking for was for an explanation here from our exchanges about Passover:

quote:
Myrrh
quote:
Johnny [brick wall] What is it with you and Augustine? Is it some kind of repressed passion? Go back over these past 3000 posts - I can't remember ever mentioning him. He's not even from my church tradition! [Roll Eyes]
I didn't know there were Baptists who had rejected Augustine's Original Sin explanation for mankind's relationship with God. What Baptist tradition is this? (I'm genuinely interested here in case you still think I'm playing a game, as I see it there are so many thousands of different Protestant groups claiming the others have got some nuance wrong from the basic OS doctrine of Augustine.)
If you don't want to answer you don't have to, just say so, but I've yet to come across any Baptist teachings which haven't been formed on Augustine's OS doctrine of man's estrangement from God and his wrath for man's participation in the juridical guilt, for corruption of human nature and in this man's lack of free will not to sin and his inability to turn to God, ..which fits in perfectly with PSA which rejects inherent righteousness in man as Augustine described it.


quote:
Johnny No one who has ever read Romans 1-3 ... no, no one who has ever met someone else who has ever read Romans 1-3 ... I take it back, no one who has ever walked passed someone who has ever read Romans 1-3 could possibly make your statement above and not just be yanking my chain.
Which is how Augustine read his doctrines into Paul regardless of everything in Paul to the contrary such as 2.14 which shows our nature fully capable of choosing both good and evil and judging ourselves and others by it and in the end subject to the same final judgement as the Jews under the law, but, acknowledging the existence of such contradictions would have damaged his theory and without his theory there is no PSA (as it is seen taught as doctrine to be believed).

N.T. Wrights objection to those who promote PSA is that they “ignore the story of Israel.”, as I see you doing here and which is exactly how Augustine espoused his doctrine.

The objectors of PSA supporters against Wright say that he's missed the point, that God isn't just wrathful against sin, but against man for the rebellion against Him and come back with pure Augustine reasoning:

D. A. Carson's response:

"It thus fails to wrestle with the fact that from the beginning, sin is an offense against God. God himself pronounces the sentence of death (Gen 2-3). This is scarcely surprising, since God is the source of all life, so if his image-bearers spit in his face and insist on going their own way and becoming their own gods, they cut themselves off from their Maker, from the One who gives life. What is there, then, but death? Moreover, when we sin in any way, God himself is invariably the most offended party (Ps 51). The God the Bible portrays as resolved to intervene and save is also the God portrayed as full of wrath because of our sustained idolatry. As much as he intervenes to save us, he stands over against us as Judge, an offended Judge with fearsome jealousy."

And this is the crunch for PSA, it was Augustine who imposed the idea of punishment for a legal infraction against God as an offence against Him from 'do not eat - in that day you will die', when it says no such thing and was not read as such, not by the Jews in the thousands years of their history nor by the early Church, and we, Orthodox, still do not read it as that.

This is what Augustine called the Original Sin, his base doctrine and the very same used to defend PSA as it is taught, and it doesn't exist in Scripture.

God did not give an order to those He created in image and likeness with free will, He gave a warning, that the consequences of eating from the tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil would lead to death. That to explore what it means to be created in image and likeness which includes knowing the difference between good and evil was to become fully human which included death, and, to become like God, 'they have become like Us'. And, it is Christ's accepted understanding of human nature, that we have the ability to choose both good and evil, and, his accepted understanding of what it means to be called gods, to be able to judge the righteousness or not of our acts. Christ does not teach that human nature is corrupt and in rebellion against God as Augustine taught it, nor does Paul, see Romans 2:14.

So, this is where the doctrine of PSA as it is taught goes back to Augustine's OS and to his misreading of Holy Scripture to prove his doctrine right against the Church which didn't teach it and the Jews which have never had it.

Myrrh




has to
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
We need to be subordinate to God. When God reigns we are healed.

There is no issue of subordination in the first place. Being human and Being God does not bring an opposition that will demand subordination. Which is very evident in Christ, who is both God and Man without there being an issue of subordination between the human and the divine ways of life or ways of will.

Union does not demand subordination, and I dare say, that it excludes it.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Union does not demand subordination, and I dare say, that it excludes it.

Yes, it does exclude it. Still, there can be no union unless contrary elements are subordinated or eliminated.

There are a number of ways that we can look at the human will.
In the first model it is difficult to see how change comes about. The second model more easily depicts change as the repositioning of a person's priorities.

This is what I mean by subordination. I think that it is common for people to express things this way, in terms of changing priorities and changing views of what is important in life.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

If you want me to play devil's advocate, I'd happily have a stab at justifying PSA

Go on then! [Big Grin]
Now,now Jamat! I know you know how the theory works! [Devil]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Myrrh - This has gone beyond a fixation to stalking - poor Augustine may be dead but he has just put a restraining order out on you.

As JJ (someone who rejects PSA) has clearly and repeatedly explained, you do not have to accept OS to agree that all people are sinners and likewise to accept PSA.

The only person who can't see that is you.

So carry on with your crusade against OS by all means. Start your own thread about OS if you want to but I'm not going to get drawn on it here while discussing the atonement.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

If you want me to play devil's advocate, I'd happily have a stab at justifying PSA without reference to OS, but merely from the universal experience of sinfulness of which I think most of us (not least St Paul ) share.

OK JJ. If that passage is your beginning then "universal experience of sinfulness" is not what it's about. Rather it points to universal freedom from sin without the law, therefore, rather than us requiring penal substitution we should just give up the law and, if universal comes from Adam and Eve as the progenitors of the human race then since they never had the law they never sinned. (Orthodox teaching is that we're in that same state as A&E, not guilty.)

And more, it's the law that creates death. "8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death."

The moral of the story is, give up the law and live.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

If you want me to play devil's advocate, I'd happily have a stab at justifying PSA without reference to OS, but merely from the universal experience of sinfulness of which I think most of us (not least St Paul ) share.

OK JJ. If that passage is your beginning then "universal experience of sinfulness" is not what it's about. Rather it points to universal freedom from sin without the law, therefore, rather than us requiring penal substitution we should just give up the law and, if universal comes from Adam and Eve as the progenitors of the human race then since they never had the law they never sinned. (Orthodox teaching is that we're in that same state as A&E, not guilty.)

And more, it's the law that creates death. "8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death."

The moral of the story is, give up the law and live.

Myrrh

Well, I don't know about you, but, to me, Paul's words strike a distinct resonance with me on a purely personal level. I don't think Paul is talking theology, per se, here. He is talking from the heart about what it means to be a human being, about our common shared experience. Do you know any human being who has reached the age at which they are able to know right from wrong, who has never chosen wrong? My recollections of the testimony of even the greatest of saints is that they, especially, are acutely aware of how they fall short of the glory of God.

The way in which istm we differ is that you seem to assume that western Christians believe that we are sinners because we sin, whereas I think that most of us, whatever our differences in other areas, would say we sin (ie transgress) because we are sinners. Now you may disagree with that conclusion, but you will not understand "western" thought if you do not accept that this is what we (Johnny, Jamat, myself) believe, regardless of our understanding of the Atonement.

About the point that we have, as well as a tendency to do wrong, a tendency (I would say desire) to do right. Well, of course we have, we are made in God's image. What we have, though, outside of the Grace of God, is a lack of power to put that desire into action, to live according to its dictates. Whereas it is no struggle at all to live in selfishness. Here, I speak only for myself. Each reader must come to their own conclusion as to whether they can relate to Paul's words in this way.

But really, as Johnny says, this isn't about the Atonement at all.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The way in which istm we differ is that you seem to assume that western Christians believe that we are sinners because we sin, whereas I think that most of us, whatever our differences in other areas, would say we sin (ie transgress) because we are sinners. Now you may disagree with that conclusion, but you will not understand "western" thought if you do not accept that this is what we (Johnny, Jamat, myself) believe, regardless of our understanding of the Atonement.

The way I have read Myrrh's posts (and Myrrh, correct me if I'm wrong) is that she was surprised to learn that some people held the view that every human person is born with a corruption of some sort, and she links that to the PSA teaching.

I agree with you that it's much wider than PSA, and I think Myrrh will be even more surprised to realize what you say about Western thought.

Personally, I am not that bothered with the we are sinners thing, as I am with the forensic way of dealing with it. I view some of the theologies we are discussing here as an obstacle to real salvation from sin, which is the healing of man while yet in this life.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Freddy, Have you read Orwell's 1984?

You should you know!

I have read 1984. Of course it has been 24 years. [Biased]

What is it you mean about that book?

I am a smart ass. Sorry. I was thinking of 'doublethink' and 'newspeak'.

The serious point was:

How can something be evil and yet not evil?

It is not a book I enjoyed, only one that I remember.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I was thinking of 'doublethink' and 'newspeak'.

The serious point was:

How can something be evil and yet not evil?

Now I see. OK.

It does seem to me that understanding how something can be both evil and not evil is the key to grasping what sin is and where it came from. It is also key in seeing the purpose of the Incarnation.

Most actions that we consider to be evil become acceptable in a different context. Sex is probably the most common example. There is actually nothing at all evil about sex. Yet it is usually the first thing that comes to mind when we use the word "sin."

It's about context and order. Even killing and forcibly taking the goods of others are things that are done routinely and are considered orderly and right in most human penal systems.

My point is that self-centered, or self-maintaining, behaviors all have a place and are not evil in themselves. We all eat, rest, have possessions, and, most of us anyway, engage in sexual activities. And we feel good about it. But eating other people's food, or being gluttonous, or being lazy, or being fixated on material possessions, or engaging in illicit sex, are things that are called sinful.

That isn't doublespeak. It's about understanding what order is. In God's orderly creation everything is "good" and "very good." It becomes evil only when priorities slip out of alignment into disorder. Jesus came to pop them back into place.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, I don't know about you, but, to me, Paul's words strike a distinct resonance with me on a purely personal level. I don't think Paul is talking theology, per se, here. He is talking from the heart about what it means to be a human being, about our common shared experience. Do you know any human being who has reached the age at which they are able to know right from wrong, who has never chosen wrong? My recollections of the testimony of even the greatest of saints is that they, especially, are acutely aware of how they fall short of the glory of God.[qb]

Paul's really beating himself up for it here, from the insensitive murderer to noticing how much sin wars to control him. But still, in his inner being he delights in the law, it's because he now sees the contrast that he notices that sin fights for control, which he also calls law.


quote:
[qb]The way in which istm we differ is that you seem to assume that western Christians believe that we are sinners because we sin, whereas I think that most of us, whatever our differences in other areas, would say we sin (ie transgress) because we are sinners.

Oh dear, I must have expressed myself really poorly in my posts because it's quite the opposite. I see you believing as you see yourselves, that you transgress because you are sinners - and that is the point I've been arguing against here.

It's this 'sinful nature' which I find deplorable as a belief, but anyway, this extract shows that it's by coming to know the law Paul becomes aware of how much he sins, to the point where he feels he is enslaved by it, sold to sin, imprisoned by the law of sin; but this is his personal journey, it's not a blueprint for all men. This was the message of St John the Forerunner and Christ, to repent, to come to the law and acknowledge sins.


quote:
Now you may disagree with that conclusion, but you will not understand "western" thought if you do not accept that this is what we (Johnny, Jamat, myself) believe, regardless of our understanding of the Atonement.
This is how I have understood you and all my arguments have been to show that we're not that, and not taught in Scripture. Sins are acts, a person is a sinner when he sins, not when he doesn't. Christ didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. This has been my gripe here, that your view we are sinners by nature has to write the righteous out of the picture because it can't really account for them.



quote:
About the point that we have, as well as a tendency to do wrong, a tendency (I would say desire) to do right. Well, of course we have, we are made in God's image. What we have, though, outside of the Grace of God, is a lack of power to put that desire into action, to live according to its dictates. Whereas it is no struggle at all to live in selfishness. Here, I speak only for myself. Each reader must come to their own conclusion as to whether they can relate to Paul's words in this way.
Well, three things here: firstly that we can never be outside of God's grace, in Orthodox teaching, and then there are always righteous such as Zacharias and Elisabeth who didn't have the problems Paul was having, "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.", they weren't without grace or ability to keep the law, and lastly, by your reckoning then, Paul must be without grace since he's decided that sin has won in him... 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?


quote:
But really, as Johnny says, this isn't about the Atonement at all.
No it isn't, do you want to choose something else?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[My point is that self-centered, or self-maintaining, behaviors all have a place and are not evil in themselves. We all eat, rest, have possessions, and, most of us anyway, engage in sexual activities. And we feel good about it. But eating other people's food, or being gluttonous, or being lazy, or being fixated on material possessions, or engaging in illicit sex, are things that are called sinful.

That isn't doublespeak. It's about understanding what order is. In God's orderly creation everything is "good" and "very good." It becomes evil only when priorities slip out of alignment into disorder. Jesus came to pop them back into place.

Category confusion here IMV.

The issue isn't whether human physical and emotional instincts are good or evil; they are manifestly neither.

The issue, IMV, is if there is a principle of evil resident in human nature that corrupts.

I think there is. The Catholic church calls it original sin and has the sacrament of Baptism for the problem.

To me it seems that all the NT writers acknowledge or imply such a principle of evil which we often verbalize as 'our fallenness.'

Whatever your opinion on this, lets be clear what we are discussing.

This, if you follow me, would be the cause of the misuse of our urges and instincts
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue isn't whether human physical and emotional instincts are good or evil; they are manifestly neither.

The issue, IMV, is if there is a principle of evil resident in human nature that corrupts.

...This, if you follow me, would be the cause of the misuse of our urges and instincts

I agree completely. There is a principle of evil resident in human nature that leads us to misuse our perfectly normal urges and instincts.

As I understand it, this is nothing more than the well-understood scientific principle of heredity.

The Bible tells us that humans were created by God in a state of order, in which we did not originally misuse our urges and instincts. At some point, however, we fell away from that state of order and evil came into being. This is what the story of Adam and Eve in the garden is about.

Since that time, simply because of the way that heredity works, we all tend to misuse our urges and instincts. Bad tempers, like high IQs or tendencies to alcoholism, run in families. We each inherit our own special set of qualities, including tendencies to willful and self-centered behaviors that lead us to sin.

Christ came to erase that stain by overcoming the hells that are attached to each of those behaviors, and by teaching us to think and act differently. As humanity changes its ways the heredity will also change - this is how heredity works.

If Christ had not come, the ever-increasing nature of these tendencies would have led humanity to completely destroy itself, and to blot out any hope of salvation. But He came and redeemed us by defeating the power darkness through the power of the Word - called the blood of the Lamb. So we can be saved by this power if we accept it and obey it. That's how I see it.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
I must say I agree Freddy.

Your last paragraph suggest you are now a confirmed adherent of PSA. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
You'd like to think so. [Two face]

The question is: What is the power of the blood of the Lamb?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue, IMV, is if there is a principle of evil resident in human nature that corrupts.

But also a principle of good surely?


quote:
I think there is. The Catholic church calls it original sin and has the sacrament of Baptism for the problem.
The Original Sin for the RCC is the disobedience for eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil from which Pope John Paul II explains: "gives rise to a fundamental change in the human condition. Man is driven forth from the state of original justice and finds himself in a state of sinfulness—status naturae lapsae." and goes on to say this is the loss of grace of friendship and with an inclination to sin.

Which is not Scriptural, in Gen IV is the first mention of sin and God is certainly still in friendship with man who still has free will choice to do good or evil: Genesis 4:7
If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

quote:
To me it seems that all the NT writers acknowledge or imply such a principle of evil which we often verbalize as 'our fallenness.'
The idea of a 'fall' comes from Augustine who said that Adam and Eve were immortal and were punished with death for this disobedience and from the idea, as JPII presents it, that they were in a state of perfection from which they fell into sinful nature. Gnostic variation.

There was no fall. They were exercising their God given free will as rational beings created in the image of God to make their own choices. A couple of ways of seeing this eating from the tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil; the first that eating from the tree was actual experience as good and evil acts and second that eating of the tree was in gaining knowledge as understanding of the difference between good and evil.

And both with them in a state of being neither mortal nor immortal or already being both for more variations on a theme.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

The Bible tells us that humans were created by God in a state of order, in which we did not originally misuse our urges and instincts. At some point, however, we fell away from that state of order and evil came into being. This is what the story of Adam and Eve in the garden is about.


Freddy, what are you referring to here?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue, IMV, is if there is a principle of evil resident in human nature that corrupts.

But also a principle of good surely?


quote:
I think there is. The Catholic church calls it original sin and has the sacrament of Baptism for the problem.
The Original Sin for the RCC is the disobedience for eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil from which Pope John Paul II explains: "gives rise to a fundamental change in the human condition. Man is driven forth from the state of original justice and finds himself in a state of sinfulness—status naturae lapsae." and goes on to say this is the loss of grace of friendship and with an inclination to sin.

Which is not Scriptural, in Gen IV is the first mention of sin and God is certainly still in friendship with man who still has free will choice to do good or evil: Genesis 4:7
If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

quote:
To me it seems that all the NT writers acknowledge or imply such a principle of evil which we often verbalize as 'our fallenness.'
The idea of a 'fall' comes from Augustine who said that Adam and Eve were immortal and were punished with death for this disobedience and from the idea, as JPII presents it, that they were in a state of perfection from which they fell into sinful nature. Gnostic variation.

There was no fall. They were exercising their God given free will as rational beings created in the image of God to make their own choices. A couple of ways of seeing this eating from the tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil; the first that eating from the tree was actual experience as good and evil acts and second that eating of the tree was in gaining knowledge as understanding of the difference between good and evil.

And both with them in a state of being neither mortal nor immortal or already being both for more variations on a theme.


Myrrh

Your opinion is noted and filed and need not be repeated for clarity's sake.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

The Bible tells us that humans were created by God in a state of order, in which we did not originally misuse our urges and instincts. At some point, however, we fell away from that state of order and evil came into being. This is what the story of Adam and Eve in the garden is about.

Freddy, what are you referring to here?
Just that Adam and Eve had to leave the garden because of what they did.

I don't take this literally. I take it to mean that "eating the forbidden fruit" stands for some kind of turning away from God that affected all of humanity. So humanity as a whole went from figuratively living in a paradise to a more difficult state.

I realize that the Orthodox don't accept the idea of the Fall. I'm not sure how else to interpret the early Genesis narrative.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue, IMV, is if there is a principle of evil resident in human nature that corrupts.

But also a principle of good surely?

All good is from God.

So the principle that we have that balances the principle of evil is the ability to turn to God and receive His strength to think, will, and do good.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

The Bible tells us that humans were created by God in a state of order, in which we did not originally misuse our urges and instincts. At some point, however, we fell away from that state of order and evil came into being. This is what the story of Adam and Eve in the garden is about.

Freddy, what are you referring to here?
Just that Adam and Eve had to leave the garden because of what they did.

I don't take this literally. I take it to mean that "eating the forbidden fruit" stands for some kind of turning away from God that affected all of humanity. So humanity as a whole went from figuratively living in a paradise to a more difficult state.

I realize that the Orthodox don't accept the idea of the Fall. I'm not sure how else to interpret the early Genesis narrative.

We don't accept that the fruit was "forbidden" and a "turning away from God" by making the knowledge itself forbidden - general Orthodox teaching is that they were created to have this knowledge, just they got it too early and were sent out before they could eat of the tree of life and live forever sinful, however, there's a great use of 'children/childlike/immature' in describing it (From this the immature explanation is likening it to: 'don't put your finger in the electric socket, you'll die'.) and comes with their state being neither mortal nor immortal (they have not yet eaten from the tree of life and they haven't yet become mortal).

I don't quite agree with this explanation as there is nothing to say they were in any way children and not adults, but see it as a description of how God's image {male and female in Gen I} came to be from the Proto-Being Adam in splitting in two, rib also having the meaning side,(*) and the rise of self consciousness and self-determination as rational beings in relation to our Creator. How could the image of God mean anything less?

So, Orthodox reading is not of God forbidding them from eating, but of God giving a warning of consequence in acquiring this knowledge which they were created to have.

Those who read it as forbidden and a turning away from God from Augustine also read it as a juridical relationship between God and man, so death is a punishment for this disobedience, which is the Original Sin, the result then the fall from a perfect state into sinful nature from which some go on to PSA.

As I see it, from Proto-Being to man, the focus re Christ is the incarnation, from the split between the Creator and created in the beginning to the entrance of the uncreated into creation (fully human as we see it in Mary). So, for us Christ is the way (forward and back) to become fully God, from God became man so that man could become God, which is in the full potential of Adam and Eve in the garden first created in image in Proto-Being and towards which by their entrance into full humanity they took the first necessary step themselves, they have become God like us in knowledge, our potential also.

There is rather a big divide here between us and the RCC because we don't see the actual tree of knowlege as being forbidden so can't relate at to this explanation from JPII (and why to the RCC our teaching of theosis a heresy):

quote:
(SUMMARY OF CATECHESIS ON ORIGINAL SIN Pope John Paul II)


5. It is not difficult to discern in this text (Gen 3:1-5) the essential problems of human life hidden under an apparently simple form. To eat or not to eat the fruit of a certain tree may itself seem irrelevant. However, the tree "of the knowledge of good and evil" denotes the first principle of human life to which is linked a fundamental problem. The tree signifies the insurmountable limit for man and for any creature however perfect. The creature, in fact, is always merely a creature and not God. Certainly he cannot claim to be like God, "to know good and evil" like God. God alone is the source of all being, God alone is absolute Truth and Goodness according to which good and evil are measured and from which they receive their distinction. God alone is the eternal Legislator from whom every law in the created world derives and in particular the law of human nature.

Well, too late is all I can say, since Adam and Eve already know it...


(*) (Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh The Whole Human Person: Body, Spirit and Soul)


Myrrh
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Thank you for explaining that, Myrrh.

Obviously I am not Orthodox, so that understanding of the eating of the fruit and the expulsion from the Garden of Eden doesn't connect for me.

But it is interesting to know what it is.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is how I have understood you and all my arguments have been to show that we're not that, and not taught in Scripture. Sins are acts, a person is a sinner when he sins, not when he doesn't. Christ didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. This has been my gripe here, that your view we are sinners by nature has to write the righteous out of the picture because it can't really account for them.

Two things, trying desperately to move this on past Augustine:

1. Your repeated reference to 'Christ didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance' does untold damage to the context of Christ's words.

Your point only holds if Jesus expected the Pharisees to hear this statement and think, "Oh great, we're okay then!" [Roll Eyes]


2. Read the Psalms (e.g. Psalm 51). Augustine did not (as is often contended) invent the modern notion of individual guilt. The Psalmist is regularly consumed with a sense of his own personal guilt before God and the need to be cleansed of his sin.

According to Psalm 51 the Psalmist was sinful from birth and from infancy needed cleansing from sin. That does not necessarily make him a really bad person - just someone in need of cleansing.

Indeed if Psalm 51 really was written by David after adultery it makes for a fascinating insight into David's psychology - David is the enigma of the OT, regarded as 'righteous' (a man after God's own heart) and yet also capable of such terrible sins as adultery and murder.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is how I have understood you and all my arguments have been to show that we're not that, and not taught in Scripture. Sins are acts, a person is a sinner when he sins, not when he doesn't. Christ didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. This has been my gripe here, that your view we are sinners by nature has to write the righteous out of the picture because it can't really account for them.

1. Your repeated reference to 'Christ didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance' does untold damage to the context of Christ's words.

Your point only holds if Jesus expected the Pharisees to hear this statement and think, "Oh great, we're okay then!" [Roll Eyes]

But didn't Jesus see the Pharisees as sinners?

I'm with Myrrh here. Sins are acts, a person is a sinner when he sins, not when he doesn't.

The whole point is to learn to sin less, and finally not to sin at all. Then we wouldn't be sinners. [Angel]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Thank you for explaining that, Myrrh.

Obviously I am not Orthodox, so that understanding of the eating of the fruit and the expulsion from the Garden of Eden doesn't connect for me.

But it is interesting to know what it is.

Freddy, I re-read Anthony's piece, which I put in for the 'side' explanation, and was struck by his use of 'Fall' as we've been discussing it. I tend to mentally edit out connections with OS when I'm reading Orthodox as it's fairly common to see the use of terms like fall and original sin without meaning it attached to OS doctrine, but, I think Met Anthony use of "Fall" and with a capital F in associating it with the separation of the Proto-Being Adam does make it appear to be some kind of perfection from which we've actually fallen in becoming separated. I don't think he means it as the concept of a fall from perfection as in OS which is not Orthodox teaching (it's Gnostic), but, as he's talking about ego, referring back to the Orthodox Fall which is about the bid to take God's place by some of the angels (third or half) depending on the storyteller, when St Michael the Archangel did battle against them, his name a question meaning "Who is like God?"


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is how I have understood you and all my arguments have been to show that we're not that, and not taught in Scripture. Sins are acts, a person is a sinner when he sins, not when he doesn't. Christ didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. This has been my gripe here, that your view we are sinners by nature has to write the righteous out of the picture because it can't really account for them.

Two things, trying desperately to move this on past Augustine:

1. Your repeated reference to 'Christ didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance' does untold damage to the context of Christ's words.

Your point only holds if Jesus expected the Pharisees to hear this statement and think, "Oh great, we're okay then!" [Roll Eyes]

Ditto Freddy here, I think any other reading does damage to Christ's words, he was a Jew and for Jews sins are acts.


quote:
2. Read the Psalms (e.g. Psalm 51). Augustine did not (as is often contended) invent the modern notion of individual guilt. The Psalmist is regularly consumed with a sense of his own personal guilt before God and the need to be cleansed of his sin.

According to Psalm 51 the Psalmist was sinful from birth and from infancy needed cleansing from sin. That does not necessarily make him a really bad person - just someone in need of cleansing.

You want me to move this past Augustine and then you bring it right back! In the Septuagint the reading is "sins", plural. What that says about his mother is for him to know...


quote:
Indeed if Psalm 51 really was written by David after adultery it makes for a fascinating insight into David's psychology - David is the enigma of the OT, regarded as 'righteous' (a man after God's own heart) and yet also capable of such terrible sins as adultery and murder.
Exactly, capable of sinning, and like Paul he has a lot of angst about it. And God didn't let him build the Temple because his hands were covered in blood so not quite righteous enough it seems...

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

1. Your repeated reference to 'Christ didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance' does untold damage to the context of Christ's words.
..

According to Psalm 51 the Psalmist was sinful from birth and from infancy needed cleansing from sin. That does not necessarily make him a really bad person - just someone in need of cleansing.


You see, the problem I have is because this really does go back to Augustine. His the original Original Sin doctrine which said every child born was guilty of this heinous offence against God so born in sinful nature which is the tendency to sin without the free will to turn to God, because he fell from grace with Adam, that he had lost grace to will anything good. He said, every child born was estranged from God and damned in this, and everlasting damnation unless baptised before death, as a punishment.

How does this not do damage to Christ's words about becoming as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven?

You read the word "righteous" through your belief that everyone is a sinner from birth, that sinful nature is what we are, but for those of us who don't have Augustine's doctrine that we lost free will to turn to God we read Christ's words really as they are; someone who loves mercy etc. is righteous, someone who sins is a sinner. What I see, is an insidious doctrine twisting meaning. The Prodigal Son returned because he decided to, he'd never lost the grace to make that decision. Loss of grace is Augustine's heresy and I think worse than any of those ruled against already because it creates a separation from God which does not exist, and which Christ did not teach.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But didn't Jesus see the Pharisees as sinners?

Exactly - so we are all sinners and we all need Jesus.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm with Myrrh here. Sins are acts, a person is a sinner when he sins, not when he doesn't.

What difference does it make? My point is still that we are all sinners and we all need Jesus.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Ditto Freddy here, I think any other reading does damage to Christ's words, he was a Jew and for Jews sins are acts.

Great, so you agree that Christ's point was that we are all sinners and that we all need Christ.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
You want me to move this past Augustine and then you bring it right back! In the Septuagint the reading is "sins", plural. What that says about his mother is for him to know...

[brick wall] What difference does that make? Translate it sins for all I care!

David sinned. David felt guilt. David needed his act of sin to be cleansed. What is there not to get here?


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Exactly, capable of sinning, and like Paul he has a lot of angst about it. And God didn't let him build the Temple because his hands were covered in blood so not quite righteous enough it seems...

And?

My point was that (rather a long time before Ausgustine if my history is correct) we have a person who is considered both a sinner (he committed acts of sin) and yet his life was pleasing to God. He wasn't allowed to build the temple and yet (repeatedly) the scriptures describe him as a 'man after God's heart.'

Are you seriously claiming that David wasn't 'righteous' enough for God? Either way your argument comes crashing down - for either he was 'made righteous' by some other means, or you are saying that King David won't be in heaven ... ummh, that would be popular among Jews. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

There was no fall. They were exercising their God given free will as rational beings created in the image of God to make their own choices. A couple of ways of seeing this eating from the tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil; the first that eating from the tree was actual experience as good and evil acts and second that eating of the tree was in gaining knowledge as understanding of the difference between good and evil.

Myrrh

Much as you would like this to be about Augustine, it is not.

It is actually with Paul the Apostle that you have your beef.

He is the one who stated in Ro 3:9. "We have already charged both Jews and Greeks are ALL under sin."

Further down in Ro 3:23 we have a verse that is the foundation of pretty well all we are faced with. "For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Yes, Paul charges us all with sinfulness and with the guilt of sinful acts.

John reinforces the point, as if any could doubt it in 1 John 1:8, "If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

Myrrh you can bang on about Augustine till the cows come home or Hell freezes over, the discussion is about what the Bible teaches not about the teaching of any particular ancient theologian.

Furthermore, your entrenched position and intransigence on this matter are shedding no light at all.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Perhaps we ought to postulate a new theorem, let's call it "Niwdog's Law" where any mention of Augustine in debates about the atonement should immediately cede the argument to the opponent [Devil]

Seriously, Myrhh, you do seem to be spending a lot of time arguing against a position that no-one here really holds, that of inherited judicial guilt. You say, "we are all, from birth, in need of the grace of God, are in some way less ourselves without "it" than we are with "it", and we all say, "that's fine". The rest of us say, let's call the same need that you perceive, "our fallen nature", and up pops Augustine again, with all that associated baggage about the inherently sinful nature of reproduction, the damnation of unbaptised infants, and everything else that makes the baby Jesus cry.

So, just to reiterate. No-one here (as far as I can tell) is arguing for Augustine's position of inherited juridical guilt. I think it's fairly safe to say that, at least amongst evangelicals, (who tend to be the ones interested in Atonement theories - other brances of the church are much less masochistic [Razz] ), the Orthodox have won that debate. There is a very real debate about our actual guilt (ie the responsibility that we have for our sins of commission and omission) and how God deals with that in us, and there is also debate about what we would call sanctification and you would call Theosis, in other words how we can become more like Christ, and so in effect, sin less. That debate would still be happening if Augustine had never lived, as much as it is now that his detailed explanation of the observable information (that we are all capable of, and in some measure guilty of, sinful and selfish acts) has been largely abandoned.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But didn't Jesus see the Pharisees as sinners?

Exactly - so we are all sinners and we all need Jesus.
That's right.

So Jesus did not say, "The Pharisees are righteous but that isn't good enough." Instead He called them hypocrites and murderers. They were sinners because they sinned.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm with Myrrh here. Sins are acts, a person is a sinner when he sins, not when he doesn't.

What difference does it make? My point is still that we are all sinners and we all need Jesus.
The difference that it makes is that the whole point is to get people to sin less, and eventually to get them to stop sinning entirely.

It's not about paying a debt to God, but to get people to change.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The difference that it makes is that the whole point is to get people to sin less, and eventually to get them to stop sinning entirely.

It's not about paying a debt to God, but to get people to change.

Sorry Freddy, I wasn't clear enough.

I get this difference.

I meant, in the context of saying that all mankind are sinners, whether we define sin as acts or nature you still end up at the same place - i.e. we are all sinners.

However, on your point - yes there is a difference, but the only people I have ever met who have stopped sinning have all been dead.

I wholeheartedly agree that our goal is to sin less, I just don't see any evidence (across the entire planet and across history) that anyone (except Jesus [Big Grin] ) comes anywhere close.

Is God taunting us with an impossible goal?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, on your point - yes there is a difference, but the only people I have ever met who have stopped sinning have all been dead.

I wholeheartedly agree that our goal is to sin less, I just don't see any evidence (across the entire planet and across history) that anyone (except Jesus [Big Grin] ) comes anywhere close.

Is God taunting us with an impossible goal?

I think that you are expressing well a point of view that I have never understood.

What is this impossible goal? I have never had the impression that anyone was expecting perfection, or that any impossible goals were set by religion. To me it has always been clear that there is an enormous range of possible thoughts, desires and actions. The name of the game is to move away from self-centered and materialistic ones, and towards God-centered and other-centered ones. "Cease to do evil, learn to do well" as Isaiah said.

What could be simpler than that? There is barely a single area of human life in which the normal pattern is not gradual improvement through learning and effort. Why should the sinning/not sinning continuum be any different?

I don't believe that you have not seen people improve in various ways in your lifetime. People behave badly, and they learn not to behave badly. Whole populations and nations are able to change their ways - otherwise there would still be slaves and restaurants would still be full of smokers.

Saying that the only people who have stopped sinning are dead is setting up a straw man. No one believes in a black and white existence where you are either a saint or a felon. Religion is about the improvement of individuals and the improvement of the whole world. Everyone knows that improvement takes time. It is ridiculous to say that it is not possible to sin less, or that no one has ever done it. People do it all the time. This is what God urges us to do, and this is how He changes us.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is ridiculous to say that it is not possible to sin less, or that no one has ever done it. People do it all the time.

I never said they didn't. I just said that I've never met anyone who stops sinning.

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbour as yourself.'"

Luke 10: 25 - 28

My goal in life is to inherit eternal life as Jesus said. However, Jesus did not set the bar in the kind of 'grey' way you describe.

All is a pretty black and white term.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Jesus did not set the bar in the kind of 'grey' way you describe.

All is a pretty black and white term.

Jesus set the bar in all kinds of ways. He said that we should be perfect. He said that we should be like children. He said that we should repent. He said that we should give a drink of cold water to these little ones.

His message is that we should believe in Him and obey Him. These are relative, not absolute, qualities.

One of the biggest mistakes of PSA thinking is dwelling in an impossibly black and white world. It leads you to misunderstand the whole Bible.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Jesus set the bar in all kinds of ways. He said that we should be perfect. He said that we should be like children. He said that we should repent. He said that we should give a drink of cold water to these little ones.

Yer, right, Freddy. Perfect is a relative term. [Roll Eyes] Jesus was using hyperbole perhaps, but these are not relative statements.

So let's get this straight: When Jesus said that the way to inherit eternal life was to love God with all our heart (etc. etc.) what he meant was - 'love God a bit, you know think of him occasionally, you could even turn the telly off'?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Yer, right, Freddy. Perfect is a relative term. [Roll Eyes] Jesus was using hyperbole perhaps, but these are not relative statements.

No, they aren't relative statements. They are about aiming for perfection. No one says "I want my life to be just average" or "I want to marry someone who is just a shade nicer than the others" or "I want my employees to be more or less as proficient as other workers." We want our employees, businesses, spouses, and life to be the best possible.

So God doesn't say "Try not to sin all the time." He says "Never sin."
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So let's get this straight: When Jesus said that the way to inherit eternal life was to love God with all our heart (etc. etc.) what he meant was - 'love God a bit, you know think of him occasionally, you could even turn the telly off'?

Yes, in the same way that people ask their children to try to taper off their drug use and occasionally look at their homework. [Biased]

Behavioral objectives are normally phrased in fairly absolute terms. The purpose is to make it very clear what the goal is. We want zero pollution. We want to eliminate crime. We want no child to be left behind.

The truth is that if you could reduce sinful behavior by 10% it would have an enormous impact on the world.

Things that people consider to be sinful behavior are the number one impediment to human prosperity and happiness. Any reduction at all is a step in the right direction.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, in the same way that people ask their children to try to taper off their drug use

Good example. A serious habit which could not be stopped instantaneously. Nevertheless, a complete withdrawal is a realistic goal to aim for. Loving God with all my heart is not... well, not in this life anyway!?


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The truth is that if you could reduce sinful behavior by 10% it would have an enormous impact on the world.

I'm sorry Freddy but you don't live in the real world. A 10% increase would make a huge difference - but life would still be crap for a whole lot of people. You are trying to put a plaster on a fatal wound.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Any reduction at all is a step in the right direction.

That I don't deny. I meet a lot of people who's lives are so destroyed by sin (theirs and others) that you don't know where to start. Any reduction would be good (and that is what I seek) but with many I know it is likely to be one step forwards and two steps backwards. (And I didn't get that last bit the wrong way round.)
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I meet a lot of people who's lives are so destroyed by sin (theirs and others) that you don't know where to start.

So let me guess. Actual improvement is such a hopeless proposition that the only solution is Christ's sacrifice?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Ditto Freddy here, I think any other reading does damage to Christ's words, he was a Jew and for Jews sins are acts.

Great, so you agree that Christ's point was that we are all sinners and that we all need Christ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm with Myrrh here. Sins are acts, a person is a sinner when he sins, not when he doesn't.

But you knew that and no, as I've said, I say we are not all sinners.


quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
You want me to move this past Augustine and then you bring it right back! In the Septuagint the reading is "sins", plural. What that says about his mother is for him to know...

[brick wall] What difference does that make? Translate it sins for all I care!
This is getting as tiresome for me as it is for you, and Jamat and JJ - my argument here is that this doctrine of us all being sinners comes from Augustine. What don't you understand in "comes from"?

You may well think you're reading it because it's there in Scripture, but so did Augustine, your way of reading Paul comes from him. The Western Christians went with Augustine, we didn't because we didn't have him, your way of reading Scripture is not ours.



quote:
David sinned. David felt guilt. David needed his act of sin to be cleansed. What is there not to get here?
He didn't need Christ.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Exactly, capable of sinning, and like Paul he has a lot of angst about it. And God didn't let him build the Temple because his hands were covered in blood so not quite righteous enough it seems...

quote:
And?

My point was that (rather a long time before Ausgustine if my history is correct) we have a person who is considered both a sinner (he committed acts of sin) and yet his life was pleasing to God. He wasn't allowed to build the temple and yet (repeatedly) the scriptures describe him as a 'man after God's heart.'

Are you seriously claiming that David wasn't 'righteous' enough for God? Either way your argument comes crashing down - for either he was 'made righteous' by some other means, or you are saying that King David won't be in heaven ... ummh, that would be popular among Jews. [Roll Eyes]

God didn't allow him to build the Temple. Full stop. There are some Jews that argue David didn't sin because he was called righteous, so, they say, his adultery and murders couldn't have been sins.

What I find really strange with your arguments for your view that we are all sinners, is that you take the angst of Paul and David as doctrine because you can read your doctrine into them, but you don't argue that we are all righteous when we keep the law which is very clearly shown by Elisabeth and Zacharias.

A few days ago after posting something here it came to mind, very vaguely, that there is some doctrine in this 'all sinners view' which dismisses the law (I think from the passage JJ and I were discussing)?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Much as you would like this to be about Augustine, it is not.

It is actually with Paul the Apostle that you have your beef.

He is the one who stated in Ro 3:9. "We have already charged both Jews and Greeks are ALL under sin."

Further down in Ro 3:23 we have a verse that is the foundation of pretty well all we are faced with. "For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Yes, Paul charges us all with sinfulness and with the guilt of sinful acts.

John reinforces the point, as if any could doubt it in 1 John 1:8, "If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

Myrrh you can bang on about Augustine till the cows come home or Hell freezes over, the discussion is about what the Bible teaches not about the teaching of any particular ancient theologian.

Furthermore, your entrenched position and intransigence on this matter are shedding no light at all.

WEll, I'm doing my best. Our doctrine is that children are not sinners. Augustine changed that because he saw the world through Manichean eyes, and so, he read into Paul what he decided was doctrine, that we are all sinners, proof he said that his doctrine was right. That he contradicted Christ didn't bother him, nor that he was teaching something the Church wasn't, all he wanted was to impose his view that we were all sinners and needed Christ. And he did it, and that's from where your doctrine comes to.

And you impose that view on everything you read in Scripture regardless of context and regardless of everything that contradicts it. Even when Paul contradicts it. He says the Gentiles have the law written in their hearts, in their nature and by their own conscience convict and excuse themselves and others, and they will, like us all, be subject to the final judgement on the strength of this. No need for Christ at all.

But no, you, like Augustine, have judged everyone to be sinners needing Christ. What did Christ say about judging?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Perhaps we ought to postulate a new theorem, let's call it "Niwdog's Law" where any mention of Augustine in debates about the atonement should immediately cede the argument to the opponent [Devil]

Seriously, Myrhh, you do seem to be spending a lot of time arguing against a position that no-one here really holds, that of inherited judicial guilt. You say, "we are all, from birth, in need of the grace of God, are in some way less ourselves without "it" than we are with "it", and we all say, "that's fine". The rest of us say, let's call the same need that you perceive, "our fallen nature", and up pops Augustine again, with all that associated baggage about the inherently sinful nature of reproduction, the damnation of unbaptised infants, and everything else that makes the baby Jesus cry.

So, just to reiterate. No-one here (as far as I can tell) is arguing for Augustine's position of inherited juridical guilt. I think it's fairly safe to say that, at least amongst evangelicals, (who tend to be the ones interested in Atonement theories - other brances of the church are much less masochistic [Razz] ), the Orthodox have won that debate. There is a very real debate about our actual guilt (ie the responsibility that we have for our sins of commission and omission) and how God deals with that in us, and there is also debate about what we would call sanctification and you would call Theosis, in other words how we can become more like Christ, and so in effect, sin less. That debate would still be happening if Augustine had never lived, as much as it is now that his detailed explanation of the observable information (that we are all capable of, and in some measure guilty of, sinful and selfish acts) has been largely abandoned.

Yeah, but. If you take debate about such things from a shared base that 'we are all sinners', you are arguing from Augustine. I've said before, I'm not saying you all believe the same things about salvation and so on, some of you have interminable arguements about double or single predestination, about justification and grace, but, if you begin with 'we're all sinners needing Christ', you begin with Augustine.

I'm sorry, I can't change that, it happens to be a fact of Christian history. The greatest influence on Western Christians was Augustine; in the Roman Catholic Church, and in the teachings of Luther and Calvin - if your "evangelicals" go back to either of these then the doctrines come out of Augustine, and his view of mankind. We don't even have your terms such as 'justification' and whatever else you argue amongst yourselves about.

Here's a good example:

quote:
Calvin's theology is called Supralapsarianism. Supralapsarianism claims the following: in order to glorify himself by manifesting both his mercy and his justice, God decreed that some rational creatures would be saved and some would be condemned; these creatures, however, did not yet exist as anything other than possibilities in God's mind. God decreed the creation of these rational creatures, and then decreed permission for their fall. Out of this now-fallen mankind, God ordained the justification of some to be saved, and the reprobation, or damnation, of others to be condemned.

...

Arminianism developed in response to Calvin's theology. Dutch divines who subscribed to a position known as Sublapsarianism charged that Calvin's doctrines made God the author of sin. The sublapsarian view held that God foreknew, but did not decree, the fall of man.

In other words, God created man in order to manifest his own goodness, and Man was created in a blessed state and was endowed with free will. However, God foresaw in what direction free will would lead mankind, but God did not interfere, and thus permitted the fall. After the fall, God decreed the predestination of some to salvation and others to damnation.

What the heck? How did they get from "God so loved the world" and "be perfect as your Father is perfect - love your enemies" to that?!

That's why none of you arguing for 'all sinners' can admit that there a righteous in the face of God; were before Christ, were after Christ, were with and without being Christian. Because Augustine said so.

The Manicheans believed this world was created by an evil god, they saw nature as evil, and that the good God was only spirit and had nothing do with nature. It seems to me that Calvin and Luther both worshipped this evil God, who arbitrarily decides who to save out of his creation, having first created them all sinner and damned anyway unless he decided otherwise.

Gnostics. Like Augustine, because from him, variations on the Manichean theme.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Apologies, I forgot to include the source for my quote.

(Calvinism vs. Arminianism)


Myrrh
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Yeah, but. If you take debate about such things from a shared base that 'we are all sinners', you are arguing from Augustine. I've said before, I'm not saying you all believe the same things about salvation and so on, some of you have interminable arguements about double or single predestination, about justification and grace, but, if you begin with 'we're all sinners needing Christ', you begin with Augustine.


But it is at least plausible that when Paul said "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", he meant precisely that. I know you don't agree with that interpretation of Paul's words, but it's certainly a possible interpretation. Add to that human experience, that we all have, at some time or other, sinned, which I would have thought was also fairly non-contentious, and you end up with the standard evangelical position. The fact that Augustine examined the same data, and came to a similar conclusion (though the explanation which he gives is very different), does not mean that all teaching that declares that all people are sinners derives from Augustine.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Much as you would like this to be about Augustine, it is not.

It is actually with Paul the Apostle that you have your beef.

He is the one who stated in Ro 3:9. "We have already charged both Jews and Greeks are ALL under sin."

Further down in Ro 3:23 we have a verse that is the foundation of pretty well all we are faced with. "For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Yes, Paul charges us all with sinfulness and with the guilt of sinful acts.

John reinforces the point, as if any could doubt it in 1 John 1:8, "If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

Myrrh you can bang on about Augustine till the cows come home or Hell freezes over, the discussion is about what the Bible teaches not about the teaching of any particular ancient theologian.

Furthermore, your entrenched position and intransigence on this matter are shedding no light at all.

WEll, I'm doing my best. Our doctrine is that children are not sinners. Augustine changed that because he saw the world through Manichean eyes, and so, he read into Paul what he decided was doctrine, that we are all sinners, proof he said that his doctrine was right. That he contradicted Christ didn't bother him, nor that he was teaching something the Church wasn't, all he wanted was to impose his view that we were all sinners and needed Christ. And he did it, and that's from where your doctrine comes to.

And you impose that view on everything you read in Scripture regardless of context and regardless of everything that contradicts it. Even when Paul contradicts it. He says the Gentiles have the law written in their hearts, in their nature and by their own conscience convict and excuse themselves and others, and they will, like us all, be subject to the final judgement on the strength of this. No need for Christ at all.

But no, you, like Augustine, have judged everyone to be sinners needing Christ. What did Christ say about judging?

Myrrh

So, I reiterate, Your issue is with Paul.

The scriptures quoted above are hard to misunderstand.

PAUL, said all have sinned. JOHN said that we are deceiving ourselves if we deny what Paul said.

You don't believe the scriptures Myrrh.

You prefer your tradition.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But it is at least plausible that when Paul said "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", he meant precisely that.

I think that he meant precisely that. And his words need to be harmonized with Jesus' teaching that:
quote:
Matthew 25:46 And these (wicked) will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Here He seems to say that all are not sinners. Some are wicked, some are righteous.

Hmmm. How do we reconcile these two teachings? [Confused]

The way that the Scriptures seem to resolve this is that the blessed usually see themselves as unworthy and sinners, but God lifts them up. For example, Isaiah said:
quote:
Isaiah 6:5 “ Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips,
But the Lord helped him by having one of the seraphim touch his lips with a coal from the altar:
quote:
“ Behold, this has touched your lips; Your iniquity is taken away, and your sin purged.”
The Lord helps the humble and makes them righteous. And Jesus says:
quote:
John 15:5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
So we cannot be righteous without God.

Still, people are either good or evil, or somewhere in between. The good go to heaven, the evil to hell. Or so Jesus says.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I meet a lot of people who's lives are so destroyed by sin (theirs and others) that you don't know where to start.

So let me guess. Actual improvement is such a hopeless proposition that the only solution is Christ's sacrifice?
Freddy, you just need to read Romans 6 and think a bit about it to conclude that Paul believed he had a solution that worked.

"Our old self was crucified with him that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin" v 6.

There is also Gal 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the son of God who loved me and delivered himself up for me."

Paul's thesis is that, in Christ, we are no longer slaves to sin, no longer under compulsion to commit sins.

We now have another option, to obey a new nature, implanted in us through our choice of Christ.

Obedience to this new nature can insure us against sin.

Unfortunately, the old nature can also be reactivated by our wrong choices. (Careful translation suggests that when Paul says our 'body of sin might be done away with, he means, literally that it is deactivated rather than destroyed.)

For a believer, holiness is a choice of which 'dog' within us we will feed.

In practical terms, I suspect that what the Orthodox call theosis is pretty similar to what the prots call sanctification, and what do the RC's call it? sainthood? And it is, in reality, (Partly, anyway,) what I just tried to explain.

Whatever it is it is an option for us as we obey Christ when it was not before we encountered him.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
He says the Gentiles have the law written in their hearts, in their nature and by their own conscience convict and excuse themselves and others, and they will, like us all, be subject to the final judgement on the strength of this. No need for Christ at all.
[/QB]

Are you referring to Ro 2:15?

This is directly addressed to a Jewish audience and Paul is concerned here to demonstrate that it is not the keeping of the Jewish law that ensures righteousness.

The statement in question is stating that a man in his natural state, who follows his conscience, can be just as righteous in God's sight.

The issue for Paul here is that God's judgement is according to the light given us.

However, he is working up to his main thesis in 3:9 which I quoted to you in the post above.

In effect his argument is that all have sinned and therefore all need Christ.

I am the first to admit Myrrh, that a text without a context is usually a pretext.

What about you?

[ 02. July 2008, 10:31: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I meet a lot of people who's lives are so destroyed by sin (theirs and others) that you don't know where to start.

So let me guess. Actual improvement is such a hopeless proposition that the only solution is Christ's sacrifice?
Freddy, you just need to read Romans 6 and think a bit about it to conclude that Paul believed he had a solution that worked.

"Our old self was crucified with him that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin" v 6.

Don't misunderstand me. I absolutely believe that Christ offers the solution and that He is the solution.

It's the "how" that irks me.

Johnny was saying (as I understood him) that we are unable to improve our spiritual lives because it is hopeless. The only solution is that in Christ's sacrifice all of our sins are forgiven, so that this hopelessness is no longer an issue. Am I oversimplifying?

I see this as a doctrine that is wicked in the extreme. It derives from a mistaken view of Romans, and of other things that Paul says. As I've said before.

I am perfectly pleased with Romans 6 and the statement that "Our old self was crucified with him that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin" v 6. Christ's victory means that humanity is no longer enslaved by the power of hell, but is free to choose between good and evil. Because of Christ's victory we can resist evil and our body of sin can be done away with. With Christ's help.

All this means is that our spiritual lives then follow the order that is universal in all of human experience. This is that improvement comes in time through patient effort and the application of true knowledge to the issue at hand. In terms of our spiritual life that true knowledge includes the idea that we are powerless apart from God.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

But it is at least plausible that when Paul said "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", he meant precisely that. I know you don't agree with that interpretation of Paul's words, but it's certainly a possible interpretation. Add to that human experience, that we all have, at some time or other, sinned, which I would have thought was also fairly non-contentious, and you end up with the standard evangelical position. The fact that Augustine examined the same data, and came to a similar conclusion (though the explanation which he gives is very different), does not mean that all teaching that declares that all people are sinners derives from Augustine.

Well here's the problem in a nutshell, Augustine came to that conclusion because he came with his own pre-conceived ideas and found confirmation of them.

For those who don't have his view of our relationship to God, that there are no righteous, it comes across just as it is, passionate rhetoric.

If we start as Augustine did from a depraved, fallen humanity from some imagined perfection then we'll have to filter out everything that contradicts this which as shown here is to jettison all mention of righteousness in man. If we start from the basic Jewish and our view that Adam is mankind (Adam means mankind), then we'll view ourselves as still Adam, with choices to eat of the good fruit or of the evil, created as we are to know the difference, and to know our potential.

What is the glory of God? To be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect, to love the other as oneself which is to fully express the image and likeness of God of our creation.

What Augustine proposed in his doctrines was God looking at himself in a holographic mirror (Matt 25) and damning all images for not obeying him..

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So, I reiterate, Your issue is with Paul.

The scriptures quoted above are hard to misunderstand.

PAUL, said all have sinned. JOHN said that we are deceiving ourselves if we deny what Paul said.

You don't believe the scriptures Myrrh.

You prefer your tradition.

No, my issue is with the Augustinian interpretation of Holy Scripture which claims to be Paul.

My tradition is Christ's teaching, a selection:

quote:
Matthew 21:32
For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.


Matthew 23:28
Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.


Matthew 23:29
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,


Matthew 23:35
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.


Matthew 25:37
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

Mark 2:17
When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luke 1:6
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.


Luke 1:75
In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.


Luke 5:32
I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


Luke 18:9
And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:


Matthew 22:37
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Mark 12:30
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.


Luke 10:27
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.


John 8:42
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

John 15:10
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Where does Christ teach that we are all sinners and there are no righteous?

Yes, you got that right, I prefer my tradition.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

But it is at least plausible that when Paul said "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", he meant precisely that. I know you don't agree with that interpretation of Paul's words, but it's certainly a possible interpretation. Add to that human experience, that we all have, at some time or other, sinned, which I would have thought was also fairly non-contentious, and you end up with the standard evangelical position. The fact that Augustine examined the same data, and came to a similar conclusion (though the explanation which he gives is very different), does not mean that all teaching that declares that all people are sinners derives from Augustine.

Well here's the problem in a nutshell, Augustine came to that conclusion because he came with his own pre-conceived ideas and found confirmation of them.

For those who don't have his view of our relationship to God, that there are no righteous, it comes across just as it is, passionate rhetoric.

If we start as Augustine did from a depraved, fallen humanity from some imagined perfection then we'll have to filter out everything that contradicts this which as shown here is to jettison all mention of righteousness in man. If we start from the basic Jewish and our view that Adam is mankind (Adam means mankind), then we'll view ourselves as still Adam, with choices to eat of the good fruit or of the evil, created as we are to know the difference, and to know our potential.

What is the glory of God? To be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect, to love the other as oneself which is to fully express the image and likeness of God of our creation.

What Augustine proposed in his doctrines was God looking at himself in a holographic mirror (Matt 25) and damning all images for not obeying him..

Myrrh

Surely, we are all the righteous, like trees planted by the waterside, as the psalmist describes it, but we are all also sinners, the "not so" ones. We are capable of the most Christ-like of deeds, but also of being the vilest of offenders. Often, these two meet in the same person, sometimes even at the same time. It was so for Paul, according to his own testimony. As I understand it, the righteous person is the one we are called by God to be. We are indeed intended to be perfect, as He is perfect, but we are not yet there. The experience of all the saints is that we will not acheive it in this life, yet surely God is capable of bringing this sanctification/deification about. I think you draw an unnecessary dichotomy. James Alison defines sin as "that which can be forgiven. I like that. To be a sinner is to be in need of God's grace. It does not necessarily imply (here I part company from my co-religionists) that it is to be under God's condemnation. There is a well established scriptural remedy for sin. It's called forgiveness, and it opens the way for repentance and, by God's grace, permanent change of life.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Where does Christ teach that we are all sinners and there are no righteous?

Nice set of quotes, Myrrh!

I agree that according to Christ some are righteous and some are not. There are good people and bad people.

This is qualified by His teachings that "no one is good but God" and that "without Me you can do nothing."

But I don't see these truths as negating His other statements about the righteous and the unrighteous. Certainly no one is without sin, other than God, but a person need not be God in order to be included in the category that Jesus calls "righteous."
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
David sinned. David felt guilt. David needed his act of sin to be cleansed. What is there not to get here?
He didn't need Christ.
Myrrh, you are boxing yourself into a corner here. As JJ has said this has nothing to do with PSA.

I would agree with JJ here - in Psalm 51 David casts himself on God's mercy; his hope is set on God's nature to forgive.

However, what is 100% certain is that David thought he was a sinner and that he was not trusting in being righteous himself.

So the choice is yours - either David was wrong and he is not in heaven, or you are wrong in your reasoning here.

I won't hold my breath.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Where does Christ teach that we are all sinners and there are no righteous?

For example,
"No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me." John 13: 8

Verse 10 (of John 13) makes it clear that Jesus is using washing as a metaphor for being morally / spiritually cleansed. (Unless he thought Judas needed a bath. [Roll Eyes] )

So Jesus is both clear and tough in his words here. The person who does not think they need cleansing by Jesus can have no part with him.

What else is he referring to other than an admission that one is a sinner?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Surely, we are all the righteous, like trees planted by the waterside, as the psalmist describes it, but we are all also sinners, the "not so" ones. We are capable of the most Christ-like of deeds, but also of being the vilest of offenders. Often, these two meet in the same person, sometimes even at the same time. It was so for Paul, according to his own testimony. As I understand it, the righteous person is the one we are called by God to be. We are indeed intended to be perfect, as He is perfect, but we are not yet there. The experience of all the saints is that we will not acheive it in this life, yet surely God is capable of bringing this sanctification/deification about.

Well, we differ again here in theology. We don't have any teaching about perfection being achieved after death, that our salvation is in some heaven after death; all our teaching is geared to achieving it in this life, so our saints teach us. Christ didn't teach anything about this being something we couldn't be here, "be perfect" is surely "be perfect now"?

The only teaching we have from Christ about after death is that he went to prepare a place for us, we don't bother much thinking about that. ..Or rather we consider it a continuation of what we already have with Christ here, he's already brought the kingdom of heaven to us on earth, and, since that is eternal 'after death' really doesn't have any meaning for us.


quote:
I think you draw an unnecessary dichotomy. James Alison defines sin as "that which can be forgiven. I like that. To be a sinner is to be in need of God's grace. It does not necessarily imply (here I part company from my co-religionists) that it is to be under God's condemnation. There is a well established scriptural remedy for sin. It's called forgiveness, and it opens the way for repentance and, by God's grace, permanent change of life.
This does become difficult because it's so easy to talk past each other when we have a different understanding about the common words we use, and I'm really sorry, but the dreaded A has to be brought in to explain the difference here...

Grace is a given for us, we can never, none of us no matter how gross we are as sinners, ever be outside it. This is because what we understand by Grace is God, and as God is in everything God's Grace is in all of us.

A. decided that God's grace was something different, a thing God created 'as the bridge between God and man', as a thing, it could be taken away, could be lost, you call it "a gift".

These are two meanings which are not at all compatible. So as we say, we don't lack God's grace (there would not be any existence without it, we understand it as an uncreated energy of God in creation, actually God so it couldn't be withdrawn), so God's forgiveness is always there too, we understand it as God's nature and it's always on tap so to speak. The way back to righteousness the same for David and Paul as for ourselves, to repent and the forgivness is there. But note, Christ's teaching for us is that we are forgiven as we forgive, it's a synergistic relationship with God in creation, we've got to make the move to turn on the tap. What Christ teaches is involvement in the actual process, (in the be perfect teaching of "God became man so that man could become God), so, as God is ever forgiving we are required to be.

How hard is that...?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
David sinned. David felt guilt. David needed his act of sin to be cleansed. What is there not to get here?
He didn't need Christ.
Myrrh, you are boxing yourself into a corner here. As JJ has said this has nothing to do with PSA.
But it has, this is my argument against PSA.., repentance was always there in the OT, even without sacrifice, the relationship in with God was always there, forgiveness was always there, righteousness was always there; so, as I've said before, PSA exists not because God required payment for sins in blood for atonement, but because those believing he required payment in blood for atonement needed PSA.


quote:
I would agree with JJ here - in Psalm 51 David casts himself on God's mercy; his hope is set on God's nature to forgive.

However, what is 100% certain is that David thought he was a sinner and that he was not trusting in being righteous himself.

So the choice is yours - either David was wrong and he is not in heaven, or you are wrong in your reasoning here.

I won't hold my breath.

You've just set up a, something or other, the one doesn't follow from the other.

Besides which it's, er, others here who keep pushing the concept that it's God's nature to forgive and not his nature to demand payment for sins.., in asking for God's mercy David has reached a point where it's all too confusing much for him, but, God is ever merciful, how could David not be saved?


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Where does Christ teach that we are all sinners and there are no righteous?

quote:
For example,
"No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me." John 13: 8

Verse 10 (of John 13) makes it clear that Jesus is using washing as a metaphor for being morally / spiritually cleansed. (Unless he thought Judas needed a bath. [Roll Eyes] )

So Jesus is both clear and tough in his words here. The person who does not think they need cleansing by Jesus can have no part with him.

What else is he referring to other than an admission that one is a sinner?

?! This is a new one on me, never heard this before.

This is Christ's direct teaching of serving the other. Christ's teaching in establishing his Church was specific, there was to be none exercising authority over another, none sitting at the head of table lording it over the other as some right of superiority, but to be at the table serving - he was teaching Peter service by example.

John 13:14
If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet

Washing feet of visiting guests was standard practice and still is in some places where dusty sandals and tired dirty feet from walking were bathed by the host, or rather his wife or servant... Peter was not only embarrassed by this act being an inferior's duty, (women were, and still are in the more orthodox Judaism, the property of the father/husband, without self-determination so actually inferior), but reminded by Christ from which great height he was doing this - that his Lord and Teacher washed his feet, at whose feet he was still sitting and learning.

It was a lesson Peter had to experience to understand, and without understanding how could he then teach it?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
in asking for God's mercy David has reached a point where it's all too confusing much for him, but, God is ever merciful, how could David not be saved?

[brick wall] [brick wall] [brick wall]

But why does David need God's mercy, unless he is not righteous, unless he sees himself as a sinner?

You are simply not listening to what others are saying.

[brick wall] [brick wall] [brick wall]


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is a new one on me, never heard this before.

Well perhaps you should read it again then, especially verse 10:

Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you."

There is just no way you can take this phrase literally. Jesus is talking about some kind of spiritual cleansing here.

In John 13 Jesus is teaching his disciples two things:

1. The example of service.
2. Their need of cleansing by him.

Of course this line of interpretation does rely heavily on Jesus being able to teach more than one thing at a time. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So, I reiterate, Your issue is with Paul.

The scriptures quoted above are hard to misunderstand.

PAUL, said all have sinned. JOHN said that we are deceiving ourselves if we deny what Paul said.

You don't believe the scriptures Myrrh.

You prefer your tradition.

No, my issue is with the Augustinian interpretation of Holy Scripture which claims to be Paul.

My tradition is Christ's teaching, a selection:

quote:
Matthew 21:32
For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.


Matthew 23:28
Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.


Matthew 23:29
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,


Matthew 23:35
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.


Matthew 25:37
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

Mark 2:17
When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luke 1:6
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.


Luke 1:75
In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.


Luke 5:32
I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


Luke 18:9
And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:


Matthew 22:37
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Mark 12:30
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.


Luke 10:27
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.


John 8:42
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

John 15:10
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Where does Christ teach that we are all sinners and there are no righteous?

Yes, you got that right, I prefer my tradition.

Myrrh

We all claim the Lord's teaching as our foundation Myrrh.

However, you see this through the lens of your denominational bias..as of course we all do.

Why not try to engage directly with the scripture?

The way I see Christ's words is that his mission and his gospel was initially to present himself to the Jews of his day as their hoped-for Messiah.

He neither excused sin or condemned the sinner and his works were designed to polarise people to decide for or against him. On that basis they received salvation or did not.

"He that does not believed is condemned already as he has not believed in the only begotten son of God." (Jn 8:18)

It was left to the Apostles to create some clarity about him after his departure, and it was primarily Paul who managed to synthesise and harmonise his life and death with the old testament and establish a present relevance.

The gospel Paul preached was not the same as that which Jesus proclaimed. Paul's message centred primarily on the resurrection which hadn't happened when Jesus was alive. Paul said that because he rose, we too were raised in him. He was raised physically cos of his sinlessness; we are raised spiritually from our sin because of our faith in him.

It seems to me that your lens of observation has an awful lot to do with how you perceive Paul's teaching.

We are naturally resistant to move from what we know and have been taught but sometimes, perhaps, the Holy Spirit challenges us to look through a different lens.

As long as you keep crusading against Augustine, you are not really considering scripture IMV.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Why not try to engage directly with the scripture?

This is an ironic statement considering that Myrrh has just quoted more Scripture in one post than you have in the whole thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The way I see Christ's words is that his mission and his gospel was initially to present himself to the Jews of his day as their hoped-for Messiah.

He neither excused sin or condemned the sinner and his works were designed to polarise people to decide for or against him. On that basis they received salvation or did not.

Christ certainly urged people to accept Him. But saying that He neither excused or condemned sinners is ludicrous. He came to call sinners to repentance. He made numerous statements about the basis of salvation. I'd be happy to reference some if you are not aware of this.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It was left to the Apostles to create some clarity about him after his departure, and it was primarily Paul who managed to synthesise and harmonise his life and death with the old testament and establish a present relevance.

That's an interesting take on it.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The gospel Paul preached was not the same as that which Jesus proclaimed.

Do you see disagreement between Paul and Jesus?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Paul's message centred primarily on the resurrection which hadn't happened when Jesus was alive. Paul said that because he rose, we too were raised in him. He was raised physically cos of his sinlessness; we are raised spiritually from our sin because of our faith in him.

It seems to me that your lens of observation has an awful lot to do with how you perceive Paul's teaching.

This explains to me why you almost exclusively quote Paul in your posts. It seems to me that you prefer Paul to Jesus and fail to harmonize the message that they both give. So your thought is that Jesus' teachings about salvation are incomplete because He had not yet died and been resurrected when He gave them?
 
Posted by Wiffle (# 12872) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But it is at least plausible that when Paul said "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", he meant precisely that.

I think that he meant precisely that. And his words need to be harmonized with Jesus' teaching that:
quote:
Matthew 25:46 And these (wicked) will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Here He seems to say that all are not sinners. Some are wicked, some are righteous.

...

Still, people are either good or evil, or somewhere in between. The good go to heaven, the evil to hell. Or so Jesus says.

Mark 10:18 - No one is good except God alone.

Righteousness comes by faith. It does not mean that they did not sin, obviously (all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God). It means they had faith in the god who would restore them (though with hugely varying degrees of knowledge about what that meant, of course).

I think the sacrificial system showed what that involved (our sins deserved death, but could be taken by another in our place), and that Isaiah 53 shows that is what would happen through the work of the suffering servant, and 1 Peter makes it clear (in case anyone doubted it) that tht is Jesus. I've not read the last 40 or so pages, though, so I may have missed a strong counter-interpretation for the meaning of this chapter...
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Hi Wiffle. Thanks for your post.

... or is that, 'abandon hope all ye who enter here'? [Biased]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wiffle:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The good go to heaven, the evil to hell. Or so Jesus says.

Mark 10:18 - No one is good except God alone.
I accounted for this above. Yes, no is good but God alone. Nevertheless, Jesus describes some people as righteous and others as unrighteous.
quote:
Originally posted by Wiffle:
Righteousness comes by faith. It does not mean that they did not sin, obviously (all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God).

Yes, all have sinned.
quote:
Originally posted by Wiffle:
It means they had faith in the god who would restore them (though with hugely varying degrees of knowledge about what that meant, of course).

It means that they had faith in God and repented and obeyed Him.
quote:
Originally posted by Wiffle:
I think the sacrificial system showed what that involved (our sins deserved death, but could be taken by another in our place),

Pure horse manure. It shows no such thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Wiffle:
and that Isaiah 53 shows that is what would happen through the work of the suffering servant, and 1 Peter makes it clear (in case anyone doubted it) that tht is Jesus. I've not read the last 40 or so pages, though, so I may have missed a strong counter-interpretation for the meaning of this chapter...

Isaiah can be mistakenly read to say that.

A better interpretation of Isaiah 53, as we have argued above, is that Christ took on and overcame the sins of the world. It involved suffering and even death. He suffered for the sins of the people as other prophets had done - representing them and pointing them out. He paid a price in the sense that a soldier pays the ultimate price of freedom by giving his life on the battlefield. But Christ's sacrifice was a victory over the power of darkness, as He Himself said. This set humanity free.

The idea that "justice" was somehow satisfied by Christ's death and that this caused God to revoke the curse on mankind is wicked in the extreme. It makes God a monster. It nullifies Jesus' teachings about salvation. It leads Christians astray. It promotes wickedness instead of Christianity.

But that's just my opinion. [Biased]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
in asking for God's mercy David has reached a point where it's all too confusing much for him, but, God is ever merciful, how could David not be saved?

[brick wall] [brick wall] [brick wall]

But why does David need God's mercy, unless he is not righteous, unless he sees himself as a sinner?

You are simply not listening to what others are saying.

[brick wall] [brick wall] [brick wall]

Why do you keep repeating this? I know what you're saying.

David asks for God's mercy because he's sinned, and like Paul he's aware of it because he's come through the Law to know what sin is.

What has the meaning you give to "righteous" have to do with it?


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
This is a new one on me, never heard this before.

quote:
Well perhaps you should read it again then, especially verse 10:

Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you."

There is just no way you can take this phrase literally. Jesus is talking about some kind of spiritual cleansing here.

? I'm finding this quite astonishing. Peter has bathed to go out to this very special feast which if it had been held in someone's home the host would have arranged for his dusty feet to be washed on his arrival, it's bog standard hospitality to wash the feet of guests/strangers entering one's home. The supper is over and Christ here gives his last teaching about what it means to be a servant in His likeness, what it means when he calls himself a servant from previous teaching, actually a servant. Peter cringes in embarrassment to see Christ in a role in society his ego disdains and refuses to put Christ in this position by accepting it, but in his usual open hearted frankness responds to Christ's 'or you'll have no part with me' with 'then wash the rest!' - but if he's already bathed only his feet need washing, says Christ bringing it back to the lesson, which he then continues in 12(So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?), after an enigmatic aside about cleanliness, 'but not all', which does refer to spiritual purity and which refers to Judas who is to betray him, but which the others didn't really understand until later - not the previous remark about Judas, nor the last - "28Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him."


quote:
In John 13 Jesus is teaching his disciples two things:

1. The example of service.
2. Their need of cleansing by him.

Of course this line of interpretation does rely heavily on Jesus being able to teach more than one thing at a time. [Roll Eyes]

Well, if you've bathed and are clean only your feet need washing, so did Christ only pay the penalty for your feet?

Since he washed the feet of all of them, are Judas' feet saved, but he has to work on the rest of it himself?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Wiffle (# 12872) on :
 
Romans 3:22b-26
For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
---
All have sinned. We all agree on that. Lovely. All deserve to die for their sin (Romans 6:23). That is the just punishment from God. We do not receive that punishment thanks to the atoning work of Christ. So how can God be just (and give us our due - death), and justify those who have faith (give them life, and life to the full)?

It was by dieing for us, and acting as a propitiation for us.

Isaiah 53:10-11
Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
---

The penalty has been delivered, so God is just. We are justified, so God is merciful, loving and glorious.

I don't understand how you can remove penal substitution without removing God's justice, and I don't understand how you can explain the sentance "it was the will of the LORD to crush him" without saying that God's wrath was shown on the cross...
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wiffle:
I don't understand how you can remove penal substitution without removing God's justice,

It only removes a warped and false idea of God's justice. God does not require an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The concept that every sin must be paid for in blood is a harmful misconstrual of the concept of sacrifice, and even of Paul's description of it in Hebrews 9.
quote:
Originally posted by Wiffle:
and I don't understand how you can explain the sentance "it was the will of the LORD to crush him" without saying that God's wrath was shown on the cross...

Much of the discussion above, which you missed, has been about the nature of God's wrath.

The truth, as I understand it, is that God is a God of love. He has no wrath. The Bible describes His wrath as a way of explaining the consequences of wickedness to a simple and uncomprehending generation. So the things described as "the will of the Lord to crush Him" can't possibly actually be the will of a God of love.

The PSA concept of God is a concept of a monster that no one could love - a concept that arises only from a simple-minded and literalistic view of the Bible, combined with a willingness to ignore the Bible's conflicting testimony that He is actually a God of love and mercy.
quote:
"He is kind to the unthankful and to the evil." (Luke 6:35)

"He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust." (Matt 6:45)

"The Lord is good to all and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Psalm 145:7)

In God Himself there is "no variation nor shadow of turning." (James 1:17) Yet He appears in a variety of ways according to the spiritual state of the individual:
quote:
"With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful; with a blameless man You will show Yourself blameless; with the pure You will show Yourself pure; and with the devious You will show Yourself shrewd." (2 Samuel 22:20; Psalm 18:25)
If you forgive others, He will forgive you; if you do not forgive others, He will not forgive you (Matthew 6:15; 18:35). If you draw near to God, He will draw near to you (James 4:8). If you forget Him, He will forget you (Hosea 4:6). If you forsake Him, He will forsake you (2 Chronicles 15:2). And apparently, when people act with vengeance, they can expect vengeance from God (Ezekiel 25:15,16).

But God never forsakes anyone, He is never vengeful towards anyone, He never forgets anyone, He is always near to everyone. All these things are just appearances depending on the state of each individual. As we read in Titus:
quote:
"To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled." (Titus 1:15)
People's view of God is colored by their own ideas. We don't always see God as fair, but He is fair:
quote:
"The children of your people say, `The way of the Lord is not fair.' But it is their way that is not fair!" (Ezekiel 33:17; 18:25)
A concept of justice in which the Father is satisfied by the death of His Son is no concept of justice. It was not the will of the Lord to crush Him. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:


We are naturally resistant to move from what we know and have been taught but sometimes, perhaps, the Holy Spirit challenges us to look through a different lens.

As long as you keep crusading against Augustine, you are not really considering scripture IMV.

Actually my crusade, if there is such a thing, is against the Augustinian thinking, that he was the first to garble Paul and make everyone damned sinners came from his background and his legacy lives on in those who, as I see it, continue to mangle Paul and reject Christ's clear teaching which contradicts this view.

I think Freddy's on to something here, in that it appears you ignore Christ in favour of Paul. So, you're of Paul?

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:[qb]
The gospel Paul preached was not the same as that which Jesus proclaimed.

Are you really saying that Christ was ignorant of his own resurrection and his teaching before it was lacking something?


Myrrh
 
Posted by Wiffle (# 12872) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:

"The children of your people say, `The way of the Lord is not fair.' But it is their way that is not fair!" (Ezekiel 33:17; 18:25)

A concept of justice in which the Father is satisfied by the death of His Son is no concept of justice. It was not the will of the Lord to crush Him.
You've taken a verse about people objecting to God's treatment and thinking it's unfair (because they did not understand him), and you're now saying that if "It was God's will to crush him" means "It was God's will to crush him", God is not fair.

My response would be that it is our ways that are not fair, and that they should be brought in line with God's will revealed through scripture (in it's entirety, and not just when it fits into our own theosophical construct), if they are to be fully restored.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Why do you keep repeating this? I know what you're saying.

David asks for God's mercy because he's sinned, and like Paul he's aware of it because he's come through the Law to know what sin is.

What has the meaning you give to "righteous" have to do with it?

[Disappointed] I'll take that as your strange way of saying that you were wrong. It is self-evident that we are all sinners. At last we are all agreed. Just think how many pages could have been saved. [Paranoid]


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Since he washed the feet of all of them, are Judas' feet saved, but he has to work on the rest of it himself?

Yes, because that is how analogies work. In the same gospel Jesus said, "I am the gate..." That must mean that he is made of wood. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Why do you keep repeating this? I know what you're saying.

David asks for God's mercy because he's sinned, and like Paul he's aware of it because he's come through the Law to know what sin is.

What has the meaning you give to "righteous" have to do with it?

[Disappointed] I'll take that as your strange way of saying that you were wrong. It is self-evident that we are all sinners. At last we are all agreed. Just think how many pages could have been saved. [Paranoid]
Are children sinners?




quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Since he washed the feet of all of them, are Judas' feet saved, but he has to work on the rest of it himself?

[/qb][/quote]Yes, because that is how analogies work. In the same gospel Jesus said, "I am the gate..." That must mean that he is made of wood. [Roll Eyes] [/QB][/QUOTE]

Johnny, you want to make up your own reasons for what Christ did, of course you can. Are these reasons Scriptural? In this case there can't be any argument, Christ himself explains why he did what he did.

quote:
12So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?

13Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

14If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.

15For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

16Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

17If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

I can't believe it's because you don't understand what's being said in verse 15. Why do you reject Christ's teaching on the subject?

Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Why not try to engage directly with the scripture?

This is an ironic statement considering that Myrrh has just quoted more Scripture in one post than you have in the whole thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The way I see Christ's words is that his mission and his gospel was initially to present himself to the Jews of his day as their hoped-for Messiah.

He neither excused sin or condemned the sinner and his works were designed to polarise people to decide for or against him. On that basis they received salvation or did not.

Christ certainly urged people to accept Him. But saying that He neither excused or condemned sinners is ludicrous. He came to call sinners to repentance. He made numerous statements about the basis of salvation. I'd be happy to reference some if you are not aware of this.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It was left to the Apostles to create some clarity about him after his departure, and it was primarily Paul who managed to synthesise and harmonise his life and death with the old testament and establish a present relevance.

That's an interesting take on it.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The gospel Paul preached was not the same as that which Jesus proclaimed.

Do you see disagreement between Paul and Jesus?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Paul's message centred primarily on the resurrection which hadn't happened when Jesus was alive. Paul said that because he rose, we too were raised in him. He was raised physically cos of his sinlessness; we are raised spiritually from our sin because of our faith in him.

It seems to me that your lens of observation has an awful lot to do with how you perceive Paul's teaching.

This explains to me why you almost exclusively quote Paul in your posts. It seems to me that you prefer Paul to Jesus and fail to harmonize the message that they both give. So your thought is that Jesus' teachings about salvation are incomplete because He had not yet died and been resurrected when He gave them?

Dear Freddy,

I think you might be misunderstanding me.
Jesus did not excuse sin, nor did he condemn sinners. What did you think I said?

I quote heaps of verses on P 3/4!

Epistles or gospels, it is all God's story, just that in the NT Paul is the theological thinker rather han the story teller.

Jesus did have a theology of salvation; of course he did. However, his challenge is on the basis of his identity and mission; Paul's is on the basis of the resurrection and OT connections which proved the above.

The deal in the post-resurrection age is our faith in his atoning death, but I know this is precisely our issue.

I see no contradiction between the Gospels and the other Apostolic writings. It all fits quite nicely IMV. Jesus came initially to Israel not to the world. In Paul we see his message packaged for the world.

Without writing screeds on this, I know Christ instituted the church and said he had other sheep 'not of the present fold.' It is Paul that made sense of all that and also of the consequences of Israel's rejection in Romans 9,10 and 11.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Are children sinners?

I have two.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I can't believe it's because you don't understand what's being said in verse 15. Why do you reject Christ's teaching on the subject?

And you have simply ignored my comment that Jesus can teach two (that means more than one) things at the same time.

[ 04. July 2008, 02:01: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wiffle:
You've taken a verse about people objecting to God's treatment and thinking it's unfair (because they did not understand him), and you're now saying that if "It was God's will to crush him" means "It was God's will to crush him", God is not fair.

That's right. It contradicts God's other teachings.
quote:
Originally posted by Wiffle:
My response would be that it is our ways that are not fair, and that they should be brought in line with God's will revealed through scripture (in it's entirety, and not just when it fits into our own theosophical construct), if they are to be fully restored.

Yes, the standard answer is that God's justice is not our justice. But you miss the point that God describes His justice in the whole Bible. His justice is about mercy and fairness.

It is also true that Scripture in its entirety makes it clear that those who worship and obey God are blessed, and those who do not worship and obey God withold themselves from receiving those blessings. PSA denies this universal biblical teaching.

[ 04. July 2008, 02:13: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
He neither excused sin or condemned the sinner and his works were designed to polarise people to decide for or against him. On that basis they received salvation or did not.

Christ certainly urged people to accept Him. But saying that He neither excused or condemned sinners is ludicrous. He came to call sinners to repentance. He made numerous statements about the basis of salvation.
Dear Freddy,
I think you might be misunderstanding me.
Jesus did not excuse sin, nor did he condemn sinners. What did you think I said?

I thought that you said that Jesus neither excused sin or condemned the sinner. Which is just what you did say.

He did not excuse sin but He did condemn sinners.

He called sinners to repentance, and explained that they would be condemned if they did not repent. He made it clear that hell fire was the fate of the wicked. But you wouldn't be aware of those passages because PSA theology considers everyone to be wicked, and so it discounts Jesus' words about the righteous being saved and the wicked condemned.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Epistles or gospels, it is all God's story, just that in the NT Paul is the theological thinker rather than the story teller.

Jesus did have a theology of salvation; of course he did. However, his challenge is on the basis of his identity and mission; Paul's is on the basis of the resurrection and OT connections which proved the above.

Jesus is the theological teacher, not just a story teller. Paul is simply echoing Jesus as he understood Him. Jesus' challenge is not on the basis of His identity and mission. His primary discourses were about good and evil, teaching us to love the neighbor and obey His commandments.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Jesus came initially to Israel not to the world. In Paul we see his message packaged for the world.

Jesus sent His disciples into the whole world. Paul is just doing what Jesus commanded.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Myrrh:
Are children sinners?

I have two.
quote:


Does PSA teach that children are sinners?


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Myrrh:
I can't believe it's because you don't understand what's being said in verse 15. Why do you reject Christ's teaching on the subject?

quote:
And you have simply ignored my comment that Jesus can teach two (that means more than one) things at the same time.
Come off it Johnny, ignoring is what you've done in the first part of this post, I'm trying to explain, and granted that may not be well enough for you, that you are imposing a meaning on it that Christ isn't teaching.

quote:
Well perhaps you should read it again then, especially verse 10:

Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you."

There is just no way you can take this phrase literally. Jesus is talking about some kind of spiritual cleansing here.

In John 13 Jesus is teaching his disciples two things:

1. The example of service.
2. Their need of cleansing by him.

Of course this line of interpretation does rely heavily on Jesus being able to teach more than one thing at a time.[/qb]

He's not saying 2 at all. He's said why he did it, as an example to follow.

You're making 2 up. But even if by some tenuous stretch of the imagine you think it's in there, it would only apply to the feet, because he's clearly said to Peter that if one has bathed already he's clean apart from his feet. So, since Peter has bathed, he's not a complete sinner.. And as for poor Judas, he too gets his feet washed, but Christ has said he's not clean in referring to him, so either Christ has only washed his feet spiritually clean or it is ineffective since Judas walks out to betray him..

By saying to Peter that 'if one's bathed his whole body is already clean' Christ is taking it away from a 'spiritual' meaning and concentrating it on the social to make his teaching point, Peter's feet would have got dusty from walking to the supper. Christ's aside about Judas not being clean which can be read as spiritual is not part of the teaching Christ is giving here, it's an aside, Judas presumably would also have bathed before going out for dins.

Of course you can read whatever you like into it, but you cannot read that they need cleansing by him, and certainly not by implication that we need it. He's already said that they don't, they're clean apart from one. And if you're trying to stretch some spiritual meaning into by referring to v10 then read it again, Christ says that all we have to do is take a bath for our whole body to be clean, we can do it for ourselves. If we only need our feet to be cleaned by Him, then it's not possible for you to say we are wholly sinners needing washing by him.

It just ain't there Johnny. But by imposing such a meaning onto it, you're downgrading Christ's actual teaching, which is a pity.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

Does PSA teach that children are sinners?

I don't need PSA to teach me that. I use my eyes and ears and throughout my life I'm accumulating data. I'll tell you when I come across a child who is not a sinner...

Anyone who thinks that children are not sinners has not had children.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And if you're trying to stretch some spiritual meaning into by referring to v10 then read it again, Christ says that all we have to do is take a bath for our whole body to be clean, we can do it for ourselves. If we only need our feet to be cleaned by Him, then it's not possible for you to say we are wholly sinners needing washing by him.

It just ain't there Johnny. But by imposing such a meaning onto it, you're downgrading Christ's actual teaching, which is a pity.

Ummh. Funny that.

Even with 30 seconds and google I can come up with this:

quote:
"In his homily on this great Feast in the year 381, St. Gregory Nazianzen mentioned 5 types of Baptism:

<snip>

Finally, St.Gregory says, “Yes, and I know of a fifth also, which is that of tears, and is much more laborious, received by him who washes his bed every night and his couch with tears…” As much as we might wish for a clean slate and a new baptism every time we sin, the Church only administers this sacrament once for each of her members. However, we can regularly experience baptism through the work of tears and repentance. When our Lord Jesus Christ washed the feet of His disciples, He said to them, “He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean.” (John 13:10). As we continue walking in this life, we do not need to rewash the entire body, but only the members that become filthy as a consequence of this difficult trek; namely, washing the ‘feet’, through the work of repentance.

In baptism, we put on Christ (Galatians 3:27), but we tarnish our spiritual garment whenever we sin. The baptism of tears and repentance makes it beautiful again. We can only find inner comfort and spiritual rest in constantly fleeing to Christ in repentance and confession. To ask for His mercy and to have a part with Him once again (John 13:8) is to find perfect peace and joy."

Now, (obviously [Big Grin] ) I'm not a fan of everything he says, but my point in quoting this is that it blows your claim that it explicitly 'stretch(es) some spiritual meaning into by referring to v10', as you so nicely put it, out of the water.

So please enlighten us all as to how St. Gregory was so badly mistaken.

[ 04. July 2008, 11:41: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Johnny and Myrrh, I don't understand what you are arguing about. I doubt that Myrrh is arguing that we don't need christ. Is this just about "total depravity"?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
He called sinners to repentance, and explained that they would be condemned if they did not repent. He made it clear that hell fire was the fate of the wicked. But you wouldn't be aware of those passages because PSA theology considers everyone to be wicked, and so it discounts Jesus' words about the righteous being saved and the wicked condemned. [/QUOTE/]

What's your beef Freddy? You are starting to sound annoyed.

The issue of this thread, somewhat obscured now, is just HOW God makes the wicked righteous, AKA the atonement.

Regarding Jeus' compassion for the sinner, the Samaritan woman is a good example, also the man born blind in John's gospel. The woman caught in adultery is, of course, the classic. Jesus did not condemn her did he? Neither did he excuse her conduct. Had he condemned her he would have been obliged to personally throw stones at her under Moses law, which he did live by.

None of this is anything you don't believe Freddy so what's the issue?

If you (as Myrrh does) deny universal wickedness, you don't need an atonement do you?

quote:
Jesus is the theological teacher, not just a story teller. Paul is simply echoing Jesus as he understood Him. Jesus' challenge is not on the basis of His identity and mission. His primary discourses were about good and evil,
However, the Gospel writers, apart from John, were story tellers. John was the only one whose theology calculatedly shines through the narrative IMV. Not that the others had no stance, they were just more concerned to get the news out.

I do take issue with your last sentences here, Freddy. While Jesus' discourses were about good and evil, his primary goal in his ministry was to force a decision concerning himself. "Whom do men say that I am? Whom do you say that I am?" The leaders in the end made up their minds that he was demon possessed. Thus, they condemned themselves. The light had come into the world but they loved darkness.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[qb]Jesus came initially to Israel not to the world. In Paul we see his message packaged for the world.

Jesus sent His disciples into the whole world. Paul is just doing what Jesus commanded.
No argument about this. Did I imply otherwise? What Paul did was make the message of the master available to the Gentiles. To do this, he had to make sense of the ressurection for them etc etc.
Jesus himself stated that he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not the Gentiles. After they rejected him, the message went to the world.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

Does PSA teach that children are sinners?

I don't need PSA to teach me that. I use my eyes and ears and throughout my life I'm accumulating data. I'll tell you when I come across a child who is not a sinner...

Anyone who thinks that children are not sinners has not had children.

Orthodox teaching is that children are born innocent, they are not sinners until they reach the age of reason and then sin. This is an important difference here because one of my arguments against PSA is that it doesn't apply to all universally, we don't have such a teaching and, certainly I for one, would not be at all interested in acquiring it, or the God that comes with it.

Although there may have come in some influence from the Babylonian days to some Jews to the contrary, (perhaps Paul was influenced by this, I don't know, but the arguments brought up here from him don't show it), but anyway, the general Jewish view is that Adam and Eve had free will to choose to do good or evil, and didn't lose that choice, as have we. To say that all mankind is sinful, is, sorry, A's teaching. I know this is the basis of Baptist teaching, but what A produced from his thinking was a God who damned his creation for sins they didn't commit and then decides that a perfect bloody sacrifice will put it all right.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And if you're trying to stretch some spiritual meaning into by referring to v10 then read it again, Christ says that all we have to do is take a bath for our whole body to be clean, we can do it for ourselves. If we only need our feet to be cleaned by Him, then it's not possible for you to say we are wholly sinners needing washing by him.

It just ain't there Johnny. But by imposing such a meaning onto it, you're downgrading Christ's actual teaching, which is a pity.

quote:
Ummh. Funny that.

Even with 30 seconds and google I can come up with this:

quote:
"In his homily on this great Feast in the year 381, St. Gregory Nazianzen mentioned 5 types of Baptism:

<snip>

Finally, St.Gregory says, “Yes, and I know of a fifth also, which is that of tears, and is much more laborious, received by him who washes his bed every night and his couch with tears…” As much as we might wish for a clean slate and a new baptism every time we sin, the Church only administers this sacrament once for each of her members. However, we can regularly experience baptism through the work of tears and repentance. When our Lord Jesus Christ washed the feet of His disciples, He said to them, “He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean.” (John 13:10). As we continue walking in this life, we do not need to rewash the entire body, but only the members that become filthy as a consequence of this difficult trek; namely, washing the ‘feet’, through the work of repentance.
In baptism, we put on Christ (Galatians 3:27), but we tarnish our spiritual garment whenever we sin. The baptism of tears and repentance makes it beautiful again. We can only find inner comfort and spiritual rest in constantly fleeing to Christ in repentance and confession. To ask for His mercy and to have a part with Him once again (John 13:8) is to find perfect peace and joy."

Now, (obviously [Big Grin] ) I'm not a fan of everything he says, but my point in quoting this is that it blows your claim that it explicitly 'stretch(es) some spiritual meaning into by referring to v10', as you so nicely put it, out of the water.

Washing one's own feet by tears and the act of repentance is not what you are saying. You said we need to be washed by Christ and you pointed to one verse out of context of the whole and even out of context of its particular context. We can wash ourselves clean, said Christ, only dusty feet need attention and as Gregory says, we do this with our tears of remorse and repentance. WE do it.

But to remind you of actual context, it was to give an example for the disciples to follow, a very important teaching, and one which if we don't take part in as Christ admonished Peter, we are not with Him. It's about ego and service.


quote:
So please enlighten us all as to how St. Gregory was so badly mistaken.
I hope you understand him better now he's been explained.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Johnny and Myrrh, I don't understand what you are arguing about. I doubt that Myrrh is arguing that we don't need christ. Is this just about "total depravity"?

I think total depravity and no will to do good or choose God is Calvanist and, though not entirely sure, as Johnny won't explain actual views, sometimes I don't think he's saying that, other times I do. Arminians, although there seems to be some arguments about what they actually believe, say that man has retained some will in choice to choose God. Both start from a position that "Man forfeited his original righteousness with the fall.". Which is basic Augustine.

([url=http://www.brysons.net/teaching/csun/calvinism_vs_arminianism.html]Calvinism vs Arminianism[/url)

What we're arguing here is the PSA model about which Johnny said earlier:

quote:
I'm repeating myself here - but to save you having to trawl through 50+ pages - I don't think the NT depicts death as an enemy in exactly the same way as sin. Death is alien in the sense that it stands against us. Sin is both alien to us (against what God created us for) and part of our very nature.

Therefore, I think CV tends to picture Christ defeating an enemy alien to us - and thus once the enemy is defeated there is no need for a response ... hence universalism.

However, PSA, sees Christ defeating sin in us and therefore it is only if we are in him (by faith) that we receive his benefits.

Remember PSA is not simply about an innocent man receiving our punishment - it is us being punished, in Him!

What I'm having difficulty with is pinning Johnny down to actual detail here, for example 'part of our very nature', where Calvin would agree completely with Augustine and Arminians give a spark of free will to turn to God but apart from that still see man's nature as totally sinful - is it this totality that Johnny means here? It appears so from his arguments for PSA, but he keeps sidestepping it here by referring to 'we're all sinners'.

What I'm asking for, is how exactly does PSA say this is? Since righteousness isn't being admitted, it must be whole nature, 'part of' can't apply. If 'part of' applies, then righteousness can be admitted.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Really Myrrh, since your theology doesn't demand an atonement, I don't know why you keep posting here.

My theology says that: 'Christ died for sinners of whom I am chief', which I think finds an echo in Paul's writings.

Johnny's view is widely published here. Reread (or just read) some of his earlier posts.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
We need atonement, because we are creatures, not because we are sinners.

Or do you think Adam before the Fall was not in need of salvation?

Christ is our Savior not because we fell. There is no time that Christ was not the Savior. Christ is the Savior ontologically, not because of economy, not because of human history.

Personally, I think there is a problem with attributing human notions of justice to God. In so doing, we attribute a menstrual rag to God, and this is a total failure on our part.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Orthodox teaching is that children are born innocent, they are not sinners until they reach the age of reason and then sin. This is an important difference here because one of my arguments against PSA is that it doesn't apply to all universally

Ah, I see. Hence your obsession with children and Augustine. Unfortunately it is a category error for even those who are comfortable with the term 'age of reason' all agree that it is not at some definite age - as if we can neatly divide the world into 'innocent' and 'sinners'.

However, as has been repeatedly stated this is irrelevant to our discussion because you do not have to accept OS to believe that everyone is a sinner. If you want 'everyone' to apply just to those of 'the age of reason' then fine. It makes zero difference to the atonement discussion. We are talking about what God did in Christ to save sinners.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
To say that all mankind is sinful, is, sorry, A's teaching. I know this is the basis of Baptist teaching

No, it isn't. Baptists have their roots in different streams. The main two are Particular (Reformed) and General (Arminian) but there are even some who claim Anabaptist roots.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Washing one's own feet by tears and the act of repentance is not what you are saying. You said we need to be washed by Christ and you pointed to one verse out of context of the whole and even out of context of its particular context. We can wash ourselves clean, said Christ, only dusty feet need attention and as Gregory says, we do this with our tears of remorse and repentance. WE do it.

I know what Gregory says about repentance - I quoted him! My point was that, completely contrary to what you had just claimed, Gregory did see the washing as symbolic of a spiritual cleansing.

I'm happy to take things one at a time, but you keep bringing the discussion back to OS.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What I'm asking for, is how exactly does PSA say this is? Since righteousness isn't being admitted, it must be whole nature, 'part of' can't apply. If 'part of' applies, then righteousness can be admitted.

At least three people have already explained this before on this thread.

It all comes down to how you define righteousness. If righteousness means the perfection of God's holiness then any sin spoils that. To commit one sin is to fall short of righteousness. (An analogy might be a shattered mirror - so sinful human beings still reflect God's image (his goodness) but that reflected image is distorted.)

Now, no one is demanding that you accept this definition of righteousness. Indeed this explains why we have met a brick wall - your above quote uses an Orthodox definition of righteousness and then wonders why we don't agree with your logic. You are demanding that we accept all your presuppositions before you will engage with us. Do I need to explain why that won't work?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:

Christ is our Savior not because we fell.

Two things:

1. If you want to call Jesus Saviour then what did he save us from? (That is a genuine question.)

2. Please, please, please, spell the word with a 'u' in it. I know it is isn't really that important - but it is important to me. [Smile]
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
We have been called out of nothing, and because our ontological beginning is nothing, we tend to move towards nothing. Christ offers us salvation in the sense that He makes it possible for us to overcome our being creatures and become Gods by His Grace.

Thus He is the Saviour of all, in an ontological sense, because He Is, and not because we sin. OK, we sin, big f***** deal. If we never sinned would that make any difference to the fact that we are creatures and that the gap between the created and the uncreated is not bridged? Unless that gap gets bridged, and it got bridged in Mary's womb, we are not saved.

Which is why we say that Christ would have come even if Adam remained sinless. He would still have come to provide salvation for all, atonement for all. That was His Plan before the world was created, that is His Will, that is what He foreordained.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
It all comes down to how you define righteousness. If righteousness means the perfection of God's holiness then any sin spoils that. To commit one sin is to fall short of righteousness. ...

Now, no one is demanding that you accept this definition of righteousness. Indeed this explains why we have met a brick wall - your above quote uses an Orthodox definition of righteousness and then wonders why we don't agree with your logic.

It seems to me that PSA pretty much depends on this special definition of righteousness. While there are a couple of Scripture passages that do seem to support that definition, there are others that would seem to refute it.

How do you account for the fact that Jesus, not to mention the Old Testament, seems to divide people into righteous and unrighteous? Even while noting that "there is none good but God" He seems not to realize that "the righteous" is a null set.

It seems to me that a more biblically consistent view is to say that, while no one is perfect, some are more righteous than others - and the more righteous the better.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Thus He is the Saviour of all, in an ontological sense, because He Is, and not because we sin.

Okay then, maybe this is a language issue. Why do still use the word 'Saviour' if he isn't actually 'saving' us? Is 'Saviour' a common term in Orthodox thought? And if so, how is it used?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

How do you account for the fact that Jesus, not to mention the Old Testament, seems to divide people into righteous and unrighteous? Even while noting that "there is none good but God" He seems not to realize that "the righteous" is a null set.

For a start it obviously isn't a null set for Protestants either or we would believe that Heaven is going to be empty!

The question for us is often to do with whose righteousness it is.

However, why do we have to stick with just one definition of 'righteousness'? Surely it must be possible to use the word in different contexts and different ways?


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It seems to me that a more biblically consistent view is to say that, while no one is perfect, some are more righteous than others - and the more righteous the better.

I'd actually say that you are quite right in that statement - but only half-right. [Biased]

1. No one is perfect.
2. Some are more righteous than others.
3. The more righteous the better.
4. We all need Christ for salvation.

Right, off to bed. [Snore]
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
What do you mean not actually saving us??? My whole point is that He is saving us, and that by bridging the uncreated and the created He effects our salvation in a very real -in an ontological, you can't get more real than that!- sense.

I'm arguing against salvation=salvation from sin, and I say that salvation is much wider than sin, that salvation=salvation unto God (i.e. deification, which is effected with the union of the uncreated and the created in Jesus Christ).

As for examples, well, there are many instances of the word Salvation and Saviour in our liturgical prayers, so looking at those prayers might be helpful. But then again, they might not be that helpful, because the meaning of the words in things like the Liturgy or the Vespers or the Matins etc might not be that clear to someone already not-accustomed with Orthodoxy.

I have a question to ask.

Do you believe that there was a time when God was not Saviour and Salvation?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
1. No one is perfect.
2. Some are more righteous than others.
3. The more righteous the better.
4. We all need Christ for salvation.

Yes, that's how I see it too.

As I understand it, we need Christ for salvation because we cannot become righteous without His power, since all righteousness is from Him. If we put effort into obeying Him He gives us the strength - which is that effort - to carry this out and become more righteous than we are.

So, put simply, life's goal is to obey God by living a life guided by love to Him and to our neighbor. If we can successfully do this, as if of our own efforts, then life will be happy and fulfilling, and we will enter heaven after death.

This goal is not an all-or-nothing state of affairs. The more we are able to do this, the more happy and fulfiling life will be. The less we are able to do it, the less happy and fulfilling life will be. There is a complex continuum, so that each person's life and inner state is different. Life's circumstances also mask the results of these efforts in this world, but they are real nonetheless - and in the next life everything will be clear.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Really Myrrh, since your theology doesn't demand an atonement, I don't know why you keep posting here.

Because my Church does have a theology of at- onement.

quote:
My theology says that: 'Christ died for sinners of whom I am chief', which I think finds an echo in Paul's writings.
But since He says not all are sinners, die he die for the righteous too?


quote:
Johnny's view is widely published here. Reread (or just read) some of his earlier posts.
It's the detail I'm trying to get to grips with.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Orthodox teaching is that children are born innocent, they are not sinners until they reach the age of reason and then sin. This is an important difference here because one of my arguments against PSA is that it doesn't apply to all universally

Ah, I see. Hence your obsession with children and Augustine. Unfortunately it is a category error for even those who are comfortable with the term 'age of reason' all agree that it is not at some definite age - as if we can neatly divide the world into 'innocent' and 'sinners'.
Who said anything about neatly dividing? Some people never reach the age of reason, but those who do, who come to understand the difference between right and wrong, 'to kill is evil, to save lives good' etc., will, as did Paul, know when they sin.


quote:
However, as has been repeatedly stated this is irrelevant to our discussion because you do not have to accept OS to believe that everyone is a sinner. If you want 'everyone' to apply just to those of 'the age of reason' then fine. It makes zero difference to the atonement discussion. We are talking about what God did in Christ to save sinners.
Yes, but, again. So what about those who aren't sinners? Did Christ die for the children who are innocent of sin?

You are after all talking about a forensic atonement in PSA and since neither the Jews of his time nor now attribute forensic guilt to children before the age of reason this can't apply them.

Does PSA then count children as forensically guilty of sin?

When does this begin?

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
To say that all mankind is sinful, is, sorry, A's teaching. I know this is the basis of Baptist teaching

quote:
No, it isn't. Baptists have their roots in different streams. The main two are Particular (Reformed) and General (Arminian) but there are even some who claim Anabaptist roots.
I'll rephrase that. I know this is the basis of mainstream Baptist teaching, but not those who happen to have Baptist in their name and don't go back to Augustine or Luther or Calvin and for that matter don't much care one way or the other about Paul since they concentrate on following Christ by example from His words and believe he defeated the power of sin which gives them a fighting chance to change in the choices they make between doing good or evil. Which choice, as far as I can tell, they never thought was lost anyway."

So not these, but those Baptists who do go back to Augustine.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Washing one's own feet by tears and the act of repentance is not what you are saying. You said we need to be washed by Christ and you pointed to one verse out of context of the whole and even out of context of its particular context. We can wash ourselves clean, said Christ, only dusty feet need attention and as Gregory says, we do this with our tears of remorse and repentance. WE do it.

quote:
I know what Gregory says about repentance - I quoted him! My point was that, completely contrary to what you had just claimed, Gregory did see the washing as symbolic of a spiritual cleansing.
Ah, OK, you were just giving him as an example of a 'spiritual reading' which you equate with being 'about sin', fine, but if he was agreeing with you he could not have said that. He'd have had to say something along the lines, 'and when we get our feet dirty because we've sinned we have to take them to Christ for him to wash away using bowl of water to make us clean again.'

And repentance wouldn't have come into it, it would be Christ's washcloth alone which made us righteous again. (Although I think 'again' didn't come into it in your reading of the verse.)

If this is what we're supposed to do by example, wash each other's feet, (if we're taking the meaning to be "spiritual" for sin), then everytime we sin we need to get another disciple to wash our feet for us.

Or perhaps, for some this would only apply to bishops, who then should be the only ones we take our dirty feet to because they alone have apostolic succession making them fit to wash our tootsies clean and ourselves free of any sin we've acquired since our last bath..

I rather like that.


quote:
I'm happy to take things one at a time, but you keep bringing the discussion back to OS.
Well yes thanks, one thing at a time would be good. But all I'm saying is the idea of 'all sinners needing Christ' stops with Augustine as a historical Christian fact however you come to explain 'we're all sinners therefore needing Christ'.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What I'm asking for, is how exactly does PSA say this is? Since righteousness isn't being admitted, it must be whole nature, 'part of' can't apply. If 'part of' applies, then righteousness can be admitted.

quote:
At least three people have already explained this before on this thread.

I must have missed it, if you can remember them would you please fetch them for me? I'm really struggling with this here.


quote:
It all comes down to how you define righteousness. If righteousness means the perfection of God's holiness then any sin spoils that. To commit one sin is to fall short of righteousness. (An analogy might be a shattered mirror - so sinful human beings still reflect God's image (his goodness) but that reflected image is distorted.)
That's it! That's what I've been asking you for, if you've put it as clearly as that earlier, put it down to you going to fast for me to follow or not having read the pages well enough.

I've been arguing, as I said a little way back, 'even one example of righteousness destroys the concept of "all sinners" because where there are both righteous and sinners, as Christ taught, there can't be "all sinners", but now I have it nailed down I'll take a look at "To commit one sin is to fall short of righteousness."


quote:
Now, no one is demanding that you accept this definition of righteousness. Indeed this explains why we have met a brick wall - your above quote uses an Orthodox definition of righteousness and then wonders why we don't agree with your logic. You are demanding that we accept all your presuppositions before you will engage with us. Do I need to explain why that won't work?
Well, no, I don't think I've been doing that. I accept that we both work from different views, I'm arguing against the logic of yours.

But, just to confirm, is this one of/the actual PSA explanation of righteousness?


Well OK, Christ's righteouness for you here, (as an example but necessarily what all PSA teaches), is that he never sinned, and, even one sin destroys righteouness.

Well, there are several stories, but in my discernment, (understand, I do not actually judge) Christ certainly sinned by his words and actions when his mother came to see him and he was in the middle of teaching, a big put down for her though still standing at the door she may not have heard him; He broke the commandment, "thou shalt honour thy mother and father" by demeaning her in front of his disciples in his reply.

So, Christ sinned. Since even one sin makes one unrighteous and PSA is built on Christ being the only perfectly eternal infinite Righteous, then PSA has no foundation.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Missed out 'not', should be:

Well OK, Christ's righteouness for you here, (as an example but not necessarily what all PSA teaches), is that he never sinned, and, even one sin destroys righteouness.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
my Church does have a theology of at- onement.

quote:
My theology says that: 'Christ died for sinners of whom I am chief', which I think finds an echo in Paul's writings.
But since He says not all are sinners, die he die for the righteous too?
Well Two things:

Myrrh if you'd read the actual scripture you'd see Paul claims that IT charges we are all under sin. He quotes Isaiah as saying there is none righteous, no not one. Ro 3:9-23

A few posts back I tried to explain your misquotation of Paul's statement in Ro 2:14. But as usual you ignored the inconvenient possibility you might learn something outside your present ken and continued with your crusade.(you could at least occasionally consider the validity of others' views Myrrh)

Romans 5:6-11 states Paul's view of the atonement, he says clearly that it comes via the cross.

Consequently, since you see another way to righteousness you have no real use for the cross.

Hence, my conclusion, you don't need an atonement.

Andrew, It is my view that God, having made the creation in his own image, did not create it needing anything.

The need for redemption was created because Adam essentially committed high treason against his maker and consequently imbibed a sinful nature which he passes on to his descendants.

I do, however, as previously stated, believe that man is redeemable,otherwise we could not choose to be believers.

I do not think, though, we can remove our own sin or sins, only Christ's shed blood can arbitrate forgiveness. Without that, I believe we have no forgiveness and therefore no grounds to stand before a Holy God.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
It seems to me that PSA pretty much depends on this special definition of righteousness. While there are a couple of Scripture passages that do seem to support that definition, there are others that would seem to refute it.

How do you account for the fact that Jesus, not to mention the Old Testament, seems to divide people into righteous and unrighteous?

Well Freddy there are more than a few scriptures to support a view of righteousness that claims that God's standard is far higher than any can reach on our own.(Ro 3:9-23 for instance)

Regarding your query about Jesus teaching above, it is quite neatly understood if one sees he is speaking often of the 'righteousness under the law' which was the standard until the cross. But the cross, having brought the reign of the Mosaic era to a close, now, makes available to us, the righteousness of faith.

In my view, when Jesus refers to righteousness, he is synthesising the two things. That is, he is looking forward to the cross as well as backwards to Moses.

Either way, there are now as there were then, some righteous and some not.

Under the Gospel age though, which we are in, our righteousness depends on the acceptance of the efficacy of Jesus' blood to wash away our sins.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
salvation=salvation unto God (i.e. deification, which is effected with the union of the uncreated and the created in Jesus Christ).I have a question to ask.

Yes and this is what I mean by language. It could be that the way you speak about Christ doesn't translate well into English - in which case I'm happy for you to put me straight - but in English to be a Saviour implies that you are saving from something as well as to something. (e.g. OED "person who saves a State from destruction.")

So let me put the question again - how does the word 'Saviour' function in Orthodoxy? Does Jesus saves us from anything?

quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Do you believe that there was a time when God was not Saviour and Salvation?

I'd give different answers to that question depending on context - e.g. it is in God's very nature to be Saviour and Salvation but I'm not sure what it would mean to apply that to God at a time before there was someone to save?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
If we can successfully do this, as if of our own efforts, then life will be happy and fulfilling, and we will enter heaven after death.

Yet if Christ repeatedly stressed that it was only possible to do this through him (e.g. John 15) how is it possible to do it 'as if by our own efforts'?

How is it possible to do something 'only through Christ' if we think we are doing it ourselves - by definition it can't be only through Christ?

[ 06. July 2008, 06:39: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
You are after all talking about a forensic atonement in PSA and since neither the Jews of his time nor now attribute forensic guilt to children before the age of reason this can't apply them.

Does PSA then count children as forensically guilty of sin?

Who cares? IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

As it happens I'm a Baptist and so we don't baptise until 'the age of reason'. I'm very comfortable with that and it makes zero difference to my understanding of PSA. (And I'm not wracked with worry about the eternal destiny of my children!)

Let's work on the basic assumptions (and please correct me if I'm wrong on either count) that:

1. Everyone on this thread is an adult - and has therefore reached the mystical age of reason.

2. Everyone on this thread has committed at least one act of sin. (By ommission or commission.)

So let's leave behind the theoretical case and talk about reality. Please

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well yes thanks, one thing at a time would be good. But all I'm saying is the idea of 'all sinners needing Christ' stops with Augustine as a historical Christian fact however you come to explain 'we're all sinners therefore needing Christ'.

Do you mean 'starts' with Augustine?


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well, no, I don't think I've been doing that. I accept that we both work from different views, I'm arguing against the logic of yours.

Maybe that's your intent but it comes across as 'arguing against the logic of my view using the logic of your position'.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
But, just to confirm, is this one of/the actual PSA explanation of righteousness?

Actually 'righteousness' can be used in different ways in Protestant thought. I guess the biggest difference here is over 'alien' righteousness - that we receive Christ's righteousness, as a gift, by being united in him by faith.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well, there are several stories, but in my discernment, (understand, I do not actually judge) Christ certainly sinned by his words and actions when his mother came to see him and he was in the middle of teaching, a big put down for her though still standing at the door she may not have heard him; He broke the commandment, "thou shalt honour thy mother and father" by demeaning her in front of his disciples in his reply.

So, Christ sinned. Since even one sin makes one unrighteous and PSA is built on Christ being the only perfectly eternal infinite Righteous, then PSA has no foundation.

You've gone down this blind-alley before Myrrh. For a start you'd have to be Pharisee to demonstrate that Jesus broke that commandment. But I don't need to go there - "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin." Hebrews 4: 15.

Now you don't have to take a Sola Scriptura position or an inerrantist position for this verse to apply. All I'm asking you to accept is that Christians living roughly 2000 years closer to the event than you do thought Jesus to be without sin.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So let me put the question again - how does the word 'Saviour' function in Orthodoxy? Does Jesus saves us from anything?

Death. Both on an ontological level and in a physical level.

I think you understand what I mean by "physical level", so I will say a few things about the "ontological level".

We come from the earth, this phrase has an ontological meaning, which is why we return to the earth. As creatures, we are called out of nothing, and we have this tendency to return to nothing, because we are creatures, and our ontological principle is nothingness.

Jesus Christ offers us salvation from our ontological principle, from our ontological beginning, from death, unto God.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So let me put the question again - how does the word 'Saviour' function in Orthodoxy? Does Jesus saves us from anything?

Death. Both on an ontological level and in a physical level.

I think you understand what I mean by "physical level", so I will say a few things about the "ontological level".

We come from the earth, this phrase has an ontological meaning, which is why we return to the earth. As creatures, we are called out of nothing, and we have this tendency to return to nothing, because we are creatures, and our ontological principle is nothingness.

Jesus Christ offers us salvation from our ontological principle, from our ontological beginning, from death, unto God.

So I exist because Christ saved me?

What about all those who 'exist' but don't acknowledge him?

Saved too I suppose...Not!
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
No, that's not existence. Only God exists in himself. Creatures do not exist in themselves, because they are called out of nothing.

Which is why in theology we can say that either God alone exists, or that God does not exist in the sense that we creatures exist.

"I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." (John 10.10)
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
No, that's not existence. Only God exists in himself. Creatures do not exist in themselves, because they are called out of nothing.

Which is why in theology we can say that either God alone exists, or that God does not exist in the sense that we creatures exist.

"I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." (John 10.10)

What exactly isn't 'existence'? The opposite of death?

You need some definition if you are going to use such terms in a sense not commonly understood.

I posted some time back that it is my view that it is sin that causes death in the scripture. Adam was promised death if he sinned and that is what happened to him and all the rest of us since.

Thus, the basic problem is more fundamental that death. And for this problem, God provided the cross of Christ.

It is the risen Christ who conquered death, but first, he conquered sin.

BTW Myrrh, in rejecting his human associations, Christ did not sin. he was making the point that his mission superseded all human relationships. It was a message his family needed to hear. He was no longer just theirs, he was everybody's.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Jamat, it is not I, but Jesus Christ who says he came so that "they have life and have it abundantly". Were his disciples dead so that he gives them life? And why the term abundantly is used? Surely someone is either dead or alive?

IMO everything the Scriptures say has a very deep ontological meaning. Which is why the Scriptures cannot be understood by human reason; they are to be lived in order to be understood. Experience comes first, and understanding follows.

When the Scriptures say that we come from the earth and we shall return to the earth, this has a profound meaning about the creation. It speaks about the ontological beginning - principle of creatures and about the ontological end; we do not have life in ourselves.

And when Jesus Christ says that he came so that they might have life and that they might have it abundantly, this has a profound meaning as well.

Now, I'm not trying to convince you; I know this is impossible. Only God can convince us of his Truth; not humans. I'm only writing to explain that the Orthodox people always held a very consistent view of what Christianity is about, which is radically different than what you guys have been saying in this thread.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Jamat, it is not I, but Jesus Christ who says he came so that "they have life and have it abundantly". Were his disciples dead so that he gives them life? And why the term abundantly is used? Surely someone is either dead or alive?

IMO everything the Scriptures say has a very deep ontological meaning. Which is why the Scriptures cannot be understood by human reason; they are to be lived in order to be understood. Experience comes first, and understanding follows.

When the Scriptures say that we come from the earth and we shall return to the earth, this has a profound meaning about the creation. It speaks about the ontological beginning - principle of creatures and about the ontological end; we do not have life in ourselves.

And when Jesus Christ says that he came so that they might have life and that they might have it abundantly, this has a profound meaning as well.

Now, I'm not trying to convince you; I know this is impossible. Only God can convince us of his Truth; not humans. I'm only writing to explain that the Orthodox people always held a very consistent view of what Christianity is about, which is radically different than what you guys have been saying in this thread.

The abundant life is his life. No argument there.

However, it looked forward to the cross, just as any abundance of life we have looks back to the cross.

The cross is the heart of our faith. Without it life is not possible.

However consistent Orthodoxy is, you guys see fit to put your tradition before scripture when it suits you.

The word ontological, used in the sense Aquinas framed his argument about the logic of God's existence, seems to mean a kind of platonic metaphorical jump between the physical and the spiritual. Is this the way you see it? Life as we know it, is a shadow of the way we should know it? Existence is only really existence in the light of God's presence suffusing it.

If this is what you mean, I have no issue with it per se. My issue is how God's life comes to suffuse our existence.

IMV it only happens via the cross. Unless one is born anew, he cannot enter that realm.

It is our faith in the atoning death of Christ, that enables our 'ontological' transformation.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
However consistent Orthodoxy is, you guys see fit to put your tradition before scripture when it suits you.

Funny, that's what I see you guys to be doing.

The big problem here, the way I see it is some sort of naivete. When the Orthodox say something that is radically different from what you are used to identify with Christianity, your response seems to be a surprise followed by "the bible says this and you are following your tradition". I say this is very naive, because for the Orthodox, the bible clearly says what the Orthodox are saying, and you are following your tradition, a tradition which can be tracked back in time to people like Luther, or Anselm, or Aquinas, or Calvin, etc.

The big problem is that you take for granted that if only we were faithful to the bible (as you apparently are) we would reach the same conclusions about the Cross you do. It would be a real breakthrough if you realized that what you think about our approach we think of your approach, and that the bible is not your prerogative.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
my Church does have a theology of at- onement.

quote:
My theology says that: 'Christ died for sinners of whom I am chief', which I think finds an echo in Paul's writings.
But since He says not all are sinners, die he die for the righteous too?
Well Two things:

Myrrh if you'd read the actual scripture you'd see Paul claims that IT charges we are all under sin. He quotes Isaiah as saying there is none righteous, no not one. Ro 3:9-23

A few posts back I tried to explain your misquotation of Paul's statement in Ro 2:14. But as usual you ignored the inconvenient possibility you might learn something outside your present ken and continued with your crusade.(you could at least occasionally consider the validity of others' views Myrrh)

Perhaps you missed the detailed exchange I had about this with JJ just after, some of us assumed, you'd left, a couple or so pages back.

OK, I'll reply to the post you said I'd ignored, particularly that I've put in bold italics which theme I'd just before discussed with JJ.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
He says the Gentiles have the law written in their hearts, in their nature and by their own conscience convict and excuse themselves and others, and they will, like us all, be subject to the final judgement on the strength of this. No need for Christ at all.

Are you referring to Ro 2:15?

This is directly addressed to a Jewish audience and Paul is concerned here to demonstrate that it is not the keeping of the Jewish law that ensures righteousness.

The statement in question is stating that a man in his natural state, who follows his conscience, can be just as righteous in God's sight.

The issue for Paul here is that God's judgement is according to the light given us.

However, he is working up to his main thesis in 3:9 which I quoted to you in the post above.

In effect his argument is that all have sinned and therefore all need Christ.

I am the first to admit Myrrh, that a text without a context is usually a pretext.

What about you?

Re the bold italics - Paul is not saying that at all. He is saying that in coming to know the law he sees how great a sinner he is.

And since he contradicts Christ by the quote "there is none righteous", this would be better read as Paul's angst in recognising himself a sinner, as did David, because in context he says, as you concur above, the Gentiles have it in their nature to be righteous - so therefore don't need Christ to be righteous with God. That's the context.


Before we go on let me just pick up on a couple of things you've just said:

quote:
"If you (as Myrrh does) deny universal wickedness, you don't need an atonement do you?"

"Really Myrrh, since your theology doesn't demand an atonement, I don't know why you keep posting here.

My theology says that: 'Christ died for sinners of whom I am chief', which I think finds an echo in Paul's writings."

I'm here because I'm arguing against your view that we need PSA as an atonement model, because A God doesn't require sacrifice and B Christ didn't teach universal wickedness.


Back to your last post:


quote:
Romans 5:6-11 states Paul's view of the atonement, he says clearly that it comes via the cross.

Consequently, since you see another way to righteousness you have no real use for the cross.

Hence, my conclusion, you don't need an atonement.

I've been saying all along I don't need your view of atonement.. My argument all through this has been that no one needs your view of atonement because it's a mistaken view of God, but, as I've said, it does fit within the Passover model of salvation because Christ saves us from slavery and if you're enslaved to a view of God as forensic judge demanding innocent blood of another to atone for sins you've committed then seeing Christ as the final sacrifice satisfies your need as the agent to set you free within what you understand God to be, wrathful with you etc.

And in your post to Andrew you clearly state Augustine's OS doctrine to be your belief and the basis of your PSA model:


quote:
Andrew, It is my view that God, having made the creation in his own image, did not create it needing anything.

The need for redemption was created because Adam essentially committed high treason against his maker and consequently imbibed a sinful nature which he passes on to his descendants.

I do, however, as previously stated, believe that man is redeemable,otherwise we could not choose to be believers.

I do not think, though, we can remove our own sin or sins, only Christ's shed blood can arbitrate forgiveness. Without that, I believe we have no forgiveness and therefore no grounds to stand before a Holy God.

This is Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin. It wasn't taught before Augustine. It became the default view of the majority Christians in the West as those arguing against this new teaching there were overpowered by the force of Augustine's friends in high places and it never became the teaching in the East because few could read Latin so his views stayed in Rome and those influenced from Rome in the following 16 centuries.


Myrrh
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Andrew, It is my view that God, having made the creation in his own image, did not create it needing anything.

The need for redemption was created because Adam essentially committed high treason against his maker and consequently imbibed a sinful nature which he passes on to his descendants.

I do, however, as previously stated, believe that man is redeemable,otherwise we could not choose to be believers.

I do not think, though, we can remove our own sin or sins, only Christ's shed blood can arbitrate forgiveness. Without that, I believe we have no forgiveness and therefore no grounds to stand before a Holy God.

I missed that. Thanks to Myrrh for bringing that up!

Well, I understand that there is little common ground between us. To me, it is shocking to say that creation did not need anything. This, to me, is Pelagianism. It seems to me that you wouldn't disagree with Pelagius if Adam hadn't sinned, which is a very strange twist to say the least.

Anyway, for my part, and in agreement with the ancient church, I do not believe that the world was created perfect, and I think that we need God no matter the Fall. This "did not create it needing anything" is very shocking to me. Along with Johnny's response that God began to be Savior...
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Fine, But its not apples with apples when you don't engage with scripture at all apparently just with what the Blessed x said in the nth century.

Why dont you comment on whether you agree with my concept of ontology?

BTW while I have a cultural lens as we all do, I an a born RC and was converted about the age of 21 when the Holy Spirit somehow got though to me. I am no longer RC , more evo Pente, probasbly 'sola scriptura' but certainly not dismissive of the many streams of the faith.

I know genuine relationship with the Lord is a matter of the individual's heart, not his tradition or denominational lens.

I remember well the Catholic Charismatic movement of the 70's and 80's, which gob-smacked lots of my pente brothers.

I say this to point out I don't see everyone not like me on the slippery slope. (Just because they aren't I mean.)
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Andrew, It is my view that God, having made the creation in his own image, did not create it needing anything.

The need for redemption was created because Adam essentially committed high treason against his maker and consequently imbibed a sinful nature which he passes on to his descendants.

I do, however, as previously stated, believe that man is redeemable,otherwise we could not choose to be believers.

I do not think, though, we can remove our own sin or sins, only Christ's shed blood can arbitrate forgiveness. Without that, I believe we have no forgiveness and therefore no grounds to stand before a Holy God.

I missed that. Thanks to Myrrh for bringing that up!

Well, I understand that there is little common ground between us. To me, it is shocking to say that creation did not need anything. This, to me, is Pelagianism. It seems to me that you wouldn't disagree with Pelagius if Adam hadn't sinned, which is a very strange twist to say the least.

Anyway, for my part, and in agreement with the ancient church, I do not believe that the world was created perfect, and I think that we need God no matter the Fall. This "did not create it needing anything" is very shocking to me. Along with Johnny's response that God began to be Savior...

You misunderstand. or maybe I'm not clear. The original creation IMV did not need redemption. This is not to say it did not need God.

BTW Mrrrh, I do not agree with a view of the fall that sees us as totally bankrupt of God's presence. Otherwise we would be unredeemable.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Thanks for the background info.

Well, I did make two references to the Scriptures today, didn't I? First, Genesis 3.19b

quote:
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.

And then John 10.10b

quote:
I have come that they may have life, and have it abundantly
Note that Jesus didn't say that because of the Cross they may have life... He connects life with his coming. You can't get a clearer reference to the Incarnation (and not the Crucifixion) than that!

And since we are talking Scriptures, here's another passage, from Matthew. In chapter 8, verse 17, Matthew says that the saying by the Prophet Isaiah that the Messiah will take up our infirmities and that he will carry our diseases, got fulfilled when Jesus, in the house of Peter, healed people that were sick. Now, that saying by Isaiah is used by some Protestants, thinking it refers to the Cross, but Evangelist Matthew begs to differ. He gives an authoritative interpretation of that Old Testament saying, and he doesn't apply it to the Cross.

quote:
When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:
"He took up our infirmities
and carried our diseases."

As for your comment on ontology, please keep in mind that the Orthodox anathematize formally the philosophical ideas of Plato and the Greek philosophers. So, when we speak with words that resemble the philosophical terms the ancients used, we do so not on their terms, but on our terms. In other words, Hellenism was Christianized in Orthodoxy, rather than have Christianity get Hellenized.

It's very complicated for me to explain all the differences between Platonism (which, I repeat, is condemned in the most explicit way) and Orthodoxy.As an introductory text on the Orthodox view of the cosmos I would suggest father Stephen Freeman's Christianity in an one-storey Universe.

Generally speaking, we don't believe in the separation between the physical and the spiritual, and also we do not believe that the Universe is autonomous from God. The Universe has been created "very good", but not perfect, and is on it's course to universal - catholic - salvation by God, when the Cosmos will get deified by God. The only real distinction is between the uncreated and the created, which division gets lifted in the Incarnation, where the Uncreated enters Creation renewing everything by putting an end to the division between the uncreated and the created by bridging the gap and bringing the two into union with each other. Which for each one of us personally means that we can come into union with God and become Mangods -in parallel with Christ being Godman-, Christs, and Sons of God.

To put it differently, God's Presence is our Salvation, and this is true Fall or no Fall. Man is created not perfect, but immature, and as we grow more mature, we are being offered the option to become Gods, despite our createdness, by the Grace of God, to partake fully in God... Because God is Salvation, Adam even before the Fall was "in need" of Salvation and was created with that Plan in the first place.

[ 06. July 2008, 12:15: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
You are after all talking about a forensic atonement in PSA and since neither the Jews of his time nor now attribute forensic guilt to children before the age of reason this can't apply them.

Does PSA then count children as forensically guilty of sin?

Who cares? IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

As it happens I'm a Baptist and so we don't baptise until 'the age of reason'. I'm very comfortable with that and it makes zero difference to my understanding of PSA. (And I'm not wracked with worry about the eternal destiny of my children!)

It makes a difference to me. I'm trying to understand PSA and the different takes on it, and screaming at me rather than answering my questions is getting irritating.

That you don't baptise your children until they reach the age of reason and that you're not worried about their eternal destiny is interesting but irrelevant to my question which was specifically about PSA and children and not on your particular view of salvation which as you've said earlier isn't limited to PSA.


quote:
Let's work on the basic assumptions (and please correct me if I'm wrong on either count) that:

1. Everyone on this thread is an adult - and has therefore reached the mystical age of reason.

2. Everyone on this thread has committed at least one act of sin. (By ommission or commission.)

So let's leave behind the theoretical case and talk about reality. Please[/

Well, this is as far as we've got, that you've narrowed it down to this which you think allows you to take out all references to there being righteous as relevant to your view, though you're making a leap in logic here as you have no proof that the righteous Christ called righteous committed any sin. Anyway, you claim that everyone has committed at least one act of sin (except Christ), and I dispute this. In my tradition we say Mary didn't, for example.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well yes thanks, one thing at a time would be good. But all I'm saying is the idea of 'all sinners needing Christ' stops with Augustine as a historical Christian fact however you come to explain 'we're all sinners therefore needing Christ'.

quote:
Do you mean 'starts' with Augustine?
No, I mean stops. I was looking back at our Christian history, i.e., it doesn't go further back than Augustine.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well, no, I don't think I've been doing that. I accept that we both work from different views, I'm arguing against the logic of yours.

quote:
Maybe that's your intent but it comes across as 'arguing against the logic of my view using the logic of your position'.
Again, I don't think I've been doing that. Logic is logic and pointing out contradictions isn't dependent on attachment to any particular view.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
But, just to confirm, is this one of/the actual PSA explanation of righteousness?

quote:
Actually 'righteousness' can be used in different ways in Protestant thought. I guess the biggest difference here is over 'alien' righteousness - that we receive Christ's righteousness, as a gift, by being united in him by faith.
Why is it described as 'alien'?




quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well, there are several stories, but in my discernment, (understand, I do not actually judge) Christ certainly sinned by his words and actions when his mother came to see him and he was in the middle of teaching, a big put down for her though still standing at the door she may not have heard him; He broke the commandment, "thou shalt honour thy mother and father" by demeaning her in front of his disciples in his reply.

So, Christ sinned. Since even one sin makes one unrighteous and PSA is built on Christ being the only perfectly eternal infinite Righteous, then PSA has no foundation.

quote:
You've gone down this blind-alley before Myrrh. For a start you'd have to be Pharisee to demonstrate that Jesus broke that commandment. But I don't need to go there - "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin." Hebrews 4: 15.

Now you don't have to take a Sola Scriptura position or an inerrantist position for this verse to apply. All I'm asking you to accept is that Christians living roughly 2000 years closer to the event than you do thought Jesus to be without sin.

Yes, but. I'm talking about the logic here in the position 'that even one sin wrecks righteousness', so, whatever Christians were saying 2000 years ago or your take on my analysis by calling it pharisaic or referring to Christ's humanity is irrelevant to my argument here - it's clear to general reasoning not requiring us to be legal eagles that Christ actually sinned in not honouring his mother and I've heard 'anti-Mary as anything special' use this story to prove how unimportant she was, therefore he is not actually righteous in your definition of righteous. He actually sinned, he broke the commandment.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Death. Both on an ontological level and in a physical level.

Yes, and since Paul says, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6: 23) then we are right back to Jesus saving us from sin, which causes death.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Well, Genesis gives a different interpretation than yours.

It says not that we will return to earth because we sinned, but because we come from the earth. A very different thing, if you ask me.

I don't disagree with Paul, but with your interpretation of Paul. We have had this discussion about Paul before, so I'll only ask why, if you are right, does Genesis say something radically different to what you are saying?

[ 06. July 2008, 13:23: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

BTW Mrrrh, I do not agree with a view of the fall that sees us as totally bankrupt of God's presence. Otherwise we would be unredeemable.

I've never got the impression you did. That view is particularly Augustine to Calvin, massa damnata, and Augustine got around it by first accounting it to be a loss of God's grace and that this grace was replaced in baptism which washed away the Original Sin which caused it, (which you call "high treason against God"), and he went further in saying that this loss of grace affected the will and from this fallen state they had lost the will to do good/turn to God. There are quite a few variations on the detail after the Original Sin, but all Augustinians seem to agree on that, the "high treason".


quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jamat:
[qb]Andrew, It is my view that God, having made the creation in his own image, did not create it needing anything.

The need for redemption was created because Adam essentially committed high treason against his maker and consequently imbibed a sinful nature which he passes on to his descendants.

"Did not create it needing anything" is often called original righteousness, Augustine posited an original immortal perfect relationship with God for Adam and Eve which they lost, hence the fall, which was into sinful nature (however that sinful nature was then interpreted).

I don't view the story anything like that and see it as Adam and Eve's natural progression in Gen II from first beginning in male/female proto-Being to self-reflection and through to self-determination and then sinning or not sinning as the fruit they ate was either evil or good as they went on to explore the world. The same state we're in now, so no fall from anything.


A note of caution, Andrew and I don't have the same view of Pelagius. For me he's a hero for standing against Augustine's teaching of OS.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
as you have no proof that the righteous Christ called righteous committed any sin.

Sigh.

I've done this already. I'll give it another go but it will be a waste of time because you will reply, "No, but in the Orthodox we don't accept that."

So Elizabeth and Zechariah were 'righteous' were they? Are we supposed to emulate Zechariah's unbelief at Gabriel's message? Is unbelief 'righteous' behaviour?


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Why is it described as 'alien'?

It's not ours naturally, it is a gift from 'outside'. However, it becomes ours when we are 'in Christ'.


quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Yes, but. I'm talking about the logic here in the position 'that even one sin wrecks righteousness', so, whatever Christians were saying 2000 years ago or your take on my analysis by calling it pharisaic or referring to Christ's humanity is irrelevant to my argument here - it's clear to general reasoning

Ah, so you want to use logic and general reasoning.

Okay. When you give me one example of someone, from your experience, who does not sin then we can continue our conversation. Just one person that you can point to and using general reasoning demonstrate, in a way that others would generally agree with you, that they do not sin.

Just one person. That's all I ask. Not 10,000. Not enough for a good statistical comparision. Just 1.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
as you have no proof that the righteous Christ called righteous committed any sin.

Sigh.

I've done this already. I'll give it another go but it will be a waste of time because you will reply, "No, but in the Orthodox we don't accept that."

So Elizabeth and Zechariah were 'righteous' were they? Are we supposed to emulate Zechariah's unbelief at Gabriel's message? Is unbelief 'righteous' behaviour?

Well, I'm prepared to continue as long as you keep missing the point..

Am I supposed to believe Christ was "Righteous" when he dishonoured his mother, that he alone has never sinned when he clearly did so by breaking the commandment?



quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Yes, but. I'm talking about the logic here in the position 'that even one sin wrecks righteousness', so, whatever Christians were saying 2000 years ago or your take on my analysis by calling it pharisaic or referring to Christ's humanity is irrelevant to my argument here - it's clear to general reasoning

Ah, so you want to use logic and general reasoning.

quote:
Okay. When you give me one example of someone, from your experience, who does not sin then we can continue our conversation. Just one person that you can point to and using general reasoning demonstrate, in a way that others would generally agree with you, that they do not sin.
This has nothing to do with examples. It is a sin to dishonour our mothers and Christ broke the commandment by dishonouring his. His righteousness is therefore, according to your definition of righteousness, not.



quote:
Just one person. That's all I ask. Not 10,000. Not enough for a good statistical comparision. Just 1.
Well, it wasn't Christ..

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well, it wasn't Christ..

That's okay. But a simple, "I can't" would have done just as well.

Looks like I'll just have to wait until either you come up with an example or someone else posts.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well, it wasn't Christ..

That's okay. But a simple, "I can't" would have done just as well.

Looks like I'll just have to wait until either you come up with an example or someone else posts.

I'd already given you, in the post you were replying to, one example.

What you can't do Johnny is to admit you're basing "all are sinners, there are non righteous, not one, except Christ" on an assumption. That some in Scripture have used words which you cling to as proof of your assumption is not proof that what you assume to be true actually is, but as I've shown, are actual proof that it isn't.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Wiffle (# 12872) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
It is a sin to dishonour our mothers and Christ broke the commandment by dishonouring his. His righteousness is therefore, according to your definition of righteousness, not.

quote:
Just one person. That's all I ask. Not 10,000. Not enough for a good statistical comparision. Just 1.
Well, it wasn't Christ...
Jesus knew no sin (2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15). Your understanding of what it means to honour your parents isn't as good as Gods.

Once we get to a point where Christians claim to understand an area of morality more clearly than God incarnate, the theology resulting from it is going to be a tad skewed...
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wiffle:
Jesus knew no sin (2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15). Your understanding of what it means to honour your parents isn't as good as Gods.

Created in the image and likeness of God why shouldn't it be? Did or did not Christ teach discernment?

And what about the damages to another's property? It's clear Jesus sinned, and so by Johnny's requirement for righteousness falls short.


quote:
Once we get to a point where Christians claim to understand an area of morality more clearly than God incarnate, the theology resulting from it is going to be a tad skewed...
Ah, the Original Sin as described by Pope John Paul II (which I posted earlier, will repost if you can't find it and have any interest in reading it) which allows man to replace the commandments with his own which break them having lost any connection with rational thought about what is good and evil.

Do you think the God who ordered genocide of the Canaanites was Righteous? Or do you think that ordering genocide is a sin?


Myrrh

[ 06. July 2008, 21:52: Message edited by: Myrrh ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well, it wasn't Christ..

That's okay. But a simple, "I can't" would have done just as well.

Looks like I'll just have to wait until either you come up with an example or someone else posts.

I'd already given you, in the post you were replying to, one example.

What you can't do Johnny is to admit you're basing "all are sinners, there are non righteous, not one, except Christ" on an assumption. That some in Scripture have used words which you cling to as proof of your assumption is not proof that what you assume to be true actually is, but as I've shown, are actual proof that it isn't.

Myrrh

Read and think about what you posted.

Unpacked it says.

"I know scripture says what you say, however I'm choosing to believe that it doesn't mean what it says because in my own opinion it should say something else."

Johnny's 'assumption' Myrrh, is actually what scripture explicitly says. But of course, the 'Orthodox' way is the only path right? And it trumps scripture.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well, it wasn't Christ..

That's okay. But a simple, "I can't" would have done just as well.

Looks like I'll just have to wait until either you come up with an example or someone else posts.

I'd already given you, in the post you were replying to, one example.

What you can't do Johnny is to admit you're basing "all are sinners, there are non righteous, not one, except Christ" on an assumption. That some in Scripture have used words which you cling to as proof of your assumption is not proof that what you assume to be true actually is, but as I've shown, are actual proof that it isn't.

Myrrh

Read and think about what you posted.

Unpacked it says.

"I know scripture says what you say, however I'm choosing to believe that it doesn't mean what it says because in my own opinion it should say something else."

Not at unpacked as that. It's nothing to do with my opinion, it's about using Scripture to argue doctrine.


quote:
Johnny's 'assumption' Myrrh, is actually what scripture explicitly says. But of course, the 'Orthodox' way is the only path right? And it trumps scripture.
But this isn't about Orthodox v anyone, but with others here also using Scripture to point out the contradictions.


This is simply about arguing against Johnny's definition of "all are sinners, none righteous" as one base of PSA, by using the same kind of examples and reasoning he uses. What I've been arguing, and shown, is that he can't prove his assumption because Scripture contradicts it.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What I've been arguing, and shown, is that he can't prove his assumption because Scripture contradicts it.

Er, no. Johnny S has given up.

I thought that discussion was meant to be a two-way process*, but sadly I was mistaken. [Frown]

* i.e. where both sides listen to one another and engage with what the other has said.

ETA A thought just struck me - did Leo pay you to post on this thread?

[ 07. July 2008, 05:05: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
[What you can't do Johnny is to admit you're basing "all are sinners, there are non righteous, not one, except Christ" on an assumption.
What I can't afford to admit Johnny is that the sentiments expressed in this snip are written by Paul, because if I do, then my whole house of cards will collapse.

quote:
That some in Scripture have used words which you cling to as proof of your assumption is not proof that what you assume to be true actually is, but as I've shown, are actual proof that it isn't.
Just because you can quote scripture, is not proof that it actually says what the quote says and furthermore I have shown that the scripture you have quoted does not in fact say what it says.

Little Myrrh thy summer's play,
This thoughtful thread has brushed away,
Have we all not eyes to see,
except perhaps for only thee?
For you argue in the face
of of logic, reason and the case
That is self-evident to most.
We're all sinners, (really toast)
And hope for us I realise
is not in what we theorise
But whether grace can bring us near
To the one we all should fear.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What I've been arguing, and shown, is that he can't prove his assumption because Scripture contradicts it.

Er, no. Johnny S has given up.

I thought that discussion was meant to be a two-way process*, but sadly I was mistaken. [Frown]

* i.e. where both sides listen to one another and engage with what the other has said.

ETA A thought just struck me - did Leo pay you to post on this thread?

Well, I'm sorry you think that. But as you say it's a two way process and I thought our exchanges were about PSA, which, as before, I disagree with it for being a model of salvation as God's requirement of us for several reasons and recently specifically that aspect of PSA which presupposes all are sinners and only Christ not. Maybe you missed that, which could account for me thinking you were avoiding answering.

Since you don't want to engage in the aspects I'm interested in discussing and we're obviously not connecting, then sure, no point in going on and anyway, I'm getting tired of the constant barrage of personal attacks in lieu of replies.

God's peace be with you.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What I can't afford to admit Johnny is that the sentiments expressed in this snip are written by Paul, because if I do, then my whole house of cards will collapse.

Why should I care that much about what Paul has written? Was I baptised in Paul's name? Did Paul die for me?


quote:
Just because you can quote scripture, is not proof that it actually says what the quote says
Which is what I've been saying here about your [generic] use of Scripture.

quote:
and furthermore I have shown that the scripture you have quoted does not in fact say what it says.
I don't think you've shown any such thing. If you want to go through it...


quote:
Little Myrrh thy summer's play,
This thoughtful thread has brushed away,
Have we all not eyes to see,
except perhaps for only thee?
For you argue in the face
of of logic, reason and the case
That is self-evident to most.
We're all sinners, (really toast)
And hope for us I realise
is not in what we theorise
But whether grace can bring us near
To the one we all should fear.

If we're all toast so is Christ
for it's been written,
more than twice?
Not one righteous, all are sinners,
none can hit the mark
there are no winners.
Fear then, fear and tremble
for there's not one to pay the price
while you dissemble
on the quality of blood your God requires
to sate his thirst,
how high to build his pyres.


Myrrh
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
*cough* Johnny, will you reply to my question here?

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Why should I care that much about what Paul has written? Was I baptised in Paul's name? Did Paul die for me?

Oooo, a good one!

Also, liked the poems.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
*cough* Johnny, will you reply to my question here?


It is an interesting question, §Andrew. Because it relates to Original/Ancestral sin understandings, I would like to take a swing at it here. But if it looks like becoming a fullblown tangent, maybe we could switch it to Kerygmania?

Here is Genesis 3:17

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you 'You must not eat of it'

(then snip down to)

19 "by the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken, for dust you are and to dust you will return".

So I see that saying, at least, God's judgment on Adam's sin of disobedience is that he will die and return to the dust from which he came.

In other words there is a continuum of thought from God's "Because" to the announcement that Adam will die and return to the dust from which he came.

Which does not seem to me to be precisely what you are saying.

My quotes are from the NIV so there may be a translator's point or two hereabouts. But that is what the English seems to mean.

Whereas what you are saying is this
quote:
It says not that we will return to earth because we sinned, but because we come from the earth. A very different thing, if you ask me.
The consequence of Adam's sin is that he will die and return to the dust which he came from.

So I think you are saying that the wages of sin is death. What happens then is that we return to the dust from which we came. In other words, a secondary consequence. I'm pretty sure Johnny S believes that the wages of sin is death. So I'm not sure that the difference between you is so radical. Not so "very different" if you ask me.

Perhaps you are seeking to be more precise for a particular reason here? (perhaps I can even guess what it is!) If so, it would help if you explained that reason, rather than leaving me with my guess.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
*cough* Johnny, will you reply to my question here?

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So I think you are saying that the wages of sin is death. What happens then is that we return to the dust from which we came. In other words, a secondary consequence. I'm pretty sure Johnny S believes that the wages of sin is death. So I'm not sure that the difference between you is so radical. Not so "very different" if you ask me.

Yes, thanks B62 - what would I do without you? [Overused]

Andreas, while accusing me of proof-texting Paul you seem to be doing exactly that to Genesis. Who says that the one verse you quote from Genesis summarises the entire theology of Genesis on the question of death?

BTW - B62, please would you have the minutes typed up this evening and on my desk by 9am?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Why should I care that much about what Paul has written? Was I baptised in Paul's name? Did Paul die for me?

Perhaps tBible to you is not the authority it is to me?

With respect Myrrh, you should care what he says since we both agree, I think, that "all scripture is inspired by God for teaching, exhortation and instruction in righteousness." 2Tim 3:16.

It is interesting that Peter in 2Pet 3:15,16 backs Paul's writings as authoritative with his own particular authority.

By the way, I apologise for the 'constant barrage of personal attacks'. I don't intend personal offence, only want to offend your viewpoint, but being a natural bully I always go too far. I appreciate your poetry writing ability though I'm tempted to change a few words here and there.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:


BTW - B62, please would you have the minutes typed up this evening and on my desk by 9am?

[Killing me] cheeky sod!
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
With respect Myrrh, you should care what he says since we both agree, I think, that "all scripture is inspired by God for teaching, exhortation and instruction in righteousness." 2Tim 3:16.

Of course this refers to the Old Testament, with books like... Genesis, and not to Paul's writings. How interesting [Razz]

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The consequence of Adam's sin is that he will die and return to the dust which he came from.

Except that God didn't say that. He didn't say "and you will return to the earth from which you come". Instead, He said "you will return to earth "since from it you were taken". There is a causation here which you miss by omitting this little "since".
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Instead, He said "you will return to earth "since from it you were taken". There is a causation here which you miss by omitting this little "since".

B62 did miss this out, but I don't see how it changes anything significantly since this is a subordinate clause to the 'curse' started in v 17. However you interpret the 'since' must be controlled by the grammatical construction that begins in v 17.

[ 08. July 2008, 07:41: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
It connects death with our beginning drawing an ontological relation between our being called out of nothing and our returning to nothing.

Sigh. This discussion doesn't get us anywhere. In this page I get a feeling of you guys seeing only what you are accustomed by tradition to see, and you innocently saying "but this is what the bible says".
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
And I didn't miss it out in the Bible quotation which was part of my post, §Andrew. My and is part of my assessment of the overall meaning, not an ignoring of scripture.

You seem to me to be placing an undue emphasis on the "since". It is the way the judgment works. The wages of sin is death.

Maybe we can agree on this expanded interpretation?

"You will die. And when you die, you will go back to the dust from which you were made. Since you were made that way, that is what will happen to your remains."

Mind you, I've still to hear from you why this precision matters. What doctrines do you think it affects?
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
You didn't miss it out in the quotation, but you did miss it out in your explanation of the quotation. Now that you added it in your explanation, how do you understand it? It says that the cause of death is our ontological beginning, doesn't it?

If we can agree on that, then we could move forwards. Obviously, that's not part of your tradition or you wouldn't have used that "and" instead of for/since. So, let's begin with that.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
"all scripture is inspired by God for teaching, exhortation and instruction in righteousness." 2Tim 3:16.[/qb]
Of course this refers to the Old Testament, with books like... Genesis, and not to Paul's writings. How interesting [/QUOTE]

That is certainly true but that is why I quoted 2 Peter.

Do you really think it is helpful to set some parts of scripture above others?

Regarding evil, did not Jesus acknowledge its universality in his conversation with the Paharisees when he said, "You are of your Father the devil?"

Put this alongside the conversation with Nicodemus and you find that he demanded radical change if one was to enter the kingdom he was introducing. Such change demanded a 'rebirth.'

I wonder why that could be...Oh perhaps because all are sinners and needed a radical change of heart? [Razz]

So it is not just about Paul huh?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
"all scripture is inspired by God for teaching, exhortation and instruction in righteousness." 2Tim 3:16.[/qb]
Of course this refers to the Old Testament, with books like... Genesis, and not to Paul's writings. How interesting [/QUOTE]

That is certainly true but that is why I quoted 2 Peter.

Do you really think it is helpful to set some parts of scripture above others?

Regarding evil, did not Jesus acknowledge its universality in his conversation with the Pharisees when he said, "You are of your Father the devil?"

Put this alongside the conversation with Nicodemus and you find that he demanded radical change if one was to enter the kingdom he was introducing. Such change demanded a 'rebirth.'

I wonder why that could be...Oh perhaps because all are sinners and needed a radical change of heart? [Razz]

So it is not just about Paul huh?

[ 08. July 2008, 08:11: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Do you really think it is helpful to set some parts of scripture above others?

Yes, the Gospel is above everything else.

Actually, the Orthodox Church, being the historical continuance of the Jewish Synagogue, puts at the heart of worship the Gospel, like the ancient Jews placed the Torah.

Looking more info on Orthodox or Jewish liturgics would be helpful.

quote:
Regarding evil, did not Jesus acknowledge its universality in his conversation with the Paharisees when he said, "You are of your Father the devil?"
On the contrary, in that incident Jesus clearly draws a distinction between those that wanted to murder him and the righteous. The first come from the devil, the latter from God. You manage to see universality in that saying? Dear Lord!

quote:
Put this alongside the conversation with Nicodemus and you find that he demanded radical change if one was to enter the kingdom he was introducing. Such change demanded a 'rebirth.'

I wonder why that could be...

You haven't understood what I have been saying, when I spoke about Genesis... The birth from above is necessary because in our natural birth we are called out of non-being into being. Our ontological principle is nothingness and unless this changes we are not saved.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Do you really think it is helpful to set some parts of scripture above others?

Yes, the Gospel is above everything else.

Actually, the Orthodox Church, being the historical continuance of the Jewish Synagogue, puts at the heart of worship the Gospel, like the ancient Jews placed the Torah.

Looking more info on Orthodox or Jewish liturgics would be helpful.

quote:
Regarding evil, did not Jesus acknowledge its universality in his conversation with the Paharisees when he said, "You are of your Father the devil?"
On the contrary, in that incident Jesus clearly draws a distinction between those that wanted to murder him and the righteous. The first come from the devil, the latter from God. You manage to see universality in that saying? Dear Lord!

quote:
Put this alongside the conversation with Nicodemus and you find that he demanded radical change if one was to enter the kingdom he was introducing. Such change demanded a 'rebirth.'

I wonder why that could be...

You haven't understood what I have been saying, when I spoke about Genesis... The birth from above is necessary because in our natural birth we are called out of non-being into being. Our ontological principle is nothingness and unless this changes we are not saved.

Ok Jn 8:44 is the reference. Jesus is drawing the distinction on the basis of his acceptance on non accetance by those who heard him.

Those who accept him come by way of the new birth, which is needed because of...? the sin principle within all.

Witness what Jesus said to the accusers of the adulterous woman.. "Let him who is without sin among you..." Now that particular assembly was supposedly a collection of the righteous of that day, the very ones later called sons of the devil.

You don't have to go far to see Jesus confronting sin do you?

To be ontologically called out of non being into being is not what Jesus meant by the new birth.

Nicodemus was already born again in several ways, his bar Mitzvah, his marriage, the fact that he was a teacher. It wasn't enough. Jesus stated that it was only by the spirit's work that any could come or enter into God's new deal in Christ.

I find it fascinating that you use such terminology which is very 'philosophical-sounding', when you apparently eschew the platonic influence brought by some of the earliest fathers.

BTW. Do the Jews have any idea that you claim to be carrying the torch for them?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
It connects death with our beginning drawing an ontological relation between our being called out of nothing and our returning to nothing.

I'm quite happy to discuss this as part of Genesis 3. I don't necessarily see a contradiction between what I believe and what you are saying here.

However, you asked the question as if this verse contradicts that the 'wages' of sin is death - something, ISTM, clearly established in Genesis 3 (v 17).

quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Sigh. This discussion doesn't get us anywhere. In this page I get a feeling of you guys seeing only what you are accustomed by tradition to see, and you innocently saying "but this is what the bible says".

I'm sure there is some truth in that. Is it just possible that the reverse is also true?

I fully concede that my tradition influences my interpretation heavily. However, I do genuinely think I am willing to change my mind when shown that I have misunderstood the Bible.

So, coming back to Genesis 3: 17-19, are you saying that the subordinate clause (v 19) negates the overall clause started in v 17? How does v 17 fit with v 19?
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
No, I'm not saying that it negates it.

The beginning of our existence, nothingness, is with us all along. Even before Adam's sin, it was there, as the principle of his being.

Adam was created by God out of nothing, but there was a Plan in God's Mind, God had a Plan for Adam to overcome his beginning.

Adam chose to screw up, and in so doing, his beginning reigned over him. He lost the potential God was giving him to go beyond his beginning (although he didn't lose it forever, because God had planned it before the foundation of the world).

Which beginning changes with Jesus Christ. Christ has His Beginning not from the earth, but from the Heavens, and renews everything by coming down to earth. Us getting born from above means that we can go beyond our beginning, and have a new beginning, a beginning that surpasses all things.

Man was potentially without beginning and without end, limitless and infinite, and this potential is actualized in Christ and in His Saints. Because Adam fell, the advent of Christ is delayed, until a woman whom the King desired appears, at which point God enters creation and changes the beginning of created beings by deifying creation.

Death was an issue all along. It's not because of Adam's sin that we die; the cause of death lies in our creation out of nothing. It's in us, as it was in Adam. Fall or no fall. We go beyond our beginning by choice, because of God's Grace, and this is our salvation. Not simply to go back into a state similar to that of Adam before his fall. Because the cause of death was in him at that point as well. Salvation has to do with that cause no longer existing, and Adam before he fell was as much in need of salvation as we are after we fell.

[ 08. July 2008, 09:40: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
It says that the cause of death is our ontological beginning, doesn't it?


No. The words do not say that in themselves. What you say is a theological inference. And your assumption (that I missed it out because as a Protestant I did not see it) is a theological inference by you, based on your own world view. Assumptions make an ass out of you and me.

I have picked up how important ontology is within Orthodox understanding. That's fine. In this case I think you are just making too much out of not very much.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
No. The words do not say that in themselves.

lol. OK. So, "you return to the ground, since from it you were taken" doesn't really mean "since from it you were taken" but it really means "since you sinned" "and from it you were taken".

It's the plain meaning of Scriptures, huh? Surely this is the case, I mean, that's what the bible says "we die because we sinned" and not "since we were taken from the earth".
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Why should I care that much about what Paul has written? Was I baptised in Paul's name? Did Paul die for me?

Perhaps tBible to you is not the authority it is to me?


It has a certain authority for me, the Gospels are kept on the altar table so have a special significance, the rest is as Paul says, useful for teaching.

quote:
With respect Myrrh, you should care what he says since we both agree, I think, that "all scripture is inspired by God for teaching, exhortation and instruction in righteousness." 2Tim 3:16.
What I said was "why should I care so much", Paul is not the authority in Christianity, Christ is.

By Scripture he was of course referring to OT not his own writings.

What I can't understand is those like you quoting this for authority and excluding looking at it objectively. As instruction in righteousness it is equally authoritatively teaching that God was either off his head at the time he ordered the genocide of the Canaanites, since he'd just given the commandment at Mt Sinai to not murder, or the Holy Spirit is pointing out that some will break the commandments God really gave while claiming what they order is God's order, or, the whole of God in the OT is an irrational mixture of man making God in man's own image and might as well be junked except as a curio of history.

I do sometimes get a strange idea when reading such views, that I wish some would actually take the bite of the apple so they'd get a grasp of the difference between good and evil by which they could inject some more rational judgments into the mix.

But that's not the discussion we've been having here, as for example I have been using the Bible authoritatively to prove that even Christ is a sinner and so falls short of being a perfect PSA sacrifice and previously used it authoritatively to say that God does not require sacrifice.

As before, you assume too much when you decide that authority rests with your interpretation, where did Paul say you were an authority?




quote:
It is interesting that Peter in 2Pet 3:15,16 backs Paul's writings as authoritative with his own particular authority.
Yes! Nice put down.

quote:
By the way, I apologise for the 'constant barrage of personal attacks'. I don't intend personal offence, only want to offend your viewpoint, but being a natural bully I always go too far.
Apology accepted.

quote:
I appreciate your poetry writing ability though I'm tempted to change a few words here and there.
Thank you, I enjoyed your poem and was inspired to reply in kind. I'd rather you didn't change any of the words..

..not even one.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
lol. OK. So, "you return to the ground, since from it you were taken" doesn't really mean "since from it you were taken" but it really means "since you sinned" "and from it you were taken".

B62 didn't say that.

According to Genesis 3: 17-19 we have two things going on:

1. God says to Adam that the following curse is due to his disobedience / sin. (v 17)

2. The curse involves returning to the ground from which he came.

Now, both statements are made to Adam by God. How can you argue that one of them applies not just to Adam but the whole of humanity without the other?

i.e. it is a package deal. If you want to apply your ontology argument from Adam to us, then you must also apply death as a consequence of sin.

I'm quite happy to pursue your ontology argument, but only while recognising that the text demands a both/and but cannot tolerate an either/or.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
According to Genesis 3: 17-19 we have two things going on:

1. God says to Adam that the following curse is due to his disobedience / sin. (v 17)

2. The curse involves returning to the ground from which he came.

No, that's not the two things we have going on.

1. God does say to Adam that because he fell he will die.

2. But God also says to Adam that he will die because he came from the ground.

There are two because here, and you guys are only affirm the one because.

And when I point out that God said Adam will die because he came from the ground, you say that you don't omit that, and then go on omitting that by saying "he will return to the ground from which he was taken", when it doesn't say this, but it says "he will return to the ground, because from the ground he was taken".

And while sin didn't exist before Adam fell, his coming from the ground was there all along, sin or no sin.

Which is what I've been saying... that Adam was in need of salvation even before his fall, and that Christ comes to deal primarily with this, fall or no fall.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I'm not trying to be funny here - this is a genuine question because it could be a language problem, and I just double-checking if it is.

Andreas - do you know what a subordinate clause is?
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Could you offer a definition so we could have something tangible to use in our discussion?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Could you offer a definition so we could have something tangible to use in our discussion?

A subordinate clause (sometimes called a dependent clause) does not express a complete thought. In other words it does not make sense without a main clause as well.

Now, my reading of the Hebrew of Genesis 3 (although I'm happy to be corrected since it is a bit rusty) is that verse 19 is a subordinate clause of verses 17-20.

i.e. you cannot take v 19 as an absolute sentence on its own. It's meaning is subservient to the pericope of verses 17-20.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Isn't a clause lower than a sentence? I'm asking that because verse 19 is a sentence different than verse 17. There is a full stop right before verse 19 begins.

Anyway, what do you mean by not absolute? As far as I can tell, either we return to earth because we came from it or we don't. How can that be not an absolute cause for our returning to earth?

Are we going to dispute what the because in verse 19 means while we are to accept as absolute the because in verse 17? I don't understand this.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Isn't a clause lower than a sentence? I'm asking that because verse 19 is a sentence different than verse 17. There is a full stop right before verse 19 begins.

Yes, you are quite right - verse 19 is not a subordinate clause in that technical sense. I meant that the syntax demands that we interpret verse 19 only the context of verses 17-20.

quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Anyway, what do you mean by not absolute? As far as I can tell, either we return to earth because we came from it or we don't. How can that be not an absolute cause for our returning to earth?

Is this any different to how we discussed Paul?

For example, we quoted: "There is no one righteous, not even one..." and you claimed that although this phrase literally means one thing actually (if you read Paul properly) it means something different.

Why is it any different in Genesis? Goose ... gander ... do I need to draw a map?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Adam's still asleep and it's all just a bad dream..

Myrrh
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
§Andrew

I didn't go into the tulgy wood of clauses and sentences. I have been there before. I asserted a secondary consequence in my earlier post. The text bears that meaning. To separate out verse 19 from its context in v17-19 is not to my mind a convincing means of interpretation. The verses are intimately interrelated.

I appreciate that you have a different view of this text. Your view is not the only reasonable one which can be found. So by all means base your argument on Tradition if you want to. "This is the way the Fathers have always seen this." The actual text does not support your understanding - and defeat Johnny's - in the way you say.

(My apologies to any others for whom this kind of argument is sleep-inducing. I did suggest Keryg for this if it became long winded. That was not prophetic insight - just significant exposure to friend §Andrew's keenness and relentlessness. I think Keryg regulars, like our good Shipmate Nigel M, might have something illuminating to say down there.)
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To separate out verse 19 from its context in v17-19 is not to my mind a convincing means of interpretation.

I get this feeling that I am speaking but I'm not being heard here.

I wasn't the one separating the verses. I hold both verses to be true. You, on the other hand, don't take into account that we die because we came from the earth. You say tons of things about sin and death, but no thing about earth and death. You separate the verses, by putting your emphasis on the one because and omitting the other because.

Anyway, I said this wont get us anywhere, didn't I?

"This is what the bible says, that is what your tradition says".

Right.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
How many trees in the midst of the garden, one or two? A tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil, and a tree of life, says, to me, there is only one tree.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
§Andrew

Many years ago, in a universe far far away, I told you that I was not Augustinian and was in considerable agreement with Kallistos Ware's account of the Fall. In the hope that we have been talking past one another, let me tell you something I believe. From the Orthodox funeral service.

"Of old thou hast created me from nothing
And honoured me with thy divine image
But when I disobeyed thy commandment,
Thou hast returned me to the earth whence I was taken
Lead me back again to thy likeness
Re-fashioning my ancient beauty"

Now that tells me something. But it does not tell me everything. For we were "dead in our sins" and are being "led back again" to His likeness.

If you still wish to continue to explore things on the basis of our all-consuming differences, I think you had better leave me out of it for the rest of the day. I need a break.

TTFN

Nonco Heretic
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Barnabas, "disobedience" is another of those words like "grace" which doesn't have the same meaning for us.

We don't see this disobedience as a)an affront against God in wanting to know the moral ground of good and evil which is only God's prerogative or b) in a juridical setting. From the first comes the idea that the disobedience as an act is a sin against God and so a fall from (immortal) perfection into sinfulness, the second is that this sin is also deserving of punishment and the punishment is death.

For us disobedience here is seen as a warning of consequence, as for example, 'if you put your finger in the electric socket you will die'.

It's very odd, but it's only since becoming involved in discussion with Western Christians that I've come to see their slant almost as the first meaning when I read it unexpectedly.. [Smile] . Brought up in an Orthodox household where free will even of children was a given and where instruction was more teaching about rather than instruction to do or not do, I would naturally read it as a warning. Orthodox view begins with seeing Adam and Eve as neither mortal nor immortal, direction comes from choice.


The 'fathers' I think generally look at this as a warning given to Adam and Eve because of immaturity because, obviously to us, they were created to know.


Myrrh

p.s. I put my question in Keryg.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
No, I'm not saying that it negates it.

The beginning of our existence, nothingness, is with us all along. Even before Adam's sin, it was there, as the principle of his being.

Adam was created by God out of nothing, but there was a Plan in God's Mind, God had a Plan for Adam to overcome his beginning.

Adam chose to screw up, and in so doing, his beginning reigned over him. He lost the potential God was giving him to go beyond his beginning (although he didn't lose it forever, because God had planned it before the foundation of the world).

Which beginning changes with Jesus Christ. Christ has His Beginning not from the earth, but from the Heavens, and renews everything by coming down to earth. Us getting born from above means that we can go beyond our beginning, and have a new beginning, a beginning that surpasses all things.

Man was potentially without beginning and without end, limitless and infinite, and this potential is actualized in Christ and in His Saints. Because Adam fell, the advent of Christ is delayed, until a woman whom the King desired appears, at which point God enters creation and changes the beginning of created beings by deifying creation.

Death was an issue all along. It's not because of Adam's sin that we die; the cause of death lies in our creation out of nothing. It's in us, as it was in Adam. Fall or no fall. We go beyond our beginning by choice, because of God's Grace, and this is our salvation. Not simply to go back into a state similar to that of Adam before his fall. Because the cause of death was in him at that point as well. Salvation has to do with that cause no longer existing, and Adam before he fell was as much in need of salvation as we are after we fell.

So in this constuct, Andrew, your theology is making nothing into something. Adam's nothingness, if he ever had any, surely disappeared when he was created. You have to make 'nothingness' into a meaningful construct for your thinking to work. But to most of us, nothing just means the absence of something.

You are therefore asserting something which needs to be proven.

I can't believe you think this thinking is not essentially Platonic. Plato taught that all things in the material world are mere copies of what already exists in the spiritual world. While what you say may not be the same, you have to grant there is a very Platonic echo here.

Similarly, you eschew Anselm who was the author of the 'Ontological' argument, which also actually derives from Plato. However, the argument begins with the proposition that 'Being is, and non being is not.' There are echoes here in the things you say.

To say God had a plan all along is something we'd all agree on, and to say Adam lost his potential is exactly the effect I'd say happened. In Prot. theology of the fall, he transmitted this loss of potential to his descendants. Hence, our theology of innate sinfulness which I know you see as Augustinian. I'd assert it is more fundamantal. You see, we need the fall to make sense of the cross.

You see Christ 'coming from above, enabling us to go beyond our 'beginning,'' Again, this is a construct that I'd suggest is from Greek philosophy. I'd guess that if you looked deep into your roots, you'd actually find a fusion of Greek thinking and Christian belief systems is really your genesis. Have you done this BTW?

You say God entered creation in Christ. and with him the potential for man to be deified. Well, I think Protestants would see this possibility as the potential for holiness. Where they would differ would be that they believe that Christ enabled the forgiveness from sin which was a universal human malady as the basis for holiness, or deification.

What is the basis of your statement that the cause of death lies in Adam's creation out of nothing? To me this is a weak plank in your thinking. How can you verify such a reading of scripture when the context of Genesis can better be seen as allowing the sin he committed as the cause of death?

What I've said previously seems to make more sense of scripture as a whole. That is, that sin is the fundamental problem and it caused death. This is what Paul clearly taught in Romans.

What on earth was the cause of death if it wasn't sin? You say the cause of death was in Adam and it lies in his creation out of nothing. Does not this suggest that a Holy and perfect God made a mistake with the original creation? He created something flawed or imperfect. Well then, what was this cause, and how exactly was it combatted in Christ?

All in all I can't see a practical difference in the way we live our lives, but I do see your theology as essentially, (as you explain it here)devolving into a self-improvement exercise which is the basic conclusion I came to about the Christus Victor' model which was the original subject of debate on this thread.

By the way, I think you'd like that.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Jamat

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You see Christ 'coming from above, enabling us to go beyond our 'beginning,''

That's not me saying it. That's Paul saying it. 1 Cor 15.46-49

quote:
The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
quote:
I'd guess that if you looked deep into your roots, you'd actually find a fusion of Greek thinking and Christian belief systems is really your genesis. Have you done this BTW?
Yes, extensively. My conclusion, and the conclusion of the scholars I read, was that Orthodox Christianity rejected the philosophical background of Hellenism, giving Christian meanings to the Greek terms. There were two groups of thought. One, the Orthodox, Christianized Hellenism, and the other (with people like Origen) Hellenized Christianity. The latter were anathematized by the former.

quote:
What is the basis of your statement that the cause of death lies in Adam's creation out of nothing?
Genesis. It is written:

quote:
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.

You can't get it any clearer than that. Man's death is linked explicitly with his beginning. (Gen. 3.19)

As for my comments on man's ontological principle, I mean nothing more than what Jesus Christ meant when He said "I AM" and "I am the Life". Life is not man's. Man's is nothingness. Man is given the potential of Life, because Life gives Himself as a Gift to man.

quote:
Does not this suggest that a Holy and perfect God made a mistake with the original creation? He created something flawed or imperfect. Well then, what was this cause, and how exactly was it combatted in Christ?
The idea that we fell from perfection has been anathematized by the Universal Church in the person of Origen. The Church didn't share that understanding. For the Church, man was not created perfect, but immature. We were created child-like.

Of course, being immature does not mean one is defiled, or that a flaw in God's plan exists. It's very different thing. There is no dialectical opposition between perfect and evil to begin with.

Which is why the Fathers said that man's creation is not finished yet, that we are being created as we speak, and that what man is has not yet been revealed.

The issue of us being called out of nothing is combatted by Jesus Christ, who is the I AM. By receiving human flesh upon Himself, He renews everything, and becomes the Source of our Salvation.

Now "on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned." "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."

After all:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Note that this is spoken by Jesus Christ while he was discussing with Nicodemus. God gave his only Son, Jesus Christ says referring to the Incarnation, so that whoever believes in him shall have eternal life.

quote:
All in all I can't see a practical difference in the way we live our lives, but I do see your theology as essentially, (as you explain it here)devolving into a self-improvement exercise which is the basic conclusion I came to about the Christus Victor' model which was the original subject of debate on this thread.

By the way, I think you'd like that.

I understand that because our theologies are so different, it will take much time before we could engage in a meaningful way. For my part, I think I understand what you are saying, but I think that you just don't understand what I am saying.

Let me explain why I say this.

You spoke of self-improvement, and you thought I'd like that.

Truly, there is nothing more off the mark than that. Because, to me, "Christ did not come to make bad men good, but to make dead people alive". It's not about self-improvement. It never was. It's about coming into union with God. I don't know how to put it, because we are using words with different meanings in mind.

I don't know if this makes it easier, but it's worth trying.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
§Andrew

I didn't go into the tulgy wood of clauses and sentences.

You are quite right B62. My mistake. There be monsters in them there woods.

You end up so that you can't see the wood for the trees... or is that tree?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Barnabas, "disobedience" is another of those words like "grace" which doesn't have the same meaning for us.


What makes you think I don't know that?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Andrew,

When I suggested you'd like the CV model, I wasn't suggesting you were into self-improvement. Just that that's where I think it ultimately leads.

Heaps of posts by JJ and Freddy strenuously defend it and deny this.

Essentially CV is very much in line with your view of Christ entering creation in order to enable a remaking and recreation. It postulates Christ as the victor over evil by means of his voluntary submission to it on the cross. By doing so, he revealed evil as self defeating and demonstrated a new way for us to live.

This is a cursory summation of it which I'm sure others will correct, but it doesn't practically, seem far from your position, (not your theoretical position, but your practical one.)

[ 09. July 2008, 07:36: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
ISTM that we are grinding to a halt. (Leo cheers!)

With fear and trepidation I tentatively offer that I could start another thread on 'Orthodox view of Atonement.'

The sticking point seems to be whether or not there is any sense of substitution at all (NB I'm not talking about a penal sense here at all.)

Others may disagree but I think that we had mostly agreed on some sense of substitution but were arguing over what that means. Therefore, IMV, a separate thread might renew that conversation here.

Or, or ... I may be dreaming and we'd just get twice the confusion. [Ultra confused]

What does everyone think?
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
I agree, Johnny. The way I understand Orthodox theology, there is no substitution to begin with, let alone penal substitution.

I don't know how much confusion-free will this new thread be, but I hope it doesn't grow 60+ pages long! [Eek!]
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Barnabas, "disobedience" is another of those words like "grace" which doesn't have the same meaning for us.


What makes you think I don't know that?
..only meant as a review to set the scene for what followed, was actually thinking of Andrew as I wrote it..

..shudda left it.

Myrrh

Myrrh
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
OK Myrrh, no probs. My understanding is limited but not zero!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Johnny S

I think that is a good idea. This thread has become very unwieldy, since it is a respository for all sorts of atonement issues, which tend to get tangled together.

We did have a fair chat in this thread about whether Chrysostom's commentary on 2 Cor 5 v 21 included a substitutionary view. Guess who was saying that it did - and guess who saw it differently. (Yes, didn't think that would take too long). And §Andrew did flag some excellent expository talks by Kallistos Ware on the Cross - which we both enjoyed, then disagreed about!

So its been done a fair bit here, but pretty tangled up. As a Shipmate, I can say that if you do post such a new thread, I won't object to it as a Host! Partitioning atonement discussions by church family rather than model strikes me as a fresh start. In fact I'm quite likely to come along with my usual peaceful-looking stirring spoon ...

[ 09. July 2008, 10:06: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Others may disagree but I think that we had mostly agreed on some sense of substitution but were arguing over what that means.

Is "He fought for us" a form of substitution? If not I don't agree to any kind of substitution.

I'm all for other threads. This thread is about how much better the Christus Victor model is than the PSA model. I think that we have done a great job demonstrating it! [Angel]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Others may disagree but I think that we had mostly agreed on some sense of substitution but were arguing over what that means.

Is "He fought for us" a form of substitution? If not I don't agree to any kind of substitution.

I'm all for other threads. This thread is about how much better the Christus Victor model is than the PSA model. I think that we have done a great job demonstrating it! [Angel]

Careful Freddt?!
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Is "He fought for us" a form of substitution?

Can be. Depends on whether you mean he fought alongside us or on our behalf?

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This thread is about how much better the Christus Victor model is than the PSA model. I think that we have done a great job demonstrating it! [Angel]

How very magnanimous of you. [Axe murder]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Is "He fought for us" a form of substitution?

Can be. Depends on whether you mean he fought alongside us or on our behalf?
He fought on our behalf. We have no power, except from Him. He fights on our behalf.

To me one of the keys to the whole conundrum is to understand how we can resist evil when we have no power, how it is that Jesus' victory makes that power possible, and how He gives us that power.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Is "He fought for us" a form of substitution?

Can be. Depends on whether you mean he fought alongside us or on our behalf?
He fought on our behalf. We have no power, except from Him. He fights on our behalf.

To me one of the keys to the whole conundrum is to understand how we can resist evil when we have no power, how it is that Jesus' victory makes that power possible, and how He gives us that power.

OK Freddy let's leave theory behind. All ofus or most of us would admit to being defeated by sin. We try not to let that discourage us and we get back on the bike.

We repent, say we're sorry, make restitution, forgive. Then lo and behold it all happens again.

Now where is this victory?

If by some extraordinary grace we don't 'fall' for a while, we get proud, complacent and we sin in a different way.

So, in what way, in your schema, is Christ PRACTICALLY the victor? In what way can you say, "Hey, I'm different! The new covenant Christ nature is operating in me!"

I other words Freddy, what difference does it make?

Aren't we all just 'strangers on the bus trying to make our way home?' (you know the song?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
So, Jamat, what you are saying is that you don't believe God can really change us, and that trying to live by what He teaches is a fruitless effort?

Jesus said:
quote:
Matthew 7:24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”

You're saying that this is a directive that can't be followed.

Would that make you a foolish man?

I'm saying that Christ's victory makes it possible to "hear these sayings of Mine, and do them." When you do them, by His power, then you "abide in Him."

The frustrating lack of spiritual progress that you refer to is mirrored in every other area of endeavor. Whether you are trying to lose weight, improve your job performance, become a better husband, wife, or parent, stop drinking, or better your time in the mile, a perceived lack of progress is the norm.

We know, however, that improvement is possible in all areas of life. It is foolish to claim that it is not.

The power to change is God's, and He gives it, in His good time, to those who seek it.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
I'm not saying that we are incapable of hearing Jesus words and I know I'm often a foolish man .

I am saying that transformation is the desired result of our atonement model, and I am asking how you see this as practically outworked in the CV model that is apparenly so right.

In your post above the result of improvement, desirable as it is, seems to be the result of will-power.

My question is where is the radical change in motive, outworked in behaviour? Where is the power not to not commit adultery, but to not want to? (or lie, cheat, steal, get drunk, gossip etc,etc) Where in other words is the 'new covenant' man?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In your post above the result of improvement, desirable as it is, seems to be the result of will-power.

It's not will-power but the Lord's power. We have no power of our own.

Nevertheless, the key component is obedience to the words of Jesus - just as He says it is. We are to make use of the power that we have - from Him - to improve our behavior and desires.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My question is where is the radical change in motive, outworked in behaviour? Where is the power not to not commit adultery, but to not want to? (or lie, cheat, steal, get drunk, gossip etc,etc) Where in other words is the 'new covenant' man?

Who said anything about radical change in behavior and motives? Improvement is normally a gradual shift. That's how life works.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Jesus Christ died. My question especially to the PSA adherents is what effect did that death have to those already dead. I mean, those that die, do not get annihilated. Their bodies suffer some kind of corruption, but they don't vanish entirely, and a part of them (which we might call soul) still exists at another level (a bodiless level).

When Christ died, his body became lifeless and his soul was like the soul of other dead people. Of course, it was not an ordinary soul, because it was bound with Divinity, like the body was no ordinary body, but was bound with Divinity.

In my view, this entrance of God to the reality of the dead people affected the dead in a way that the PSA adherents do not account for.

What do you guys think?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Andrew, are you starting a new thread? Why are you asking that here? [Confused]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Well, I agree with you Freddy; it is the Lord's power only, and it is certainly released through obedience to his words,

So the source of change is divine motivation, and the power of change (positive change,) is, as it has always been, the divine word.

Remember the words, "You shall know them by their fruits."?

What I'm asking is for the proof of the model, in the change that is wrought in its adherents.

I hear someone asking "What is fruit"?

There are two areas, one is character, proven by good works and loving behaviour. Would you agree?

The other, I submit, is power. This is likely to be altogether more controversial. But Jesus did miracles of healing, provision and deliverance. He said moreover that his followers would do greater things.

Anyone could just as easily ask these things of my model, but where are the works of God in the adherents of the CV model?

Whatever you say about PSA, you can acknowledge lives like Studd, Kuhlmann, Wesley and Mueller. All of these powerful people, who had miracles in their lives, were, as far as I can tell adherents of PSA.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Jesus Christ died. My question especially to the PSA adherents is what effect did that death have to those already dead. I mean, those that die, do not get annihilated. Their bodies suffer some kind of corruption, but they don't vanish entirely, and a part of them (which we might call soul) still exists at another level (a bodiless level).

When Christ died, his body became lifeless and his soul was like the soul of other dead people. Of course, it was not an ordinary soul, because it was bound with Divinity, like the body was no ordinary body, but was bound with Divinity.

In my view, this entrance of God to the reality of the dead people affected the dead in a way that the PSA adherents do not account for.

What do you guys think?

Andrew, Eph 4:9 tells us that after Jesus gave up his Spirit, after he uttered the words "it is finished," his spirit descended into Sheol. Col 2:15 gives us a hint of his activity there, it says He made a public display of his triumph over evil.

He later ascended into the heavenly tabernacle after his resurrection but before his ascension. We get this from his command to Mary M not to touch him as he was not yet ascended. Hebrews 9:12 suggests the purpose of such an ascension, to cleanse the heavenly tabernacle with his blood.

Why did it need cleansing? Because it was polluted by Satan's rebellion perhaps.

1 Pet 3:19 and Jude 6 suggest that Christ's spirit proclaimed his victory in Sheol as well.

One interesting point from all this is that the powers of darkness could not contain the Spirit of Christ after his death and this signals our vicarious victory over them. This is IMV the great strength of my belief system but there is no reason to suppose it is exclusive to PSA. CV also would claim this.

But the interesting thing to me is that IMV, no one killed Jesus. He chose when to give up his Spirit. Remember his words that he had power to lay down his life and power to take it up again?

Really though, this is a tangent from the atonement discussion. The guys in Kerg may have lots to say about it.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What I'm asking is for the proof of the model, in the change that is wrought in its adherents.

Jesus said:
quote:
John 3:8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
You cannot tell whether another person is born of the spirit or not.

The proof of the model, however, is born out by common experience. I know that whenever I have repeated a practice from some principle, that it has eventually become habitual with me. It then changes not only my behavior but my desires as well.

A proof that I have observed many times in others is the experience of Alcoholics Anonymous. People who have been slaves to alcohol have reached a point where they turn their lives over to God, examine themselves rigorously, and refrain from drinking one day at a time. Over time they lose the desire to drink and find gratitude and peace. They know that they have not stopped drinking because of will-power, but because of the power of God.

Beyond that, everyone knows that repeated practice forms or removes habits and the desires behind them. It is the recommended formula for change in every area of life. No one becomes accomplished in anything without practice. No one rids themselves of bad habits and compulsions without finding ways to change their behavior.

The life of religion is no different - except that in dealing with one's spiritual life it is all the more important to acknowledge that we can do nothing of our own power, and that all power is God's.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Whatever you say about PSA, you can acknowledge lives like Studd, Kuhlmann, Wesley and Mueller. All of these powerful people, who had miracles in their lives, were, as far as I can tell adherents of PSA.

Yes, these are fine people, but you don't really know if they are in heaven or hell.

Many people in the world are reputed to have lived exemplary lives - from Mother Theresa to the Dalai Lama. While they may be persuasive examples of the rightness of whatever system of thought they advocate, they are hardly proofs. Many different religions and systems of thought can produce excellent individuals. It's true that the tree is known by its fruit, but the fruit doesn't conclusively prove any particular system of thought.

Jesus said:
quote:
John 13:35 "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
Unfortunately Christians have historically failed this test.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Andrew, are you starting a new thread? Why are you asking that here? [Confused]

Because I suspect that's the Orthodox understanding of the imagery of the Christus Victor. (Imagery, as opposed to model; we do imageries, but we don't ascribe to the imagery the model... something I tried to explain at an earlier point in this thread.)
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Jesus Christ died. My question especially to the PSA adherents is what effect did that death have to those already dead.

The same as all other atonement models - that the power of Christ stretches across time and space.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Jesus Christ died. My question especially to the PSA adherents is what effect did that death have to those already dead.

The same as all other atonement models - that the power of Christ stretches across time and space.
Are you referring to the harrowing of hell?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you referring to the harrowing of hell?

Not necessarily.

All Christian views of the atonement have to relate to faithful Israel too - and therefore all views have some way of doing this.

Most Protestant views apply the work of Christ retrospectively. (Along the lines of Ephesians 1.)
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
I don't like that retrospective thing.

I prefer something different, what Ireneus wrote in his Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching:

quote:
And in Jeremiah He thus declares His death and descent into hell, saying: "And the Lord the Holy One of Israel, remembered his dead, which aforetime fell asleep in the dust of the earth; and he went down unto them, to bring the tidings of his salvation, to deliver them." In this place He also renders the cause of His death: for His descent into hell was the salvation of them that had passed away.
Very different "cause of death" than the substitutionary models we discuss about here. Not exactly CV model either!

I'm very close to Ireneus' understanding myself.

ETA: link to Ireneus' work (excerpt from par. 78)

[ 15. July 2008, 09:41: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QB] [QUOTE] The proof of the model, however, is born out by common experience. I know that whenever I have repeated a practice from some principle, that it has eventually become habitual with me. It then changes not only my behavior but my desires as well.

But Freddy, this can prove' any model. Why should it prove CV? I could equally say that Buddism leads to greater self control since its disciplines tend to train one that way. Doesn't prove Buddism right thouh, just that they have a few insights or techniques that work in a limited sense,

What I want to know is where is the character transforming power of the belief system, what ever you call it.

Now, I know if Christ died for sins they should have no more power. Paul preaches that and IMV, says that the reason is that Christ has disarmed Satan and so sin's power is gone. He then advocates followers of Christ to LIVE free from sin. But how many do? and why dont they?

To me you see, only a PSA view sees sin as judged, put to death, thoroughly dealt with and therefore, it alone is radically poised to say, "Here is a NEW man"

In PSA I see the theory, I see the potential, and I see glimpses of real victory.


quote:
A proof that I have observed many times in others is the experience of Alcoholics Anonymous. People who have been slaves to alcohol have reached a point where they turn their lives over to God, examine themselves rigorously, and refrain from drinking one day at a time. Over time they lose the desire to drink and find gratitude and peace. They know that they have not stopped drinking because of will-power, but because of the power of God.


BTW, I had an uncle in AA. They have to acknowledge a 'greater power' at work. In other words, there has to be a divorcing of the victim from the idea that he is capable of solving the problem himself.

quote:
Beyond that, everyone knows that repeated practice forms or removes habits and the desires behind them. It is the recommended formula for change in every area of life. No one becomes accomplished in anything without practice. No one rids themselves of bad habits and compulsions without finding ways to change their behavior.The life of religion is no different - except that in dealing with one's spiritual life it is all the more important to acknowledge that we can do nothing of our own power, and that all power is God's.

So you assert all power is God's. But does this mean he in fact helps those who help themselves. If so, you are back to a self improvement programme aren't you? It is fair enough to say we need God's power to live right, but what understanding do we have about how and on what basis to harness it? I can as a PSA adherent claim I'm not judged cos Christ was. I can claim the Devil has no power cos Christ stripped him of it. I can claim I am not condemned since Christ absorbed my condemnation into himself. I can claim that a sacrifice was made to a holy God omn my behalf and that consequently I have a vicarious righteousness, imputed to me, that otherwise would not be there. Finally, on the bases outlined above, I can pray with authority. I can believe God hears me, I can in other words operate, in a spiritual realm, on the other side of the cross.

This is the secret of the victory of the folk I named in the post above. It doesn't seem, to me incidentally that such folk could be in hell.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Very different "cause of death" than the substitutionary models we discuss about here. Not exactly CV model either!

[Confused] Any objective model would fit with this view of Christ's descent into hell.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The proof of the model, however, is born out by common experience. I know that whenever I have repeated a practice from some principle, that it has eventually become habitual with me. It then changes not only my behavior but my desires as well.

But Freddy, this can prove' any model. Why should it prove CV?
Yes, it proves any model. The point is that CV is consistent with the normal pattern of change that God built into creation. When you practice refraining from evil your ability to refrain from evil increases, as is true in every other area of life. It is also consistent with Christ's teachings.

PSA, by contrast is inconsistent with both the normal human pattern of change and with Christ's words about salvation.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What I want to know is where is the character transforming power of the belief system, what ever you call it.

The character transforming power of the belief system is that God gives you the power to change when you turn to Him, call upon Him, and seek to do His will.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Now, I know if Christ died for sins they should have no more power. Paul preaches that and IMV, says that the reason is that Christ has disarmed Satan and so sin's power is gone. He then advocates followers of Christ to LIVE free from sin. But how many do? and why dont they?

That's just the point. They don't. They don't because the fundamental premise is a lie.

It is a lie to believe that Christ's righteousness is imputed to you, that you are therefore saved, and that sin's power over you is therefore taken away. It is not taken away unless you do as Christ commands - or it is only decreased to the extent to which you live by Christ's words.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To me you see, only a PSA view sees sin as judged, put to death, thoroughly dealt with and therefore, it alone is radically poised to say, "Here is a NEW man"

This is completely contrary to what Christ says.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Beyond that, everyone knows that repeated practice forms or removes habits and the desires behind them. It is the recommended formula for change in every area of life. No one becomes accomplished in anything without practice. No one rids themselves of bad habits and compulsions without finding ways to change their behavior. The life of religion is no different - except that in dealing with one's spiritual life it is all the more important to acknowledge that we can do nothing of our own power, and that all power is God's.

So you assert all power is God's. But does this mean he in fact helps those who help themselves. If so, you are back to a self improvement programme aren't you?
Not a self-improvement program. I have no power apart from God. Without Him I can do nothing. I refrain from evil as if I did have that power - just as everyone acts just as if the power were their own. But we know that the power really belongs to God. Do you think that you have power that is really your own?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is fair enough to say we need God's power to live right, but what understanding do we have about how and on what basis to harness it?

Christ taught us exactly how it works and how to harness it. We are to hear His commandments and do them. We are to repent, forgive, call upon His name, pray to Him, etc. It's not a terribly complicated or difficult formula to follow.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I can as a PSA adherent claim I'm not judged cos Christ was. I can claim the Devil has no power cos Christ stripped him of it. I can claim I am not condemned since Christ absorbed my condemnation into himself. I can claim that a sacrifice was made to a holy God omn my behalf and that consequently I have a vicarious righteousness, imputed to me, that otherwise would not be there. Finally, on the bases outlined above, I can pray with authority. I can believe God hears me, I can in other words operate, in a spiritual realm, on the other side of the cross.

You can, in other words, believe that you are saved without needing to hear and obey Christ's words. This is not what Christ taught.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Now, I know if Christ died for sins they should have no more power. Paul preaches that and IMV, says that the reason is that Christ has disarmed Satan and so sin's power is gone. He then advocates followers of Christ to LIVE free from sin. But how many do? and why dont they?

That's just the point. They don't. They don't because the fundamental premise is a lie.

It is a lie to believe that Christ's righteousness is imputed to you, that you are therefore saved, and that sin's power over you is therefore taken away. It is not taken away unless you do as Christ commands - or it is only decreased to the extent to which you live by Christ's words.

Freddy, I take deep and serious issue with this statement.

It basically denies any reformation insights.

I guess to get the issue you have to use the KJV, but it clearly uses this word 'impute', in Ro 4:8, 5;11, 22-24. Also in Jas 2:23.

Now contextually, what is dealt with in these verses is that God is 'imputing' righteousness to Abraham on the basis of his faith in God's revelation to him. Paul uses this as an analogy for those who believe in God's revelation in Christ.

The NASB states in vs 24, speaking of righteousness:

"to whom it will be reckoned(imputed) as those who believe in him who rwaised Christ jesus from the dead, he who was delivered up for our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification."

Now in denying salvation through the imputation of God's righteousness through our faith in Christ, you seem to be denying something I regard as the essential gospel Freddy.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is a lie to believe that Christ's righteousness is imputed to you, that you are therefore saved, and that sin's power over you is therefore taken away. It is not taken away unless you do as Christ commands - or it is only decreased to the extent to which you live by Christ's words.

Freddy, I take deep and serious issue with this statement.

It basically denies any reformation insights.

Yes, it does deny any reformation insights. The central insight of the Reformation was that people should read the Bible and found their faith on the Bible. The concept of salvation by faith, however, was not an insight but a damaging blow to Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I guess to get the issue you have to use the KJV, but it clearly uses this word 'impute', in Ro 4:8, 5;11, 22-24. Also in Jas 2:23.

Now contextually, what is dealt with in these verses is that God is 'imputing' righteousness to Abraham on the basis of his faith in God's revelation to him. Paul uses this as an analogy for those who believe in God's revelation in Christ.

I have no problem with the word "impute." It is clearly there. You are just misconstruing its meaning. Here are the quotes that you list:
quote:
Romans 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”

The context makes it clear that the "works" described here are the practices of the ritual law such as circumcision, and the belief that we are therefore justified by our own efforts. The point is that it is our trust in God and His power that justifies us, not any power of our own. It is nevertheless assumed here, and made clear elsewhere, that believing in God involves obeying Him. God does not impute sin to those who trust in Him and obey Him.

Since no one has any righteousness of their own, we only have it in the sense that God imputes it to us, or counts it as if it were ours by His grace. So all righteousness is imputed. Christ overcame the power of darkness, so it is His righteousness that saves us. But it is not that His righteousness is imputed to us. Rather it is our belief in and obedience to Him that is imputed to us as if it were our own righteousness.
quote:
Romans 4:20 Abram did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

Abram's trust in God was taken as a sign of his righteousness, and imputed to him as such. The same is true of our belief in Christ - it is a good thing to believe in Christ, a belief in what is right and good is a sign that a person is a good person. But both Christ and Paul, not to mention James, make it abundantly clear that beliefs that are not practiced are not really beliefs.
quote:
James 2:20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
James seems to quote the same Scripture about Abraham as Paul while making the opposite point. I think Paul and James actually agree, but that Paul has been misunderstood. There is no faith without works. The point is that we can do nothing by our own power, we must rely on and have faith in God. But this also means that we must obey Him.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Now in denying salvation through the imputation of God's righteousness through our faith in Christ, you seem to be denying something I regard as the essential gospel Freddy.

You have just misunderstood the essential gospel. You seem to be attached to a misunderstanding of Paul's words, a misunderstanding that completely denies Christ's teachings about salvation. How can you believe that what you are saying is in harmony with Christ's words?

PSA is a false and wicked doctrine because it not only makes God into a monster, it removes obedience to God from the formula of salvation. By making salvation a matter of Christ's imputed righteousness, rather than our trust in and obedience to God, PSA effectively nullifies everything Christ teaches about salvation.

[ 19. July 2008, 12:50: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I'm sure Jamat will respond for himself Freddy, but I will say that I'm surprised by your vehemence in this post - when you are pressing things which, even if I was being being charitable, are extremely debatable!

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The context makes it clear that the "works" described here are the practices of the ritual law such as circumcision, and the belief that we are therefore justified by our own efforts.

Is it clear? I think you meant to say that exactly what the 'works' are that Paul refers to here are hotly debated.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is that it is our trust in God and His power that justifies us, not any power of our own. It is nevertheless assumed here, and made clear elsewhere, that believing in God involves obeying Him.

[Confused] And who disputes that?


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
PSA is a false and wicked doctrine because it not only makes God into a monster, it removes obedience to God from the formula of salvation. By making salvation a matter of Christ's imputed righteousness, rather than our trust in and obedience to God, PSA effectively nullifies everything Christ teaches about salvation.

Freddy this simply isn't true.

The classic Protestant formulation of the gospel is that we are not saved by works but that we are saved for them.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm sure Jamat will respond for himself Freddy, but I will say that I'm surprised by your vehemence in this post - when you are pressing things which, even if I was being being charitable, are extremely debatable!

If I thought they were debatable I wouldn't press them so vehemently.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The context makes it clear that the "works" described here are the practices of the ritual law such as circumcision, and the belief that we are therefore justified by our own efforts.

Is it clear? I think you meant to say that exactly what the 'works' are that Paul refers to here are hotly debated.
Hotly debated by those defending PSA. The ambiguity of Paul's terms here should be easily resolved by reference to the words of Jesus, James, and by other statements that Paul himself makes.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is that it is our trust in God and His power that justifies us, not any power of our own. It is nevertheless assumed here, and made clear elsewhere, that believing in God involves obeying Him.

[Confused] And who disputes that?
PSA disputes this by its claim, unless you care to deny it, that we cannot obey Christ's commandments and that salvation is therefore not dependent on obedience to Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
PSA is a false and wicked doctrine because it not only makes God into a monster, it removes obedience to God from the formula of salvation. By making salvation a matter of Christ's imputed righteousness, rather than our trust in and obedience to God, PSA effectively nullifies everything Christ teaches about salvation.

Freddy this simply isn't true.

The classic Protestant formulation of the gospel is that we are not saved by works but that we are saved for them.

The classic Protestant formulation is that faith + grace -> salvation + works. So obedience to God becomes a result of salvation, not a pre-condition.

Christ, however, made it a pre-condition. I'd be happy to show you where He does this.

So PSA effectively nullifies Christ's teachings about salvation.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[Confused] Any objective model would fit with this view of Christ's descent into hell.

Except that this "view" is put forth as an explanation for Christ's death. He died so that death is destroyed, and not so that justice gets done and we get saved because he is punished instead of us.

it's not a view on "Christ's descent into hell", but a view on Christ's death!
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Hotly debated by those defending PSA. The ambiguity of Paul's terms here should be easily resolved by reference to the words of Jesus, James, and by other statements that Paul himself makes.

The exact meaning of 'works' in Paul is disputed. I'm very surprised that you would dispute that.

Even the term 'New Perspective on Paul' must imply that scholarship is changing it's opinion on what Paul meant.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
PSA disputes this by its claim, unless you care to deny it, that we cannot obey Christ's commandments and that salvation is therefore not dependent on obedience to Christ.

I have never heard PSA in these terms. Salvation must involve obedience to Christ since that is what we are saved for.

There is a distinction here but it is not the one you are making.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The classic Protestant formulation is that faith + grace -> salvation + works. So obedience to God becomes a result of salvation, not a pre-condition.

Agreed here.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Christ, however, made it a pre-condition. I'd be happy to show you where He does this.

Please do show me. Remember salvation is something that is only fully experienced in the New Heaven & New Earth and therefore everyone there will have the fruit of obedience to show for their faith. Whether such fruit was the result of God's grace or the cause of it is the moot point.

But if you think Jesus says clearly that obedience to him is a pre-condition for him to receive us then please show me.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Hotly debated by those defending PSA. The ambiguity of Paul's terms here should be easily resolved by reference to the words of Jesus, James, and by other statements that Paul himself makes.

The exact meaning of 'works' in Paul is disputed. I'm very surprised that you would dispute that.
The word may be hotly disputed by those looking to reconcile it with PSA theology. But numerous references in the epistles emphasize that the wicked are condemned and the righteous, those who obey God's commandments, are saved. For example:
quote:
1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5:21 Envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Hebrews 5:9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.

1 Peter 4:18 Now “ If the righteous one is scarcely saved, Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?” 19 Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator.

Romans 2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil...13 for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.

1 Peter 4:17 For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?

This should make it clear that Paul is referring to the ritual law when he says that it is faith not works that save. He is not referring to the divine commands to avoid murder, theft, and adultery, or to love God and the neighbor. As in the quote above, Jesus is "the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him."
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
PSA disputes this by its claim, unless you care to deny it, that we cannot obey Christ's commandments and that salvation is therefore not dependent on obedience to Christ.

I have never heard PSA in these terms. Salvation must involve obedience to Christ since that is what we are saved for.
Our inability to obey God has been claimed several times in this discussion. For example, here:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
People in my experience simply cannot just 'change' and 'stop' sinning. I certainly couldn't! Even if they could there is the problem of the nature of sin that Paul calls the 'old man'. There needs to be a supernatural transaction;

Jamat is wrong. Jesus expects people to hear His words and change their lives accordingly. Jesus would not have this expectation if people were not able to "stop" sinning. He is the power behind this ability.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Christ, however, made it a pre-condition. I'd be happy to show you where He does this.

If you think Jesus says clearly that obedience to him is a pre-condition for him to receive us then please show me.
OK. The passages are familiar:
quote:
Matthew 7:21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Jesus is here shown rejecting people who practice lawlessness. He demands obedience as a pre-condition to entering the kingdom of God.
quote:
John 15.6-10 “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned…. 10“If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love.
Here Jesus is demanding that people abide in Him as a pre-condition to being accepted. He defines "abiding in Him" as keeping His commandments.
quote:
Revelation 22:12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.” 14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
Here and several other places Jesus emphasizes that people will be judged according to their works. Doing His commandments is the pre-condition for "entering the city."

Many other passages describe this pre-condition:
quote:
Luke 6:46 “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say? 47“Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48“He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock.

John 15:14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.

Matthew 5: 7 Blessed are the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God.

Matthew 7:19 “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20“Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Matthew 7:24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:

Matthew 5:20 “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of the heavens.”

Matthew 13:49 At the completion of the age angels will go forth and separate the wicked from out of the midst of the righteous.

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

Matthew 19:16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” 17So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18He said to Him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” 20The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?” 21Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

Revelation 20:13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.

Matthew 25:45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

These passages describe obedience to God as a pre-condition to salvation. As Paul says above, Christ "became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him" (Hebrews 5:9).
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Remember salvation is something that is only fully experienced in the New Heaven & New Earth and therefore everyone there will have the fruit of obedience to show for their faith. Whether such fruit was the result of God's grace or the cause of it is the moot point.

How do you know that it isn't about who goes to heaven and who goes to hell? But all good fruit is the result of God's grace, for we have no power of our own. Nevertheless, obedience to God is consistently described as the pre-condition to benefitting from that grace.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But all good fruit is the result of God's grace, for we have no power of our own. Nevertheless, obedience to God is consistently described as the pre-condition to benefitting from that grace.

This is getting silly Freddy. Everyone agrees that only the righteous go to 'heaven'. Since you agree that obedience is only possible through Christ's grace none of the examples you have given demonstrate that obedience is a pre-requisite to receiving God's grace.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Freddy wrote: Christ overcame the power of darkness, so it is His righteousness that saves us. But it is not that His righteousness is imputed to us. Rather it is our belief in and obedience to Him that is imputed to us as if it were our own righteousness
Freddy, Eph 2:8 states that it is by grace we are saved through faith, not of works lest any should boast..Ro 5:1 that having been justified by faith we have peace with god.

Now what is that if nit an assurance of relationship and what is that but an assurance of salvation.

Obedience is clearly subsequent to grace Freddy.

[ 21. July 2008, 08:28: Message edited by: Jamat ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Since you agree that obedience is only possible through Christ's grace none of the examples you have given demonstrate that obedience is a pre-requisite to receiving God's grace.

Yes they do. God's grace simply means that the power to obey originates in God, as all power must. Obedience is still the pre-requisite for salvation, not simply faith. The passages I quote above demonstrate this.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Freddy, Eph 2:8 states that it is by grace we are saved through faith, not of works lest any should boast..Ro 5:1 that having been justified by faith we have peace with god.

So you are willing to ignore fourteen of Christ's statements because of two of Paul's?

What I said above accounts for these statements about faith and grace. But you cannot account for Jesus' insistence on obedience as a pre-condition to salvation.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Jamat, Johnny, you both make my point. Even when presented with words of Christ that clearly say that those who do not obey Him will not enter the kingdom of heaven, you insist that obedience is not a pre-condition to salvation.

This is why I say that PSA is a false and wicked doctrine because it not only makes God into a monster, it removes obedience to God from the formula of salvation. By making salvation a matter of Christ's imputed righteousness, rather than our trust in and obedience to God, PSA effectively nullifies everything Christ teaches about salvation.

PSA is in essence nothing more than a way of escaping the obvious meaning of Christ's words, a message that is consistent in the Bible from beginning to end. The righteous are saved, the wicked are condemned. It's as simple as that.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Johnny S:
[qb] God's grace simply means that the power to obey originates in God, as all power must. Obedience is still the pre-requisite for salvation, not simply faith. The passages I quote above demonstrate this.

Freddy did you read the label carefully that you are not supposed to have any alcohol with those pills? [Big Grin]

You are saying that obedience is a gift from God (only possible through his grace) and then say that makes obedience a pre-requisite for salvation!

So the question is, what comes first - grace or obedience? And your answer is grace.

Same answer as mine.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Same answer as mine.

Then you should have no trouble with Jesus saying both that without Him we can do nothing, and at the same time that obedience to Him is a pre-condition to salvation.

You are still denying the truth of Jesus' words. Is it true or false that "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven"?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
You are still denying the truth of Jesus' words. Is it true or false that "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven"?

[brick wall] How am I denying it?

According to you no one can obey Jesus without receiving his grace. That is exactly what I say. So if I'm denying the words of Christ, then you must be too.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[brick wall] How am I denying it?

PSA's salvific formula denies it. Christ says that salvation depends on obedience to Him. PSA says it depends on faith.

You deny it when you say that obedience to Christ is not the pre-condition to salvation.

My acknowledgment that all power is from Him is not the same as PSA's claim of salvation by faith alone.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
.My acknowledgment that all power is from Him is not the same as PSA's claim of salvation by faith alone.

I never said that they were the same, I just said that both are entirely compatible with Christ's words.

If faith must produce obedience to be real faith then only those who obey are saved. That is entirely consistent with salvation by faith alone.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If faith must produce obedience to be real faith then only those who obey are saved. That is entirely consistent with salvation by faith alone.

Except that this is not the way that Christ frames it. He states that it is only when a person "does the will of the Father" that he is able to "enter into the kingdom of God." Jesus says this in numerous different ways.

And if the two are so intrinsically connected why not simply say that obedience to God is the pre-condition to salvation? That's what Jesus did.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Except that this is not the way that Christ frames it. He states that it is only when a person "does the will of the Father" that he is able to "enter into the kingdom of God." Jesus says this in numerous different ways.

Where does he say that?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Except that this is not the way that Christ frames it. He states that it is only when a person "does the will of the Father" that he is able to "enter into the kingdom of God." Jesus says this in numerous different ways.

Where does he say that?
quote:
Matthew 7:21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Jesus is saying that it is not sufficient to say "Lord Lord" to enter the kingdom of heaven. We must "do the will of My Father."

He says it in a similar way in John 15:
quote:
John 15.6-10 “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned…. 10“If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love.
Here Jesus states that those who "keep My commandments" are the ones who abide in His love. Others are "cast out".

Similarly in Revelation Jesus says:
quote:
Revelation 22:12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.” 14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
Here and several other places Jesus emphasizes that people will be judged according to their works. Doing His commandments is the pre-condition for "entering the city."

Many other passages say similar things:
quote:
Luke 6:46 “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say? 47“Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48“He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock.

John 15:14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.

Matthew 5: 7 Blessed are the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God.

Matthew 7:19 “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20“Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Matthew 7:24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:

Matthew 5:20 “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of the heavens.”

Matthew 13:49 At the completion of the age angels will go forth and separate the wicked from out of the midst of the righteous.

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

Matthew 19:16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” 17So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18He said to Him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” 20The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?” 21Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

Revelation 20:13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.

Matthew 25:45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

I'm surprised that you don't see any tension between passages like these and the assertion that salvation is based on faith alone. As Paul says, Christ "became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him" (Hebrews 5:9).
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[Freddy, Eph 2:8 states that it is by grace we are saved through faith, not of works lest any should boast..Ro 5:1 that having been justified by faith we have peace with god.

Jamat, you seem to be unaware that Paul, Peter, and others also say seemingly contrary things:
quote:
1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5:21 Envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Hebrews 5:9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.

1 Peter 4:18 Now “ If the righteous one is scarcely saved, Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?” 19 Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator.

Romans 2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil...13 for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.

1 Peter 4:17 For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?

But why rely on Paul over Jesus?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Obedience is clearly subsequent to grace Freddy.

So are you able to obey the commandments or not? Does your salvation depend on this ability? Jesus says that it does.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Matthew 7:21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Jesus is saying that it is not sufficient to say "Lord Lord" to enter the kingdom of heaven. We must "do the will of My Father."
You managed to glance over the 'in that day'. Jesus is speaking retrospectively about the end of time / last judgment - i.e. entirely consistent with faith is not faith unless it produces works.

Also it is interesting that (in this quote) the Father speaks about a lack of relationship as well as a lack of obedience.

Nothing here about obedience must come first.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
He says it in a similar way in John 15:
quote:
John 15.6-10 “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned…. 10“If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love.
Here Jesus states that those who "keep My commandments" are the ones who abide in His love. Others are "cast out".
Yes, a passage about remaining in Christ's love through obedience ... nothing about entering that love / relationship through obedience though.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Similarly in Revelation Jesus says:
quote:
Revelation 22:12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.” 14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
Here and several other places Jesus emphasizes that people will be judged according to their works. Doing His commandments is the pre-condition for "entering the city."
Ah, now you have to appeal to obscure textual variants to make your case. [Biased] I'm pretty convinced that v 14 should read, "Blessed are those who wash their robes..." A variant that is far more likely than the one you use since it occurs already in Rev. 7 v 14.

Thanks for bringing this verse up - it shows that entrance into the heavenly city is for those who have been 'washed in the blood of the lamb' - a phrase which, as chapter 7 explains, is linked to the atonement ... and hence back to the topic of this thread. [Big Grin]

So an emphatic 'no' - those passages are all consistent with my reading of salvation.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
I don't like that retrospective thing.

At last I got chance to get back to this.

How do you understand 'the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world' (Revelation 13 v 8) ?

[ 22. July 2008, 04:53: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
How do you understand 'the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world' (Revelation 13 v 8) ?

There are two uses of that phrase that I am aware of.

The first, is as used by the Scriptures. I red Revelation 13.8 to say "All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the creation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain".

In my view, Apostle John does not refer to the Lamb, when he says "from the foundation of the world", but to the names that were written in the book.

When, in your view, did the names get written in the book of life?

The second, is as used by some Orthodox. They say that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, meaning that it is in God's nature to be open to others and self-sacrificing. God is slain in an ontological level, and the Cross is a manifestation of God's character. So, there was not a time when God was not selfless and self-sacrificing, even though our eyes finally got opened with the crucifixion under the light of the resurrection (well, at least to those people that they did get opened).

Because the verse is written the way it is, it allows the more poetical in inclination to use that phrasing, although out of context*, to mean that profound truth about God's being.

*ETA: It's like "The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world." which is read by those poetically inclined as "The true light which gives light to every man that is coming into the world."

[ 22. July 2008, 09:19: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:

The second, is as used by some Orthodox. They say that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, meaning that it is in God's nature to be open to others and self-sacrificing. God is slain in an ontological level, and the Cross is a manifestation of God's character. So, there was not a time when God was not selfless and self-sacrificing, even though our eyes finally got opened with the crucifixion under the light of the resurrection (well, at least to those people that they did get opened).

Okay. Although I'd place a greater emphasis on the physical event of Easter, this is roughly what I meant by 'retrospective' which you said you don't like.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
But it isn't retrospective!!! God is selfless from the beginning. It's not that the Crucifixion affects something in a retrospective way. He is "slain" (in an ontological sense) both before, during and after the crucifixion. Weren't you saying that the physical slaughter had an effect in a retrospective way?? Isn't that different?

ETA: what do you mean by a greater emphasis on the physical events of Easter? I say our eyes got opened then. What more do you mean to that?

[ 22. July 2008, 09:36: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
But it isn't retrospective!!! God is selfless from the beginning. It's not that the Crucifixion affects something in a retrospective way. He is "slain" (in an ontological sense) both before, during and after the crucifixion. Weren't you saying that the physical slaughter had an effect in a retrospective way?? Isn't that different?

I take it back - we obvously mean completely different things.

I meant that since John the Apostle felt free to use this language retrospectively (even if metaphorically) I can't see what the fuss is all about. Since God created time it doesn't bother me but it obviously bothers you.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
You say John the Apostle used it retrospectively.

I say he was talking about the names and not the lamb that was slain, when he said "from the foundation of the world".

And even when I accept that phrasing, I do not take it to be retrospective, but to be about something else than the physical slaughter of Christ on the Cross.

The retrospective meaning might be obvious to you and far from apparent to me, but something very different is obvious to me that is far from apparent to you.

ETA: Yes, we do mean completely different things [Smile]

[ 22. July 2008, 10:11: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Nothing here about obedience must come first.....

Yes, a passage about remaining in Christ's love through obedience ... nothing about entering that love / relationship through obedience though.

Wow. So you are prepared to argue that in each instance where Jesus says something like "the wicked will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” - that He is not actually placing pre-conditions as to who is saved and who is not saved?

This is why I say that PSA is not only a mistaken doctrine, it is actually a wicked doctrine. It involves twisting Christ's own words to remove their obvious meaning.

But if you will not believe Christ, will you at least believe Paul? He said:
quote:
Hebrews 5:9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.
If He is the author of salvation to those who obey Him, He must not be the author of it for those who do not obey Him. Is this not a pre-condition?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
One more thing.

Johnny and Jamat, I am interested to see that you are aware that accepting Jesus' words as making salvation conditional on obedience would invalidate the basic premises of PSA theology.

So it is imperative for you to interpret Jesus' words in a way that does not make good behavior (or even repentance?) a pre-requisite for salvation.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It involves twisting Christ's own words to remove their obvious meaning.

I'll take that as an admission that you were twisting Matthew 7 and Revelation 22 out of context then. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But if you will not believe Christ, will you at least believe Paul? He said:

Actually I thought it was only nut-job fundamentalists who thought Paul wrote Hebrews. [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
If He is the author of salvation to those who obey Him, He must not be the author of it for those who do not obey Him. Is this not a pre-condition?

It is a condition, it is not (necessarily) a pre-condition.

Freddy we are going round in circles here. The bottom line is that you want PSA to say this, so that you can dismiss it, but it doesn't.

Yes, Jesus is the author of salvation to those who obey him. But absolutely nothing is said about the relative sequence of grace and obedience in these verses.

And it is also interesting that the context of Hebrews 5 is about sacrifice for sin. So, while I fully agree that the the salvation spoken about is for those who obey Jesus, that is hardly the main thrust of the chapter is it? The writer is keen to explain in what way the Priesthood of Jesus is superior to the Levitical Priesthood. So, yet again, you've brought us back to a passage that focusses on atonement.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So it is imperative for you to interpret Jesus' words in a way that does not make good behavior (or even repentance?) a pre-requisite for salvation.

I don't think that's fair. I fully admit that I'm biased, but my intention at least, is to put into practise what Jesus teaches.

I honestly think that you are not doing a good job at explaining them in context.

You see I'm happy to concede your point above if you equally admit that you are desperate to prove this point because of your hatred of PSA. It cuts both ways.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'll take that as an admission that you were twisting Matthew 7 and Revelation 22 out of context then. [Biased]

Hah. Go ahead and put them in context then. I'd like to see you try.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Actually I thought it was only nut-job fundamentalists who thought Paul wrote Hebrews. [Big Grin]

Sorry. Does that invalidate the passage then?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
If He is the author of salvation to those who obey Him, He must not be the author of it for those who do not obey Him. Is this not a pre-condition?

It is a condition, it is not (necessarily) a pre-condition.
Uh-huh. So?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Yes, Jesus is the author of salvation to those who obey him. But absolutely nothing is said about the relative sequence of grace and obedience in these verses.

The obvious sequence is that if you obey Him He is then the author of your salvation. If it was the reverse He would have said "He is the author of salvation so that they can then obey Him." Why not go with the obvious reading?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I honestly think that you are not doing a good job at explaining them in context.

Maybe you're right. Go ahead and do a better job. I think, though, that the Bible produces a fairly endless supply of statements to the effect that the righteous are saved and the wicked are condemned. Yet PSA miraculously dismisses them all by asserting that since none are righteous this can't possibly be the basis of our salvation. I think that this is an error.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You see I'm happy to concede your point above if you equally admit that you are desperate to prove this point because of your hatred of PSA. It cuts both ways.

It doesn't cut both ways. You're saying that since I see PSA's mistake then I must be biased. That doesn't follow. I am not just asserting a mistake, I am demonstrating it by quoting what the Bible actually says. If I am mistaken then show me how I have misrepresented or misinterpreted those passages. Or present others that show that I am wrong.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I am not just asserting a mistake, I am demonstrating it by quoting what the Bible actually says. If I am mistaken then show me how I have misrepresented or misinterpreted those passages.

I thought I'd done that already with Matthew 7, John 15, Revelation 22 and Hebrews 5.

You obviously disagree with my interpretation but in each case I gave given specific examples of where I think you have misrepresented the passages.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I thought I'd done that already with Matthew 7, John 15, Revelation 22 and Hebrews 5.

Yes, thank you. I don't think that your comments refute my point in any way. The passages still make our future happiness conditional on obedience to God.

I was surprised by your comment on Revelation 22. I never knew that the KJV and NKJV differed from the NIV and other versions on that verse.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You obviously disagree with my interpretation but in each case I gave given specific examples of where I think you have misrepresented the passages.

I quoted 17 passages, and could quote many more with the same basic message. Can you refute them all? For example, Jesus said:
quote:
Matthew 6:14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
Jesus explicitly makes our forgiveness, and therefore our salvation, conditional on our own forgiveness of others. This condition is inconsistent with PSA.

Both Jesus and Paul place conditions on salvation that PSA not only does not account for but actively denies - as you are doing here.

The wicked are not saved. The righteous are saved. The wicked can become righteous and be saved by believing the Gospel, repenting, and changing their ways. Christ came into the world to make this possible by bringing light into the world to overcome the power of darkness.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Well, I'm off to Borneo on vacation for a few weeks. So forgive me if I don't continue right away, as I'm not sure of the connection there. [Angel]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I quoted 17 passages, and could quote many more with the same basic message.

I've not got the time to go through all 17 - I thought tackling the four main ones was enough to demonstrate the trend of interpretation.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Matthew 6:14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
Jesus explicitly makes our forgiveness, and therefore our salvation, conditional on our own forgiveness of others. This condition is inconsistent with PSA.
Freddy this long thread has been going on for ages. On it many of the CV advocates have stressed that there was no need for the atonement to 'change' anything in God because he is constantly in a state of forgiveness towards us. This has been the main plank of their argument - the barrier is on our side.

So take this verse from Matthew 6 in a 'cause and effect' way if you wish but if you do so it will deliver CV a far more fatal blow than to PSA.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The wicked are not saved. The righteous are saved. The wicked can become righteous and be saved by believing the Gospel, repenting, and changing their ways.

Freddy this is the PSA gospel. We both believe exactly the same 'formula'. The difference between us is that I say the behavioural change comes as a consequence of believing the gospel - but I could still assent to what you've said above.

As I keep saying, there are fundamental differences between us but you are barking up the wrong tree here.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Well, I'm off to Borneo on vacation for a few weeks.

Have a great time! [Cool]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Hey Freddy,

Have a good de-stress in Borneo. [Smile]

BTW, After reading the discussion, I think wires are crossed about obedience as an idea.

I maintain that what we need to obey, is the revelation the HS puts into our hearts. Essentially, we obey by believing the gospel.

Now there is,of course, an ongoing walk of obedience to the injunctions of Christ- forgiveness, love of one's brother etc. However, these things are after the basic obedience, which is the obedience of 'faith'.(Ro 16:26)

Freddy I am intrigued as to why you are so vehemently opposed to the idea that God, loved the world so much, that he sen this son so that those who BELIEVE in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.(Jn 3:16) (paraphrased)

My tongue is actually only half in my cheek as I say this.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Well I'm back from the big island. Kudat is beautiful, but the locals are more resistant to conversion than I would have thought. [Frown]
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I quoted 17 passages, and could quote many more with the same basic message.

I've not got the time to go through all 17 - I thought tackling the four main ones was enough to demonstrate the trend of interpretation.
Your interpretation reverses the obvious meaning of Jesus' words. "If-then" statements usually indicate causality.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Matthew 6:14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
Jesus explicitly makes our forgiveness, and therefore our salvation, conditional on our own forgiveness of others. This condition is inconsistent with PSA.
Freddy this long thread has been going on for ages. On it many of the CV advocates have stressed that there was no need for the atonement to 'change' anything in God because he is constantly in a state of forgiveness towards us. This has been the main plank of their argument - the barrier is on our side.
That's right. God's forgiveness is a constant, but we do not receive it unless we forgive others. We change, not God.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So take this verse from Matthew 6 in a 'cause and effect' way if you wish but if you do so it will deliver CV a far more fatal blow than to PSA.

Not at all. PSA requires that God change and does not account for the passages that say that He does not change. CV makes it clear that we are the ones who change - when we repent and change our ways, such as by forgiving others, we are then able to receive God's ever-present and unchanging love.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The wicked are not saved. The righteous are saved. The wicked can become righteous and be saved by believing the Gospel, repenting, and changing their ways.

Freddy this is the PSA gospel. We both believe exactly the same 'formula'. The difference between us is that I say the behavioural change comes as a consequence of believing the gospel - but I could still assent to what you've said above.
I'm glad to hear this. However, I think that it is more than a technical difference to think that salvation precedes our change. God's power causes our change, but it is our free will, which is a free gift from Him, that accepts this power.

Simply put, Jesus' language makes salvation a result of both belief and obedience. PSA does not account for this.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I maintain that what we need to obey, is the revelation the HS puts into our hearts. Essentially, we obey by believing the gospel.

If that is the case then why does Jesus make so many statements about how foolish those are who hear but do not obey?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Freddy I am intrigued as to why you are so vehemently opposed to the idea that God, loved the world so much, that he sen this son so that those who BELIEVE in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.(Jn 3:16) (paraphrased)

I absolutely accept John 3:16. When Jesus speaks of belief He includes obedience, as is clear from His statements about the wickedness of those who do not obey.

Jesus came into the world to teach us to stop sinning, so that we can receive God's love and be happy. He did this by preaching the gospel and by fighting against the inner power of the hells. These two things are what set us free and continue to make us free to the extent that we hear and do His words. This is what John 3:16 is about.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Well I'm back from the big island.

Welcome back.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Your interpretation reverses the obvious meaning of Jesus' words. "If-then" statements usually indicate causality.

Yes, but what kind of cause? And is it just a secondary cause?

Freddy, the great news of the gospel is that I'm not a slave (having to earn God's favour through if-then causality) ... I'm a Son, which means that I'm going to spend the rest of my life looking to display familial resemblance. Heaven will be full of sons (and daughters) ... prodigal ones, not religious slaves.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
CV makes it clear that we are the ones who change - when we repent and change our ways, such as by forgiving others, we are then able to receive God's ever-present and unchanging love.

What is the point of repentance - according to you there is a causality in the gospels. Jesus called for perfection from his followers, for a righteousness of complete obedience better than the Pharisees - if I need to repent then it is too late, I've failed Christ's standards... and yet even the thief on the cross was welcomed into paradise ...?


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Simply put, Jesus' language makes salvation a result of both belief and obedience. PSA does not account for this.

I know you think that. All of the passages you have cited are also consistent with this reading - salvation is the result of belief which must produce obedience.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
It is heartening to hear you agree with Jn 3;16 Freddy and I hope you had a good break.

If obedience is the issue, you haven't dealt with the concept paul posits, The 'obedience of faith'.

This is clearly a very specific type of obedience Freddy and is mentioned in more than one place.(Ro 1:5, 16:26)

The issue is that without faith, we cannot begin to conform to obedient actions, our sinfulness precludes it. Truly obedient actions are surely subsequent to an obedient, ie 'believing', heart.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Your interpretation reverses the obvious meaning of Jesus' words. "If-then" statements usually indicate causality.

Yes, but what kind of cause? And is it just a secondary cause?

Freddy, the great news of the gospel is that I'm not a slave (having to earn God's favour through if-then causality) ... I'm a Son, which means that I'm going to spend the rest of my life looking to display familial resemblance. Heaven will be full of sons (and daughters) ... prodigal ones, not religious slaves.

How do you become a son? It's not as if Jesus is silent on this:
quote:
John 8:31 “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” 34 “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed...
51 Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.”

You become a slave of sin by committing sin. you become a son of God by abiding in, or keeping, His Word. He says something similar in Revelation:
quote:
Revelation 22:6 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Here He contrasts those who "overcome" with those who are unbelieving, murderers, sexually immoral, etc. We cannot, of course, "overcome" anything of our own power - we need to trust in our Lord Jesus Christ, and seek His help to obey His word.

What is it to "abide in My word"?
quote:
John 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.
Is this saying that keeping His commandments is what "abiding" means? This is how I read it.
Alternatively, Jesus says:
quote:
John 15:6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
Is this primary or secondary causation? Does it matter? We know that the source of all power is in God, so He must be the primary cause. But unless we also assign reality to free will and freedom of action then there is no point to any of this.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Johnny and Jamat, thank you for satying with this. I think that these points are central to what CV and PSA are all about.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
What is the point of repentance - according to you there is a causality in the gospels. Jesus called for perfection from his followers, for a righteousness of complete obedience better than the Pharisees - if I need to repent then it is too late, I've failed Christ's standards... and yet even the thief on the cross was welcomed into paradise ...?

Jesus did call for perfection from His followers. He also made it clear that we are not perfect, that no one is good but God. He does not make perfection the standard for acceptance in His kingdom.

His acceptance of sinners who believe and repent indicate that it is the sincerity of our hearts and the direction of our lives that count.

His acceptance of the woman caught in adultery and the thief on the cross show that the deciding factor is not strictly the sum total of our actions.

His parable of the prodigal son illustrates that He is looking for change, and that heaven rejoices over even minor indications of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Simply put, Jesus' language makes salvation a result of both belief and obedience. PSA does not account for this.

I know you think that. All of the passages you have cited are also consistent with this reading - salvation is the result of belief which must produce obedience.
Yes, if you don't obey then you don't really believe. It is also true - and this is important - that you really can't turn away from sin without believing in and depending on God. This is one of the deepest and most profound secrets of religion.

Belief and obedience are inseparable. So if you assume obedience whenever belief is mentioned, as I think the gospels do, then I am with you all the way.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If obedience is the issue, you haven't dealt with the concept paul posits, The 'obedience of faith'.

This is clearly a very specific type of obedience Freddy and is mentioned in more than one place.(Ro 1:5, 16:26)

The obedience of faith seems to me to be obedience to Jesus and His words:
quote:
Romans 1:5 Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ.

Romans 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26 but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith— 27 to God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever.

Isn't Paul here calling for people to be obedient to what we believe?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue is that without faith, we cannot begin to conform to obedient actions, our sinfulness precludes it. Truly obedient actions are surely subsequent to an obedient, ie 'believing', heart.

Yes, the two are inseparable. A person cannot truly live well, turn away from sin, and live a life of obedience to God without belief. Similarly, there is no belief apart from obedience to what is believed.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So if you assume obedience whenever belief is mentioned, as I think the gospels do, then I am with you all the way.

[Yipee] Wayhay... Champers all round [Yipee]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
I've been thinking about the metaphor of cleansing recently - e.g. "But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins." 2 Peter 1: 9

I realise that this fits with the CV medical model. However, I've been wondering about the substitutionary element to it.

The book of Hebrews (especially chapters 9 & 10) makes it clear that it is the blood of the sacrifice that brings cleansing.

I don't see how you can say this without:

a) seeing it as substitutionary.

b) wondering how it can be said to 'cleanse' without appealing to some kind of penal model. What other way is there to link it? I realise that (about 40 pages back [Help] ) some reflected on the Passover and suggested that there is something 'magic' in the blood - but (ISTM) that unless you say what it is about the blood that cleanses, then 'magic' = I don't know.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
I would like to go back a bit to the discussion we had about the Orthodox praying to God to restore us to the ancient beauty...

I think it was Barnabas, who mentioned that part from the funeral service... In my view this didn't imply original sin, with all the consequences this has for psa, but it spoke of our personal sin.

In the famous canon of St. Andrew of Crete, we read:

quote:
Having rivaled the first-created Adam by my transgression, I realize that I am stripped naked of God and of the everlasting kingdom and bliss through my sins.

Alas, wretched soul! Why are you like the first Eve? For you have wickedly looked and been bitterly wounded, and you have touched the tree and rashly tasted the forbidden food.

The place of bodily Eve has been taken for me by the Eve of my mind in the shape of a passionate thought in the flesh, showing me sweet things, yet ever making me taste and swallow bitter things.

Adam was rightly exiled from Eden for not keeping Thy one commandment, O Savior. But what shall I suffer who am always rejecting Thy living words?

I sin, not because of Adam, but because I became like Adam. The ancestral sin is not the cause for my sin, but I am on the same level with Adam.

It's not that I accept Christ's words, but because of Adam I cannot but be a sinner. It's because I do not accept Christ's words that I become like (or even worse than) Adam.

So, when we pray for the restoration to the ancient beauty, we do not have in mind original sin, but our own personal sin.

[ 07. August 2008, 22:30: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Andrew wrote (among other things)
quote:
when we pray for the restoration to the ancient beauty, we do not have in mind original sin, but our own personal sin.
Shakespeare wrote in Romeos words:

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

And I write:

Call it what you like it is sin , it taints you , it corrupts you and only Christ can make us clean from it!

(Sorry Andrew, just couldn't let you have the last word!)
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Andrew wrote (among other things)
quote:
when we pray for the restoration to the ancient beauty, we do not have in mind original sin, but our own personal sin.
Shakespeare wrote in Romeos words:

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

And I write:

Call it what you like it is sin , it taints you , it corrupts you and only Christ can make us clean from it!

(Sorry Andrew, just couldn't let you have the last word!)

Sorry, think it was Juliet who got the 'rose' line.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
I don't disagree Jamat... Please do note that I do not deny the reality of sin... What I do object to is a) thinking it's because of Adam and Eve and not because of ourselves and b) thinking that Christ cannot heal us, that we are justified without getting healed, justifying thus our fall and calling it OK.

It's those two things I object to, and NOT the reality of sin, NOR the salvation and healing Christ offers.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
What I do object to is a) thinking it's because of Adam and Eve and not because of ourselves and b) thinking that Christ cannot heal us, that we are justified without getting healed, justifying thus our fall and calling it OK.

It's those two things I object to, and NOT the reality of sin, NOR the salvation and healing Christ offers.

It's great to see that after several thousand posts we've made such progress. [Help]

Those two things you object to:

1. Nobody has said that it is because of Adam and Eve and not because of ourselves.

Traditional Protestant thinking has always been that we are responsible for our own sin. (Whatever you think about OS, it never detracts away from human responsibility.)

2. Nobody has said that we are justified without getting healed. Again Reformed Protestants distinguish justification from sanctification but no one denies that they both come together as the part of the same package.

I do find it incredible after all this time that you are still attacking these grotesque caricatures.
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
JohnnyS, from my point of view, saying that we have a natural inclination to sin, and that we cannot do good, does NOT mean that we are personally responsible for our sin. Now if you want to call that personal responsibility fine, but don't expect me to agree that that's not a grotesque theology.

Secondly, what about the "at the same time sinners and saints" stuff? What about we are fallen but we are saved? To me fallen=not saved period. There is no "both fallen and saved".

Unless you believe that "fallen but saved is nonsense" and "we are born unfallen and when/if we fall we fall because of our own personal choice" it's hard to see how I attack caricatures rather than your theology...
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
After all this time, this is quite incredible. Of course there are major differences between us - just not the ones you keep trotting out.

What is the problem? When we tell you that you are not correctly representing Protestant views do you not believe us? Are we just lying?

quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
JohnnyS, from my point of view, saying that we have a natural inclination to sin, and that we cannot do good, does NOT mean that we are personally responsible for our sin.

[brick wall] You and Myrrh seem fixated with OS. Fine. Take issue with OS. (Even though it is a massive tangent to this thread.) However, what you have written above is not OS.

I've not come across anyone on the Ship who has ever said that OS means that we cannot do good.

OS teaches that even our best deeds are tainted by sin (e.g. pride) but it has never, ever meant that we cannot do good.

It also teaches, very clearly, that ever individual is responsible for their own sin.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
OS teaches that even our best deeds are tainted by sin (e.g. pride) but it has never, ever meant that we cannot do good.

Not to defend Andrew or Myrrh here, but you must admit that's pretty close to what Total Depravity teaches, and there are many people on "your" side who equate the two.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[brick wall] You and Myrrh seem fixated with OS. Fine. Take issue with OS. (Even though it is a massive tangent to this thread.) However, what you have written above is not OS.

I've not come across anyone on the Ship who has ever said that OS means that we cannot do good.

OS teaches that even our best deeds are tainted by sin (e.g. pride) but it has never, ever meant that we cannot do good.

It also teaches, very clearly, that ever individual is responsible for their own sin.

Exactly, that even our best deeds are tainted...

What the various Churches determined OS meant is on a sliding scale from 'even good works are the work of Satan without the grace from Christianity' to that. The whole theology from Augustine is based on man's sin nature, it does not admit of any real good inherently in man and this is how non-Christians are perceived by this doctrine.

Your 'very clearly teaches that man is responsible for his own sin' is just not in this teaching, that would come from the teaching of free will simple and can't be applied to a nature pre-determined to be deranged with OS and so isn't the base of RCC, Reformation, Calvin or Luther teachings which however much they nit-pick doctrine among themselves, and they do, all go back to inherent sin nature of man; making Christ a liar when He says we can bring both good and evil from ourselves.


http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/sin_parker.pdf

from which, cached introduction

(Original Sin A Study in Evangelical Theology David Parker)


I think what could be happening here is that what some from Western traditions would see as huge differences between the traditions we'd see as minute variations on the same theme and it's this basic theme which is the ground of the penal substitutionary atonement model.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not to defend Andrew or Myrrh here,

Heaven forbid!

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
but you must admit that's pretty close to what Total Depravity teaches,

I'm admittin nuttin.

Google Total Depravity - you'll discover that even wiki doesn't define it like you do.

Think 'freedom to choose God' as the issue not 'ability to do any good deeds'.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
and there are many people on "your" side who equate the two.

I'm sure there may well be some wacko nutjobs out there but I have never heard OS or TP defined in the way you are across several continents of Protestant experience.

[ETA - of course, if you had a passport you'd know that.]

[ 09. September 2008, 03:54: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Your 'very clearly teaches that man is responsible for his own sin' is just not in this teaching, that would come from the teaching of free will simple and can't be applied to a nature pre-determined to be deranged with OS and so isn't the base of RCC, Reformation, Calvin or Luther teachings which however much they nit-pick doctrine among themselves, and they do, all go back to inherent sin nature of man; making Christ a liar when He says we can bring both good and evil from ourselves.

You got me Myrrh.

You have uncovered the great Protestant deception. We lie to people about what we believe and then we get them into our cult we break the bad news to them.

The way we get them to stay is by promising to tell them who really shot JFK.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Well, JohnnyS, you've never experienced anything that I have, which I find very odd. I also find it odd that I keep trying to engage with you knowing that.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Your 'very clearly teaches that man is responsible for his own sin' is just not in this teaching, that would come from the teaching of free will simple and can't be applied to a nature pre-determined to be deranged with OS and so isn't the base of RCC, Reformation, Calvin or Luther teachings which however much they nit-pick doctrine among themselves, and they do, all go back to inherent sin nature of man; making Christ a liar when He says we can bring both good and evil from ourselves.

You got me Myrrh.

You have uncovered the great Protestant deception. We lie to people about what we believe and then we get them into our cult we break the bad news to them.

The way we get them to stay is by promising to tell them who really shot JFK.

Johnny, I thought the link I gave was to a good analysis of Evangelical beliefs about OS. It doesn't support your claims that we're referencing beliefs not held by Evangelicals.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Johnny, I thought the link I gave was to a good analysis of Evangelical beliefs about OS. It doesn't support your claims that we're referencing beliefs not held by Evangelicals.

Here's a quote from the site you linked to:

quote:
From a biblical point of view, the universality of sin cannot be attributed to some external or physical characteristic (as some beliefs of gnostic of Manichean origin have it) for this would deny the doctrine of the creation of mankind in the divine image by suggesting that mankind is evil or defective per se. Rather, the fault must be a moral one, involving personal responsibility whereby each individual willingly consents to the inborn corruption and bias to sin and thereby actually sins.

The traditional formulation of the doctrine of original sin is intended to preserve this idea of personal involvement, for as Berkouwer notes, the church has always agreed that it ‘may not function and cannot function as a means of excusing ourselves or hiding behind another man’s guilt’.


 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well, JohnnyS, you've never experienced anything that I have, which I find very odd.

Is the wiki defintion of Total Depravity wrong then?
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Johnny, I thought the link I gave was to a good analysis of Evangelical beliefs about OS. It doesn't support your claims that we're referencing beliefs not held by Evangelicals.

Here's a quote from the site you linked to:

quote:
From a biblical point of view, the universality of sin cannot be attributed to some external or physical characteristic (as some beliefs of gnostic of Manichean origin have it) for this would deny the doctrine of the creation of mankind in the divine image by suggesting that mankind is evil or defective per se. Rather, the fault must be a moral one, involving personal responsibility whereby each individual willingly consents to the inborn corruption and bias to sin and thereby actually sins.

The traditional formulation of the doctrine of original sin is intended to preserve this idea of personal involvement, for as Berkouwer notes, the church has always agreed that it ‘may not function and cannot function as a means of excusing ourselves or hiding behind another man’s guilt’.


I'm not sure what point you're making here, the full quote below.


quote:
From a biblical point of view, the universality of sin cannot be attributed to some external or physical characteristic (as some beliefs of gnostic of Manichean origin have it) for this would deny the doctrine of the creation of mankind in the divine image by suggesting that mankind is evil or defective per se. Rather, the fault must be a moral one, involving personal responsibility whereby each individual willingly consents to the inborn corruption and bias to sin and thereby actually sins. The traditional formulation of the doctrine of original sin is intended to preserve this idea of personal involvement, for as Berkouwer notes, the church has always agreed that it ‘may not function and cannot function as a means of excusing ourselves or hiding behind another man’s guilt’.15Therefore, even in its simplest form, it differs from the Pelagian view, yet in so doing it becomes little more than an alternative term for the state of depravity.
Myrrh
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well, JohnnyS, you've never experienced anything that I have, which I find very odd.

Is the wiki defintion of Total Depravity wrong then?
quote:
Total depravity (also called total inability and total corruption) is a theological doctrine that derives from the Augustinian concepts of original sin. It is also advocated by many Protestant confessions of faith and catechisms, including those of Lutheranism,[1] Anglicanism and Methodism,[2] Arminianism, and Calvinism.[3] It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is freely offered.
Yes it's wrong...


quote:
Summary of the doctrine
Total depravity is the fallen state of man as a result of Original Sin. The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature not inclined to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, as God requires, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Even religion and philanthropy are destructive to the extent that these originate from a human imagination, passions, and will. Therefore, in Reformed Theology, God must predestine individuals into salvation since man is incapable of choosing God.[4]

Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition. Thus, even acts of generosity and altruism are in fact egoist acts in disguise.[5]

Nonetheless, the doctrine teaches optimism concerning God's love for what he has made and God's ability to accomplish the ultimate good that he intends for his creation. In particular, in the process of salvation, God overcomes man's inability with his divine grace and enables men and women to choose to follow him, though the precise means of this overcoming varies between the theological systems. The differences between the solutions to the problem of total depravity revolve around the relation between divine grace and human free will – namely, whether it is efficacious grace that human free will cannot resist, as in Augustinism, or sufficient or prevenient grace enabling the human will to choose to follow God, as in Molinism and Arminianism.

And all because Augustine decided that man had lost God's grace...

What a strange world he created.

Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The traditional formulation of the doctrine of original sin is intended to preserve this idea of personal involvement, for as Berkouwer notes, the church has always agreed that it ‘may not function and cannot function as a means of excusing ourselves or hiding behind another man’s guilt’

Your quote states explicitly that the traditional view of OS does not absolve any sense of personal responsibility. The point being discussed.

So your own quote directly contradicted you.

Do I need to draw pictures?
 
Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Johnny this is stupid. For the Orthodox what is natural is blameless. Which is why we can't be by nature tainted.

You can call meat fish, but you can't expect us to say it's OK if you eat meat on fasts just because you call it fish...
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Johnny this is stupid.

Agreed.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm just asking you to state fairly and accurately those ideas you disagree with.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The traditional formulation of the doctrine of original sin is intended to preserve this idea of personal involvement, for as Berkouwer notes, the church has always agreed that it ‘may not function and cannot function as a means of excusing ourselves or hiding behind another man’s guilt’

Your quote states explicitly that the traditional view of OS does not absolve any sense of personal responsibility. The point being discussed.

So your own quote directly contradicted you.

Do I need to draw pictures?

...it's saying personal involvement in original sin, therefore, personal depravity.

You do not have a doctrine of personal responsibility in real free will because you already begin with a doctrine that damns everybody by claiming it's their personal responsibility...

None of these Augustinian based Churches teach that we're born with free will, the ability to choose good or evil, and born in God's grace, and born innocent. There is no meeting of doctrines between us here. Through our doctrines Christ makes sense, I can't see your doctrines in any of Christ's teaching.

PSA added to this non-freewill, graceless, personally responsible damned existence in which God only predestines some he arbitrarily chooses for salvation has no need of free will in personal responsibility as we understand it, this is what you call Pelagian and all your doctrines are against it - I can't understand why you're presenting it as if it exists in your doctrines.




Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
There is no meeting of doctrines between us here.

[brick wall] I know that. I never said there was.

All I'm asking is that when you want to give Protestant thought a good kickin' that you tackle what we actually believe and not what you think we ought to believe.

The tension between God's sovereignty and human freewill is well documented in Prostestant thought. I know you think it is an inherent contradiction but many (if not all) streams of Protestant thinking are happy to live with the tension.

Just because you think that the logical outworking of our doctrine should be that mankind has no freewill does not make it so.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
There is no meeting of doctrines between us here.

[brick wall] I know that. I never said there was.

All I'm asking is that when you want to give Protestant thought a good kickin' that you tackle what we actually believe and not what you think we ought to believe.

The tension between God's sovereignty and human freewill is well documented in Prostestant thought. I know you think it is an inherent contradiction but many (if not all) streams of Protestant thinking are happy to live with the tension.

Just because you think that the logical outworking of our doctrine should be that mankind has no freewill does not make it so.

What tension? In the analysis of Evangelical thinking above the only tension is how to account for it without having to accept the Pelagian view: "Yet, biblical teaching and human experience will not allow the simple Pelagian solution of denying that mankind exists in a morally vitiated condition."

And here's the rub, Pelagius' argument here, as is ours, is that biblical teaching and human experience clearly show the error of this Evangelical doctrinal base. What else has been our arguments here?!

Evangelicals simply deny anything contradicting their base doctrine regardless of how much biblical teaching and human experience shows the contrary, tweaking how they can show personal responsibility for sin within that is not dealing with the problem and is no reply to the Pelagian and Orthodox and Jewish fact that you deny free will.

And so you have to dismiss Christ's and biblical teaching that some are and man can be actually really fully righteous because you cannot give up the doctrine that 'man is in a morally vitiated condition'.

It's your doctrine that creates 'all men are sinners'.

There's one thing to be aware of in the History section introduction - Augustine didn't form his doctrine as a reaction to Pelagius', Pelagius first heard about Augustine's doctrines and argued against OS because of its novel and illogical reasoning contrary to the simple teaching of the Church about man, that man had free will to choose as evidenced for example by being given the commandments.

How you've all been caught up in this idea of man in a morally vitiated condition is down to Augustine first creating it. All you've done since, and are still doing, is arguing among yourselves within that. And within that real free will to choose good or evil doesn't exist, the commandments are irrelevant in all your various doctrines.



Myrrh
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And here's the rub, Pelagius' argument here, as is ours, is that biblical teaching and human experience clearly show the error of this Evangelical doctrinal base. What else has been our arguments here?!

Your arguments here have been to press forward your case from what you think the bible teaches and from your view of human experience ...

... and then when anybody disagrees with you, you put your fingers in your ears and shout loudly.

So I give in. You are far greater than all theologians since Augustine, the Prostestants are a schismatic heresy and the OC is the only true church.
 
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And here's the rub, Pelagius' argument here, as is ours, is that biblical teaching and human experience clearly show the error of this Evangelical doctrinal base. What else has been our arguments here?!

Your arguments here have been to press forward your case from what you think the bible teaches and from your view of human experience ...
Of course, and from Christ's teaching and the understanding of the early Church that it's what we did that mattered and keeping the commandments would take us into life as Christ taught because we had free will to bring out of ourselves good or ill etc. etc. and yours just doesn't make any sense in this bog standard view of the Jews, the early Church, Pelagius, and Orthodox now who don't bring in Augustine's view..


quote:
... and then when anybody disagrees with you, you put your fingers in your ears and shout loudly.
Where have I done that? I duly noted your objection and completed the extract you chose and pointed out that it wasn't actually referring to free will* as we understand it, but is about putting personal responsibility into your original belief of human depravity. (*which all these variations are actually against as it is the simple solution 'Pelagian' you have rejected).

quote:
So I give in. You are far greater than all theologians since Augustine, the Prostestants are a schismatic heresy and the OC is the only true church.
That's a cop out Johnny, it was nonsense from others who've tried it and it's no less nonsensical here. I've raised points you don't want to answer, attacking me is no reply.


Myrrh
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
The essentiasl issue is what is the gospel, what is the relevance of the Gospel and whether the Bible tells us the answers to those questions.
Christ IS the victor..no two ways about it. How though, does this make me the victor?
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
Dear Jamat:


Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!

What have you done?


[Waterworks]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
I was just thinking about a Best Thread nomination....hmmm...which thread, which thread...
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The essentiasl issue is what is the gospel, what is the relevance of the Gospel and whether the Bible tells us the answers to those questions.

Yes, that's right. The Bible tells us the answers - if we can understand what it says.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Christ IS the victor..no two ways about it. How though, does this make me the victor?

We are not the victor. Christ is the only victor. He said:
quote:
John 16:33 "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”
Christ is the only victor, but still the Bible speaks as though we can also be victors:
quote:
Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

1 John 2:14 I have written to you, young men, Because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, And you have overcome the wicked one.

It is clear, though, that we are not the victors, only God:
quote:
1 John 4:4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

1 John 5:4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

This victory is about resisting evil and doing good, or about turning away from everything that destroys love to God and the neighbor. The Bible is effusive about the benefits of this victory - which is Christ's victory:
quote:
Revelation 2:7 “To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.”’

Revelation 2:11 “He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.”’

Revelation 2:17 “To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it.”’

Revelation 2:26 And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations—

Revelation 3:5 He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

Revelation 3:12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.

Revelation 3:21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

Revelation 21:7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son.

The victory is about turning away from evil and doing God's will:
quote:
Revelation 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
How does Christ's victory make it possible for each person to do this? His power is in the truth. People don't seem to appreciate the connection between truth and power, but Jesus was very clear about it.
Love is the real source, but truth is how it works.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Dear Jamat:


Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!

What have you done?


[Waterworks]

Happy New Year [Smile]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
QUOTE]How does Christ's victory make it possible for each person to do this?
His power is in the truth. People don't seem to appreciate the connection between truth and power, but Jesus was very clear about it.
Love is the real source, but truth is how it works. [/QB]

Hi Freddy,
Happy new year!

I agree with everything you say.

Could I add though that the text "As he was, so are we in this world." (1 John I think) implies that we have a kind of victory that is from within. A nature change as it were along the lines of Gal 2:20 "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature. Old things are passed away, behold all things become new."

It is really hard to find a life that exemplifies Christ's victory in this way.

If we measure Christ's victory by this criterion, are any of us Christians? (Don't be provoked, the question is a wind up.)
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Could I add though that the text "As he was, so are we in this world." (1 John I think) implies that we have a kind of victory that is from within. A nature change as it were along the lines of Gal 2:20 "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature. Old things are passed away, behold all things become new."

I agree. That's being born again.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is really hard to find a life that exemplifies Christ's victory in this way.

If we measure Christ's victory by this criterion, are any of us Christians? (Don't be provoked, the question is a wind up.)

Christianity has not done well so far. That's why Jesus said He would come again.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jamat:
[qb] Could I add though that the text "As he was, so are we in this world." (1 John I think) implies that we have a kind of victory that is from within. A nature change as it were along the lines of Gal 2:20 "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature. Old things are passed away, behold all things become new."

I agree. That's being born again.
quote:


The issue though Freddy, is what exactly IS being "Born Again". The quote below is something I wrote earlier with a few alterations. The issue though is (for me) how the change that occurs when one accepts Christ, enables a transformation of motive. It is transformation,which for me, is what ultimately 'proves' that Christ is the 'victor'.

[QUOTE] You are indeed saved by grace through faith but your faith is in the efficacy of his blood as an atoning sacrifice. (Ro 5: 9 and 3:25). Grace is based in faith that Christ has died for you and his death involved shedding of blood, taking of life and you are hereby set free from both your sins and your sinfulness because God accepts the life of Christ in your place. He has punished himself instead of you but not only has he done this, the resurrection of Christ also includes us in his likeness. Wonderful! I can now live free of the shackles of sin that held me before. Why don't I always? Well I'm stupid enough to still seek the comfort of old ways on occasion thus requiring a continual renewal of forgiveness which because of God's great love and mercy, is always available.


 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue though Freddy, is what exactly IS being "Born Again".

To be born again is to have a new will given to you by God. This new will is implanted by God in the part of your mind that learns and understands. It is a new heart based on what you have learned and practised. When you act according to Jesus' words He builds that new person within you because He is the truth and He is present in you in that truth.

This new will is not given all at once, but comes gradually as you refrain from evil and do what the Lord teaches.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue though is (for me) how the change that occurs when one accepts Christ, enables a transformation of motive. It is transformation,which for me, is what ultimately 'proves' that Christ is the 'victor'.

The change does not occur when you accept Christ but when you hear and do, as He says. The motive does not change until you act.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You are indeed saved by grace through faith but your faith is in the efficacy of his blood as an atoning sacrifice. (Ro 5: 9 and 3:25).

This is an idea that comes directly from hell. It is wicked to think that God could be satisfied by a blood atonement.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Grace is based in faith that Christ has died for you and his death involved shedding of blood, taking of life and you are hereby set free from both your sins and your sinfulness because God accepts the life of Christ in your place.

This is an idea that comes directly from hell. It is wicked to think that God could be satisfied by a blood atonement.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Wonderful! I can now live free of the shackles of sin that held me before. Why don't I always? Well I'm stupid enough to still seek the comfort of old ways on occasion thus requiring a continual renewal of forgiveness which because of God's great love and mercy, is always available.

This is pure horse manure.

As long as you still seek the comfort of old ways you are not reborn.

The mistake is in thinking that this must come all at once. All change happens gradually, with steps forward and backsliding. But you are reborn only to the extent that you actually intend and do what God teaches.

No one is perfect, so the question is simply how far you have come on the road towards loving God and the neighbor and turning away from sin. The farther you have come the happier you are.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Hi Freddy,

Regarding your horse manure comment, could I perhaps direct you to the last few verses of 1Pet :2. I'd be interested in your take on them.

Thank you for once again being willing to plough old ground.

Incidentally I mean the Happy new year comment.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding your horse manure comment, could I perhaps direct you to the last few verses of 1Pet :2. I'd be interested in your take on them.

The horse manure is about thinking that you are reborn even though you seek comfort in old ways.

Rebirth is about changing your ways. If the ways don't change the rebirth hasn't happened.

But as I said, it happens little by little.

Is this your reference?
quote:
I Peter 2:23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. 25 For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
My take on this is that Christ bore our sins by taking on the power of hell, bearing all the sins of the human race, and overcame that power by His almighty power. By His suffering, that is, by His stripes, that is, by His efforts, He won the victory. Now hell has been subdued so that it no longer has the power that it once did.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally I mean the Happy new year comment.

Yes, Happy New Year. Was it 2009 in New Zealand when you wrote it?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding your horse manure comment, could I perhaps direct you to the last few verses of 1Pet :2. I'd be interested in your take on them.

The horse manure is about thinking that you are reborn even though you seek comfort in old ways.

Rebirth is about changing your ways. If the ways don't change the rebirth hasn't happened.

But as I said, it happens little by little.

Is this your reference?
quote:
I Peter 2:23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. 25 For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
My take on this is that Christ bore our sins by taking on the power of hell, bearing all the sins of the human race, and overcame that power by His almighty power. By His suffering, that is, by His stripes, that is, by His efforts, He won the victory. Now hell has been subdued so that it no longer has the power that it once did.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally I mean the Happy new year comment.

Yes, Happy New Year. Was it 2009 in New Zealand when you wrote it?

It was New Year actually. People paid good money to see the millenium in a few years ago. Apparently NZ is the first place to see the sun. Want to move here? Quite warm ATM.

Regarding 1 Pet 2:, v21 states that he suffered and the following verse quotes that he committed no sin. Ergo, he suffered vicariously for our sins. The nub of the argument as I see it is whether his suffering was God's punishment for sin falling upon a guiltless sufferer in order to free those who are truly guilty, viz you and me. This is what I believe, and you think is an aberration from the pit of hell.

Thie thing is Freddy, I don't believe I ever made spiritual progress till I realised this.

Now though I don't disagree at all with your summation, I'd add that the victory over sin and hell is effected in the victory over the human sinful nature. It became theoretically possible to be free from sin, the law and the devil only after the cross. 1 Pet:1 and 2 seem to exegete the meaning of 'born-again-ness' if you connect 1 Pet 1:3 with 1:18-19 with 1 Pet 2:21-25.

I suppose, too that one must define 'free' in this context. I totally understand we must decide to follow Christ but having decided God now works within our nature to help us want to live right. The old 'show me your faith by your works' argument of James. Which is where I see you coming from.

My point is that there is a supernatural component in the life of faith or it is really only a life of works.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It was New Year actually.

Wow. New Years was a full 24 hours away for us here on the U.S. east coast. Wouldn't that make Hawaii more than 24 hours behind you?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding 1 Pet 2:, v21 states that he suffered and the following verse quotes that he committed no sin. Ergo, he suffered vicariously for our sins.

I agree that He suffered and that He committed no sin. It doesn't follow that He suffered vicariously. Instead I believe that He suffered in His conflicts with hell - conflicts in which He overcame their power.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The nub of the argument as I see it is whether his suffering was God's punishment for sin falling upon a guiltless sufferer in order to free those who are truly guilty, viz you and me. This is what I believe, and you think is an aberration from the pit of hell.

Yes, it is an aberration from the pit of hell. The reason is that it makes God into a monster who unfairly punishes His Son, it makes God the source of all suffering, and its ramifications separate faith from life in a way that encourages a wicked life.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Thie thing is Freddy, I don't believe I ever made spiritual progress till I realised this.

You don't think that it is arrogant and prideful to claim spiritual progress?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I totally understand we must decide to follow Christ but having decided God now works within our nature to help us want to live right. The old 'show me your faith by your works' argument of James. Which is where I see you coming from.

You seem perpetually unaware of what Christ taught. Have you never read the Gospels?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My point is that there is a supernatural component in the life of faith or it is really only a life of works.

Yes, there is a supernatural component. It works like this: We seem to ourselves to have the power to change our behavior, but not to change our inner desires. God is the only one who truly has this power to change our behavior, but He lets us feel that it is our own. Our task is therefore to use this power to change our behavior, and God will change what is in our hearts. It isn't about works or merit, but about obedience to God, as Jesus said.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
A rose by any othe name would smell as sweet?

I wonder at your view of Christ's teaching is all. I do read the gospels. The problem is the old one of how his death explains his life. IMV one needs not to separate them.

Do you not find it strange that so many believers over the years have understood as God's revelation something you consider from the pit of Hell? What do you make of Peter's exegesis of 'born-again-ness"?

Spiritual progress isn't spiritual perfection. Is it arrogant to claim one's life has been changed by God?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I wonder at your view of Christ's teaching is all. I do read the gospels.

I am perfectly happy with the rest of the New Testament. I only object to ignoring Christ's teachings.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The problem is the old one of how his death explains his life. IMV one needs not to separate them.

I agree that they need not be separated. So when you quote Peter or Paul you need to also take Christ's words into account.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Do you not find it strange that so many believers over the years have understood as God's revelation something you consider from the pit of Hell?

In my opinion PSA has devastated Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What do you make of Peter's exegesis of 'born-again-ness"?

I believe that I am fine with what Peter says.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Spiritual progress isn't spiritual perfection. Is it arrogant to claim one's life has been changed by God?

It is arrogant to claim salvation. It is not arrogant to acknowledge that God has helped you and changed your life. My objection is to the idea that you can make spiritual progress by faith alone without actually turning away from sin. I understand that there is the old question of which comes first.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Well, if you are fine with what Peter says then you believe that coming to faith is a radical new beginning (1Pet1:3)which is made possible because of the resurrection (1Pet1:3) and the death of Christ as of an unblemished lamb signalled by the shedding of blood (1Pet1:19).

This us unpacked as the sacrificial offering of an innocent sacrifice that was seen by God as being of such value that it was efficacious for the remission of sin not for just one but for all who will believe. This locks into the promise of Christ's words in John's gospel in John 5:24 "He who hears my words and believes on him who sent me has eternal life."

The mechanism is further unpacked in 1Pet 2:21-25 which emphasises Christ's suffering which is beneficial as an example but also as a substitutionary template. Viz, he BORE our sins in order to effect the transformation in us resulting in our death to sin and opening the possibility of a righteous life.

Thus Peter confirms that the new birth is defined as a transformational possibility offered to all on the basis of Christ's redeeming blood. Salvation is assured to those who accept the offer and furthermore they can also be holy in the here and now not just the hereafter.

Peter, who may well have been present at the conversation with Nicodemas in John 3, creates a basis for the way the Holy Spirit comes upon those who are 'born' of God. The writings of the apostles are corollaries to support the words of the Saviour.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, if you are fine with what Peter says then you believe that coming to faith is a radical new beginning (1Pet1:3)

Of course, as long as faith is not defined as somehow separate from obedience.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
which is made possible because of the resurrection (1Pet1:3)

Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
and the death of Christ as of an unblemished lamb signalled by the shedding of blood (1Pet1:19).

I'm not denying the frequent comparison of Christ's death to the Old Testament sacrifices. They did in fact represent what Christ came to do, seen even as far back as God's curse on the serpent in Genesis.

But the sacrifices actually represented Christ's work in that He willingly subordinated the physical to the divine and that He offered pure love to God. These are the two things that all of the sacrifices stood for.

The "blood" mentioned so frequently refers not to any kind of payment but to the truth that He came to bear witness to, by which He overcame the power of hell. This is why we must drink His blood, and why the blood washes us from sin. If you don't understand this you miss the way that the term is used in many places in the Bible.

This truth can only come from Jesus as an unblemished lamb, whose qualities of innocence and perfect righteousness perfectly communicate God's will to us.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This us unpacked as the sacrificial offering of an innocent sacrifice that was seen by God as being of such value that it was efficacious for the remission of sin not for just one but for all who will believe.

This makes God the source of our troubles. God is trying to save us from our troubles. A God that is literally appeased by literal blood is a monster.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This locks into the promise of Christ's words in John's gospel in John 5:24 "He who hears my words and believes on him who sent me has eternal life."

Thank you for quoting Jesus, but why ignore His other statements which seem to contradict the idea that belief is what saves? It should be clear that whenever Christ speaks of belief He also means obedience to what is believed.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The mechanism is further unpacked in 1Pet 2:21-25 which emphasises Christ's suffering which is beneficial as an example but also as a substitutionary template.

I commented on I Peter 2:21-25 just above. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Viz, he BORE our sins in order to effect the transformation in us resulting in our death to sin and opening the possibility of a righteous life.

You misunderstand the meaning of "bearing" our sins. I understand it to mean that He took them on and overcame them by taking on our weak humanity through His birth into the world. Through this He was able to suffer temptation and to overcome the power of hell that is the source of all temptation and suffering.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Thus Peter confirms that the new birth is defined as a transformational possibility offered to all on the basis of Christ's redeeming blood.

Yes, Christ taught the truth and this enables every person to hear and obey, and be transformed.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Salvation is assured to those who accept the offer and furthermore they can also be holy in the here and now not just the hereafter.

Yes, if you believe and obey Christ's words you will become a better person and live a happier life both now and in the hereafter. But only if you really do become a person who lives by what Christ teaches.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Jamat, would you say that this depiction of Delmer's redemption at the end of this entertaining clip from the film "O Brother Where Art Thou" accurately describes your theology?
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Tangent Alert: Going back to the comment about "when was New Year?", Freddy, I think you'll find that the times on the posts are usually set by the Ship as GMT or some such - English time, rather than by the hour/day of the place you are in. Thus, Jamat's 06:14 would be quite late in his day, but only just into New Yer's day in your time, and not yet into NYD in Hawaii.

Sorry to be vague, but I'm not sure if England now runs on GMT or an hour earlier for commonality with most of Europe.

Tangent off.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
You misunderstand the meaning of "bearing" our sins. I understand it to mean that He took them on and overcame them by taking on our weak humanity through His birth into the world. Through this He was able to suffer temptation and to overcome the power of hell that is the source of all temptation and suffering.
No Freddy,it means what it says. Your exegesis continually begs the question of how his taking on our sins overcomes hell's power. You also confuse his birth with his death. I prefer my 'monster' God.

"My God my God why have you forsaken me?" Mk 15:34

Consider why God needed to turn his face from the saviour on the cross. It was because for those dreadful hours he was bearing the sin of you and me. This monster God has now set me free from sin's power. He has broken the hold of the devil over my life and yours. If you care to accept what the monster has done for you you can be truly free. I'd suggest that the blood atonement is repulsive only to those who refuse to humble their minds to accept what Paul calls the foolishness of the Gospel which is also the wisdom of God. Have a look at 1Cor1:24,5 and 2Cor5:21. "He made him who knew no sin to BE sin on our behalf."
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
So many arguments have been done and redone so many times on this thread that I don't remember if we've yet gone the Structure of Scientific Revolutions route and noted that this discussion is doomed to futility due to paradigmatic differences.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
So many arguments have been done and redone so many times on this thread that I don't remember if we've yet gone the Structure of Scientific Revolutions route and noted that this discussion is doomed to futility due to paradigmatic differences.

I think that we have spent at least some time on Kuhn's work of genius. Maybe it was another thread. I agree that it pretty much describes the perpetual impasse of this thread. The paradigms are too divergent to be resolvable.

At the same time, the commonality on this thread is the authority of Scripture. The discussion is meaningless without it since there is no other way to discuss or even think about this issue. This is what keeps it interesting for me.

So to my mind the discussion is a simple matter of seeing the consistent message of Scripture, and of correcting our mistaken views by demonstrating what that message is.

Obviously I and others are not having much luck - probably because of conflicting paradigms surrounding the understanding of Scripture.

Still, I think that it is fun to do, as long as others are willing to play. And who knows, I am sure there are plenty of things in Scripture that I am missing.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
You misunderstand the meaning of "bearing" our sins. I understand it to mean that He took them on and overcame them by taking on our weak humanity through His birth into the world. Through this He was able to suffer temptation and to overcome the power of hell that is the source of all temptation and suffering.
No Freddy, it means what it says. Your exegesis continually begs the question of how his taking on our sins overcomes hell's power.
I think you mean that it raises the question. Begging the question means that my argument is circular, which I don't think you are saying.

Let me explain my understanding of the question of how his taking on our sins overcomes hell's power. The way that I understand that Christ took on our sins and overcame the power hell is that by being born into the world of a human mother He took on our weak humanity.

Those weaknesses made Him succeptible to the influence of hell, or made it possible for hell to approach Him.

That is, by having a human body and mind He had human sensation and thought, and was therefore subject to all the impulses that the body and mind normally generate - tiredness, hunger, the desire for self-preservation, and countless others. These are often mentioned in Scripture.

These normal and natural impulses are the devil's playground, that is, they are what make evil attractive. By focusing on and elevating the importance of these impulses the devil drives everyone towards a life of sin. It is normal to hunger and to seek food, but it is sinful to make food your all-consuming goal in life, to take other people's food, etc. Every form of evil begins from harmless and normal natural impulses.

Every person throughout life resists some impulses and gives in to others, building up habits and patterns of behavior. Whatever you resist becomes weaker. Whatever you actually do becomes stronger.

Jesus resisted every impulse from hell, He fought against every evil desire and thought. He did this by the power of the Word within Him. The effect of this was to actually break and weaken the power of the devils and demons who approached Him. We ourselves have no power to do this except from God. Since Jesus is God He did this from His own power, and its effect was enormously greater.

By doing this throughout His lifetime, and especially on the cross, He reduced hell's power and put it in its place. Hell still has power, but He restored the equilibrium between heaven and hell. This set us free to do as we wish, whether good or evil, since we are between these two forces.

This is what I mean that Jesus took on our sins, and how this overcame hell's power.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You also confuse his birth with his death. I prefer my 'monster' God.

What do you mean "confuse His birth with His death"?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
"My God my God why have you forsaken me?" Mk 15:34

Consider why God needed to turn his face from the saviour on the cross. It was because for those dreadful hours he was bearing the sin of you and me. This monster God has now set me free from sin's power. He has broken the hold of the devil over my life and yours.

This is a repulsive doctrine. God did not turn His face from the Savior. Instead, Jesus was suffering the torment involved in letting go of His physical life and in overcoming the appearance that humanity, who He loved ardently, was too wicked to be saved. This pain made Him feel alone and bereft, and He quoted Scripture to that effect - Scripture that also contains the answer to His cries.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you care to accept what the monster has done for you you can be truly free. I'd suggest that the blood atonement is repulsive only to those who refuse to humble their minds to accept what Paul calls the foolishness of the Gospel which is also the wisdom of God. Have a look at 1Cor1:24,5 and 2Cor5:21. "He made him who knew no sin to BE sin on our behalf."

Hmmm. Let's see:
quote:
I Corinthians 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
No argument there. Our wisdom is nothing compared to His.
quote:
2 Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
I think that it's a question of how you understand this one.

I can see that you are saying that God held Jesus as a sinner so that He could take the punishment. This is a monstrous and wicked view, in my opinion, as I have said.

My understanding of this passage, following from what I said above, is that Jesus became sin by taking on our sinful humanity by being born of a human mother. He then overcame that sinful humanity by His own power. He knew no sin because He overcame in every temptation.

We "become the righteousness of God in Him", or through Him, because it is this same power that overcomes evil within every one of us. That is, we are able to resist the impulse to do evil because His strength reduces the power of evil influences and the power of His Word makes us able to obey His teaching - if we are willing.

As I see it the idea that God overcomes evil and helps us to overcome evil is not only intuitively right, it is what the Scriptures teach.

By comparison the idea that God must punish and will punish His Son in our place is only biblical according to a very few misunderstood passages - which have much better explanations. It makes God a monster, it condemns all who are not Christian, and it makes the difference between a good life and a wicked life meaningless.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
So many arguments have been done and redone so many times on this thread that I don't remember if we've yet gone the Structure of Scientific Revolutions route and noted that this discussion is doomed to futility due to paradigmatic differences.

... I agree that it pretty much describes the perpetual impasse of this thread. The paradigms are too divergent to be resolvable.
...

Still, I think that it is fun to do, as long as others are willing to play.

Makes good sense. My nose was where it don't belong on that post--carry on.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Not at all, IM. I think the history of this thread shows that you are probably right.

We are obviously doing this just to entertain ourselves, not because we are getting anywhere.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
As I read your analysis Freddie, It appears that all Jesus achieved was by his birth and life. If you are right, he could have died any way other than the cross and achieved the same end or even not died at all.

Your view necessarily must deny the import of what is the power of God and the wisdom of God...viz Christ crucified as a sacrifice, an innocent victim who willingly submitted himself to the cross at the behest of the Father as a substitute for your sin and mine. Your view to me is analogous to that of the Sadducees who deny the ressurrection,(although I'm not saying you do that,) in that, as Jesus said to them, "You do greatly err knowing neither the scriptures or the power of God."
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
As I read your analysis Freddie, It appears that all Jesus achieved was by his birth and life. If you are right, he could have died any way other than the cross and achieved the same end or even not died at all.

Not at all. Many passages testify to the necessity of Jesus' rejection and death. His death was essential to what He acheived.

During His life He overcame the power of hell by resisting its influence made possible by His birth on earth to a human mother. In death He also overcame the hells that were attached to the desire for life itself that is basic to all living things. This was His sacrifice, which is also why He says that "whoever loses His life for My sake shall find it." We are to love the life of the spirit more than the life of the body.

Another aspect to this was that it was necessary that He be rejected. In the gospels Jesus repeats this many times. It was necessary because the people had rejected the truth, they had rejected God, they had rejected the Word of God, and so they rejected the Word made flesh.

This is part of Christ coming at the darkest hour. But after the night the morning comes, which is His resurrection.

So yes, it was necessary that He suffer and die, and that He be rejected. But not as a payment for sin, nor as a sacrificial payment, but as self-sacrifice in the battle of the spiritual over the material, of heaven over the world. Jesus "overcame the world" meaning that He rose above the materialistic desires where the devil has his power with each one of us.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
yes, it was necessary that He suffer and die, and that He be rejected. But not as a payment for sin, nor as a sacrificial payment, but as self-sacrifice in the battle of the spiritual over the material, of heaven over the world. Jesus "overcame the world" meaning that He rose above the materialistic desires where the devil has his power with each one of us.
So how can you possibly reconcile this with Romans 3:25? Christ was publicly displayed by God as a propitiation (for sin) in his blood through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness (God's righteousness)
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So how can you possibly reconcile this with Romans 3:25? Christ was publicly displayed by God as a propitiation (for sin) in his blood through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness (God's righteousness)

I think that you are so stuck in your traditional way of seeing it that you are missing Paul's message.

Here is Romans 3:25 with some context:
quote:
Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
As I understand it you are saying that the meaning here is that God laid the punishment on Jesus, as a propitiating sacrifice, to demonstrate His righteousness. So all who believe in Jesus are justified.

Passing over whether that actually makes any sense or not, I think that this is not the best way to read Paul's statement.

Let me take it line by line:
quote:
Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
By "righteousness apart from the law" Paul means that God's righteousness is not about whether people are circumcized, or whether they offer sacrifices, or whether they eat unclean things, engage in ritual washings, or observe the Sabbath in the traditional way. He is saying that this is confirmed by the Law and the Prophets since they clearly show that what the Lord requires is, for example, "to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6).
quote:
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.
That is, this is the righteousness that Jesus Christ teaches, so it is important to believe in Him and do as He teaches.
quote:
For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
That is, whether you are a keeper of the traditional law of circumcision, sacrifices, and ritual purity or not it doesn't matter. Everyone is impure and is in need of God's mercy.
quote:
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
That is, the Lord came into the world to free the world from the clutches of hell by fighting against it and overcoming it. This was a work of pure divine mercy, which is God's love directed towards the human race. This is how He saved us and continues to save us.
quote:
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness,
The word translated "propitiation" here is literally "mercy seat". The meaning is that the Lord came into the world and willed to give all that He had for the sake of the human race out of pure mercy. His "blood" refers specifically to the truth by which He fought against falsity, but it also means His life which He sacrificed for our sakes. That is, He chose spiritual life over natural life, defeating the forces of hell that consider physical life the only real life.

This work of overcoming hell demonstrated God's righteousness.
quote:
because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
That is, this is how God forgives humanity of its sins. His work of redemption enables us to change our ways if we can trust in His Word and keep it in our lives. This is His work of forgiveness. If we follow Him we are able to receive the forgiveness that God freely offers. He "passes over" our previously committed sins.
quote:
26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
That is, if we accept and put our trust in Jesus Christ we can change our ways and be saved from our evils. This is how God in His mercy is changing the human race, which demonstrates His righteousness.

That is how I reconcile what I said above with Romans 3:25. I think that you are so stuck in your traditional way of seeing it that you are missing Paul's message.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The word translated "propitiation" here is literally "mercy seat". The meaning is that the Lord came into the world and willed to give all that He had for the sake of the human race out of pure mercy. His "blood" refers specifically to the truth by which He fought against falsity, but it also means His life which He sacrificed for our sakes. That is, He chose spiritual life over natural life, defeating the forces of hell that consider physical life the only real life.

This work of overcoming hell demonstrated God's righteousness.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is, this is how God forgives humanity of its sins. His work of redemption enables us to change our ways if we can trust in His Word and keep it in our lives. This is His work of forgiveness. If we follow Him we are able to receive the forgiveness that God freely offers. He "passes over" our previously committed sins.

That is rich Freddy. Who is stuck in their tradition?

The verse clearly suggests God's need to judge sin. He had in the past been able to delay this using animal sacrifices as temporary cover when offered in faith. But this was because he was looking forward to the cross when sin would be dealt with and judged once and for all in Christ. This is, in fact, how God forgives humanity of its sins. Christ received the wrath of God, had sin laid on him and was delivered into Satan's hands. However, because he was, in fact, sinless, Satan could not hold him in thrall of death and so He rose. God thus judged sin in him and at the same time delivered him once and for all from sin and death. But not only him also all of us who believe in him. This is a transforming and powerful Gospel Freddy, it is not a sad little Gospel of trying vainly to follow Christ's example and be holy in our own strength.

This might not be the Swedenbogian version, but is is certainly the Pauline version.

I note the way you deal with the blood sacrifice is allegorical. This is demanded by your theology perhaps but to me it strains the text. His blood refers to the requirement of a life as the price of an atonement. Note how Hebrews speaks about almost all things needing to be cleansed by blood sacrifice. The error of any other understanding is the fact that the terrible cost of sin is not understood and consequently the marvellous atonement of Christ is totally underestimated as I have said before. If you don't get this, you don't get the Gospel since the authority of Christ and the assurance and authority of our vicarious position in him is all tied up in it. Sorry, if this seems judgemental to you. It is my line in the sand. Also, Don't talk about my tradition; look to your own. You have to mutilate all sorts of scripture to make your horse run. Essentially, you have to save yourself since that is what you call 'following' him. IMV we none of us can do that without the initial transforming revelation of what he has done for us.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The verse clearly suggests God's need to judge sin.

Yes, the question is how this is done. You seem to have a mental image of a very powerful king who looks at what people do and assigns a punishment. Do you really think that this is how god works?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
He had in the past been able to delay this using animal sacrifices as temporary cover when offered in faith.

Can't you hear how stupid this sounds? What kind of God would do that? Your God is a monster.

Besides, Jesus said:
quote:
Matthew 9:13 ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’
God never desired sacrifice. He accepted it as a symbolic offering and ritual because it was a common cultural practice. In itself it is gruesome and horrible.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
But this was because he was looking forward to the cross when sin would be dealt with and judged once and for all in Christ. This is, in fact, how God forgives humanity of its sins. Christ received the wrath of God, had sin laid on him and was delivered into Satan's hands.

Your God is a monster. What kind of Father would do this?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
However, because he was, in fact, sinless, Satan could not hold him in thrall of death and so He rose. God thus judged sin in him and at the same time delivered him once and for all from sin and death.

That makes no sense at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
But not only him also all of us who believe in him.

That makes no sense either.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This is a transforming and powerful Gospel Freddy, it is not a sad little Gospel of trying vainly to follow Christ's example and be holy in our own strength.

Then why does the Bible everywhere tell that the wicked will perish and the righteous will be saved?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I note the way you deal with the blood sacrifice is allegorical. This is demanded by your theology perhaps but to me it strains the text. His blood refers to the requirement of a life as the price of an atonement.

Blood unquestionably has symbolic meaning in the Bible. We drink it, we are washed in it. The only question is what the symbolism is about. I submit that the blood is Christ's life and His truth - this is where the power is.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Note how Hebrews speaks about almost all things needing to be cleansed by blood sacrifice.

Hebrews is referring to the symbolic cleansing represented by the sacrifices. Nothing is literally cleansed by blood.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The error of any other understanding is the fact that the terrible cost of sin is not understood and consequently the marvellous atonement of Christ is totally underestimated as I have said before. If you don't get this, you don't get the Gospel since the authority of Christ and the assurance and authority of our vicarious position in him is all tied up in it.

Just the opposite. Believing your sins are wiped out by a price paid to an angry God takes away any real fidelity to the gospel message. It allows you to ignore virtually everything Christ says in the assurance of your own salvation.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is my line in the sand. Also, Don't talk about my tradition; look to your own. You have to mutilate all sorts of scripture to make your horse run.

Then why don't you ever quote anyone but Paul? I would say it is because you mutilate Christ's message. I would challenge you to find even ten quotes from the gospels that support what you are saying.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Essentially, you have to save yourself since that is what you call 'following' him.

No, we are saved by Christ if we believe in Him and obey Him, as He tells us to do.

[ 21. January 2009, 11:22: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
He had in the past been able to delay this using animal sacrifices as temporary cover when offered in faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't you hear how stupid this sounds? What kind of God would do that? Your God is a monster

A monster who took the only possible solution to my sin. he found a way to not judge me for it by judging himself for it.

This is the clear sense of scripture and follows mainstream evangelical theology.

However Freddy, you choose to judge this interpretation of unworthy of consideration. To me it simply illustrates thatgod's wisdom is man's folly.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
A monster who took the only possible solution to my sin. he found a way to not judge me for it by judging himself for it.

It's a monstrous solution.

The reason that it is so hideous is that it not only portrays God as wicked and vengeful, it promotes a solution to the dilemma that His wickedness poses that doesn't even address the root of the problem - human evil.

Rather than posing a solution that makes people better, and averting God's wrath that way, PSA posits a "solution" that somehow averts God's anger without necessitating that change.

Oh yes, and then it is claimed that the change then happens after the anger has been satiated.

No religion can exist without a good God.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This is the clear sense of scripture and follows mainstream evangelical theology.

If it is the clear sense of Scripture could you provide me ten quotes from the Gospels that suggest it? Surely it can't be that hard.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
For the sake of 10 good men Sodom is saved?

You well know that the Gospel was crystalised through the Pauline revelation and that he based his teaching of the atonement on the death and resurrection of the Christ. You also know that revelation is progressive. Christ himself could not clarify the atonement before he died, it was inexplicable and incomprehensible to his audience who grasped it only in retrospect. The Scriptures are holistic. The epistles are no less God's revelation than the Gospels or the OT.

The following references are nevertheless consistent with my view.

Matt 16:22,23. It is in God's interest that he be killed and raised up.

Matt 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mk 15:34 My God my God why have you forsaken me?

The son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins

Matt 20:28. The son of man came..to give his life as a ransom fo many.

Jn 14: 10 No one comes to the father but through me.

Lk 24:47 ..That repentance for forgiveness of sins be proclaimed in his name.

Lk 24:7 The son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinners and crucified.

Acts 2.38 be baptised in the name of jesus for the forgiveness of your sins.

IMV we must humble our minds under God's word or we tend to put ourselves out of the reach of its power to change us.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
For the sake of 10 good men Sodom is saved?

You well know that the Gospel was crystalised through the Pauline revelation and that he based his teaching of the atonement on the death and resurrection of the Christ. You also know that revelation is progressive. Christ himself could not clarify the atonement before he died, it was inexplicable and incomprehensible to his audience who grasped it only in retrospect. The Scriptures are holistic. The epistles are no less God's revelation than the Gospels or the OT.

The following references are nevertheless consistent with my view.

Matt 16:22,23. It is in God's interest that he be killed and raised up.

Matt 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mk 15:34 My God my God why have you forsaken me?

The son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins

Matt 20:28. The son of man came..to give his life as a ransom fo many.

Jn 14: 10 No one comes to the father but through me.

Lk 24:47 ..That repentance for forgiveness of sins be proclaimed in his name.

Lk 24:7 The son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinners and crucified.

Acts 2.38 be baptised in the name of jesus for the forgiveness of your sins.

IMV we must humble our minds under God's word or we tend to put ourselves out of the reach of its power to change us.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Um, that's only nine. And Acts is not one of the gospels.

Still, those are good quotes and they do support what you are saying.

Nothing against Acts or the Epistles. My point is just that you virtually never quote Jesus, even though He is supposedly your Savior and He talks a lot about salvation. I understand your point that Paul is the one who interpretted for us what Jesus did after the fact. I don't understand why that would mean that Jesus, if He is God, would have said so little that is consistent with Paul's interpretation.

That is, I would say that about 90% of Jesus' message is that the righteous are saved and that people therefore need to change their ways. The whole point is that people need to become righteous, which they can do by listening to what Jesus has to say and changing their ways accordingly. The sacrificial payment to the Father doesn't figure into this equation as Jesus expresses it. Why not?
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Even the elite 12 didn't get it no matter how often he explained it for them. As for the rest, they were looking for the son of david, the ruling messiah, not 'ben Jesef' the suffering Messiah. how could you be surprised? Even God can't reveal himself to blind and deceived hearts. Explains a lot when you think about it. The reaction to his death shows they didn't get it and were incapable of getting it except retrospectively in the light of the ressurrection.
Regarding righteousness, jesus perfectly kept Moses law but not the Paharisaic interpretation of same. All his comments on righteousness relate to the Mosaic system since that is all they knew. The marvellous improvement which affects us is that he subsumed all righteousness into himself and made it vicariously available to you and me. We can thus be circumcised in heart without the circumcision of flesh the law would require. Our righteousness exists only as we are "in him" and that is only by faith. It is unearned and unachievable and the inner transaction of faith is what makes outworked righteousness possible.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding righteousness, jesus perfectly kept Moses law but not the Paharisaic interpretation of same. All his comments on righteousness relate to the Mosaic system since that is all they knew.

Maybe you haven't read the Sermon on the Mount. In that sermon Jesus says:
quote:
Matthew 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
Practically the whole sermon is devoted to defining what righteousness is. He is even more explicit in Matthew 25 in the parable where the "wicked" are divided from the "righteous":
quote:
Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
In that parable Jesus defines righteousness this way:
quote:
Matthew 25:37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
This description of righteousness does not sound like the Mosaic system. That is not all Jesus knew. Jesus makes it very clear that righteousness and salvation are about obedience to His commandments:
quote:
John 15:5 He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned...10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love,
We are to abide in Jesus by believing Him and obeying Him. This is righteousness. Paul said the same thing:
quote:
Ephesians 4:21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.
Paul was not confused about what righteousness was.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The marvellous improvement which affects us is that he subsumed all righteousness into himself and made it vicariously available to you and me.

It is impossible for righteousness to be vicariously available. The righteousness does indeed belong to Jesus, and it is true that we have no righteousness of our own. The way that it is attributed to us, though, is not vicariously, but insofar as we hear and obey Jesus' commands, as Paul says above in Ephesians. Even then it is not ours, but is always attributed to God. Still, we have free will as a free gift from God and we are able - as if from our own strength - to use it to obey Jesus.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
We can thus be circumcised in heart without the circumcision of flesh the law would require. Our righteousness exists only as we are "in him" and that is only by faith. It is unearned and unachievable and the inner transaction of faith is what makes outworked righteousness possible.

The meaning of a "circumcised heart" is clear from Moses:
quote:
Deuteronomy 10:16 Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer.

Deuteronomy 30:6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

So it is about loving and obeying God. The literal act of circumcision was meant to be an outward sign of this. Paul clearly understands this when he says that literal circumcision is unnecessary:
quote:
Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.
The "circumcision of the heart" requires obedience to God, not the literal obedience to the Mosaic ritual law but to the laws that Jesus gave us about love and mercy and repentance from sin.

So it is not true that Jesus' comments on righteousness relate to the Mosaic system since that is all they knew.

The point is not to have God's anger withdrawn by offering a valuable sacrifice to Him. That is a primitive and wicked idea of God. The point is for people to actually be obedient and loving by hearing and doing what Jesus says so that we can have the joy inherent in the goodness that is from God.

This is what is meant by the taking away of God's anger and the sacrifice of Jesus. We are to sacrifice or give up our addiction to sinful desires because they ruin our lives. God will then replace them with desires that bring more genuine delight - the love of the neighbor and the love of God.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Practically the whole sermon is devoted to defining what righteousness is.

I'm not interested in opening up the whole PSA vs. CV debate again - I think we've been around long enough already. [Ultra confused]

My question is more specific to your assertion about looking only to the gospels. So I'd like to stick with Matthew for now, with possibly a glance to other synoptics.

1. I agree that you won't find explicit substitution in the synoptics.

2. I also agree with your definition of righteousness from Matthew. Although it raises several issues - e.g. Jesus sets the bar very high for entry into the kingdom, in righteousness terms. In the S o t M alone he says that our righteouness needs to exceed the Pharisees to enter the kingdom ... and then goes on to imply that those who get divorced (apart from their partner committing adultery), adulterers, those who are angry with their brother ... all of them will not enter the kingdom.

Do you explain this to your congregation? That anyone whose righteousness does not measure up to this will not enter Christ's kingdom?

3. The ministry of Jesus is characterised by grace. Following on from the last point. Jesus seemed to welcome those who did not measure up to this definition of righteousness.

How do you reconcile this? I know we all say that Jesus 'forgives' us. I fully agree. That is not my question. My question is how does this forgiveness square with your definition of righteousness?

4. The ministry of Jesus (like JtB before him) focusses on repentance. How does this fit into your definition of righteousness? Repentance leads to a changed life and an increasing measure of the righteousness that you have outlined, but again this doesn't explain how it squares with righteousness in any absolute sense. The repentance thief on the cross is the classic example but the gospels are littered with others.

The parable of the workers in the vineyard poses the same question. There is a sense in which our entry to the kingdom entirely rests on God's grace and not our righteousness.

How can Jesus on the one hand offer up such an exacting definition of righteousness and then require it as entry for the kingdom, and on the other hand say to anyone, at any stage of their life, say 'repent for the kingdom of heaven is near?'

So, at last, my question - how do you reconcile Jesus' teaching about the righteousness he demands with the grace he offers?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My question is more specific to your assertion about looking only to the gospels.

I'm not suggesting that we only look to the gospels. I was just challenging Jamat because he seems so averse to them. He responded with some good quotes.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
1. I agree that you won't find explicit substitution in the synoptics.

Yes, I think that Jamat's quotes come about as close as we find there. You can certainly read substitution into those quotes, but I think that there are better explanations that are more consistent with the rest of Jesus' statements.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
2. I also agree with your definition of righteousness from Matthew. Although it raises several issues - e.g. Jesus sets the bar very high for entry into the kingdom, in righteousness terms.

I think it depends on how you understand what Jesus is saying.

The literal imagery is that there is a gate, pictured frequently in the comics, where St. Peter, or Jesus, stands guard. He looks over your life in the Book, and lets you in, or not, depending on what is in it.

I can see how comparing our lives to Jesus' standards would make it seem like the bar is high.

Do you really think that it happens that way?

As I understand it this is not at all what happens. Rather, the kingdom of heaven is something that is present with us from the very start. It is not an all-or-nothing presence, but rather is present as increased or decreased contentment, happiness, joy, satisfaction, etc.

So to the extent that we refrain from deceit, theft, hatred, and adultery, and devote ourselves to thoughtfulness and service to others we will find happiness in life. And to the extent that we give in to these weaknesses and think only of ourselves we deprive ourselves of happiness and satisfaction.

But it is not all or nothing. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction come in degreees and with enormous complexity.

The point is that the joy of heaven is eternal. Insofar as we learn to love God and one another we enter into that kingdom. After death we find ourselves in heaven. But if we do not learn this we keep ourselves out - not because of any literally closed gates but because we don't love the things that heaven is about.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
In the S o t M alone he says that our righteouness needs to exceed the Pharisees to enter the kingdom ... and then goes on to imply that those who get divorced (apart from their partner committing adultery), adulterers, those who are angry with their brother ... all of them will not enter the kingdom.

The Pharisees, if you note what is said in the gospels, were actually wicked. Their so-called "righteousness" was not righteous at all.

The things that Jesus says keep us out of the kingdom are simply things that rob life of its joy. If it was obvious to everyone that a life of laziness, drunkenness and debauchery was actually not all that fulfilling we wouldn't have to make rules about it. But it's not obvious, so Jesus points out that these are the kinds of thing that keep you out of the kingdom.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Do you explain this to your congregation? That anyone whose righteousness does not measure up to this will not enter Christ's kingdom?

That's right. "Bad" behavior and "bad" thoughts rob life of its happiness and prevent you from entering heaven.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
3. The ministry of Jesus is characterised by grace. Following on from the last point. Jesus seemed to welcome those who did not measure up to this definition of righteousness.

Yes, it is all about grace. But Jesus did not actually welcome wicked people. He was highly critical of wicked people.

The ones that Jesus welcomed were people who had not lived perfect lives but who were willing to hear Jesus, to welcome His message, and presumably to try to follow His teachings. Jesus never condoned sinful behavior or suggested that people can continue in sinful behavior without consequences.

When Jesus said that prostitutes and tax collectors would enter heaven before the religious leaders would it was a commentary on the wickedness of the religious leaders. He was not consigning prostitutes and tax collectors to heaven.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
How do you reconcile this? I know we all say that Jesus 'forgives' us. I fully agree. That is not my question. My question is how does this forgiveness square with your definition of righteousness?

It's just like every other kind of change that we all have experience with. "Grace" is the fact that we can change and the provision of the means for change. Our houses do not need to fall down around us. Even if they are in poor repair we have the means available to us to improve them either a little or a lot.

A key is that it is not all or nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
4. The ministry of Jesus (like JtB before him) focusses on repentance. How does this fit into your definition of righteousness? Repentance leads to a changed life and an increasing measure of the righteousness that you have outlined, but again this doesn't explain how it squares with righteousness in any absolute sense. The repentance thief on the cross is the classic example but the gospels are littered with others.

It is not about the sum of everything you have done in life. It is about what kind of person you actually are and what you actually love. A life of theft is not conducive to developing love to God and the neighbor. This does not mean that every thief is actually a wicked person. The thief on the cross was evidently not very wicked, and his kind words and recognition of Jesus' innocence are evidence of his decency. The justice system of the time was not especially fair either, so I don't think that we can assume that this was the worst of criminals.

In any case, forgiveness is nothing more than the ability to change. God loves everyone equally, and doesn't care at all about whatever "sins" we may have committed. But our sins prevent us from accepting His love and from loving Him and one another. This may happen to a greater or lesser degree, shutting us out of the kingdom of heaven a little or a lot.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The parable of the workers in the vineyard poses the same question. There is a sense in which our entry to the kingdom entirely rests on God's grace and not our righteousness.

The parable of the workers in the vineyard illustrates that change may come early or it may come late. Either way the result is the same. God is gracious so He makes this change possible to us at any point.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
How can Jesus on the one hand offer up such an exacting definition of righteousness and then require it as entry for the kingdom, and on the other hand say to anyone, at any stage of their life, say 'repent for the kingdom of heaven is near?'

This is how everything in life works, why wouldn't it apply to the most basic and important things.

"Righteousness" is like being a good student or a good worker, or like being physically fit. We can be better or worse at these things. There is not perfect worker or perfectly physically fit person. Life is better if you are reasonably conscientious and fit. At any point you can change from being a lazy slob to being a better student or worker or becoming more physically fit. It doesn't mean that it is easy to do, but the means are always available.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So, at last, my question - how do you reconcile Jesus' teaching about the righteousness he demands with the grace he offers?

The grace He offers is the ability and the means for change. He especially offers us the truths of the Word of God to teach us how to find happiness and fulfilment in life. He came into the world to take away the power of hell that had enslaved the human race. So we are free to obey Him or ignore Him, as we choose.

So I don't see any difficulty at all reconciling Jesus' demands for righteousness with His grace. They both amount to the same thing.

It's like offering the perfect diet program and pointing out how problematic it is to be overweight, and how much better you'll feel if you shed a few pounds. Is that setting the bar too high? Would you say "I can't do it. You're asking too much. Can't I just remain overweight and sedentary and be physically fit too?" I don't think so. It's just telling the truth and offering the solution.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The literal imagery is that there is a gate, pictured frequently in the comics, where St. Peter, or Jesus, stands guard. He looks over your life in the Book, and lets you in, or not, depending on what is in it.

I can see how comparing our lives to Jesus' standards would make it seem like the bar is high.

Do you really think that it happens that way?

I have no expectation at all that it will literally happen this way.

However, Jesus repeatedly speaks of people entering the k of G or not entering. There are no degrees with his language. In or out. With no hokey-cokey in sight.

This has absolutely nothing to do with figurative speech.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But it is not all or nothing. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction come in degreees and with enormous complexity.

Yet that directly contradicts Jesus himself. Of course life is complicated and often there are shades of grey. However, when speaking about entering the k of G Jesus goes out of his way, time and time again, to use binary language.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The Pharisees, if you note what is said in the gospels, were actually wicked. Their so-called "righteousness" was not righteous at all.

Ah, but Jesus didn't just say that we've got to get it right where they went wrong. He spoke of surpassing their righteousness. Read the S on the M. He didn't abrogate the commands they loved to quote (e.g. do not commit adultery) he made them harder.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is not about the sum of everything you have done in life.

True. But you still haven't squared the circle.

You were the one who drew our attention to the way Jesus speaks about righteousness in the gospels. He speaks in absolute terms.

I'm not saying that it is the sum of everything you've done in life. However, throughout the gospels Jesus, again repeatedly, speaks of righteousness in absolute terms. He never says, 'it doesn't matter how good you are as long as you are heading in the right direction.' He always says - this is the bar for entry into the kingdom.

I don't think you've reconciled that with grace yet.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Jesus repeatedly speaks of people entering the k of G or not entering. There are no degrees with his language. In or out. With no hokey-cokey in sight.

Yes, Jesus does speak that way. It is right/wrong, good/evil, in/out, true/false. And you do end up in either heaven or hell.

But the way that life actually works is that there are infinite degrees of almost everything. It is true that you are either alive or dead, you either survive or you don't survive. But there is living and thriving or just barely making it.

In the end you are either happy or unhappy. The one is heaven and other is hell and there is a division between the two. But it's not a city with a gate around it - it is a state of being.

The language of the Bible, and the way that Jesus puts it, makes it sound black and white. I think that it is more complex than the simplistic, universally applicable, biblical descriptions would make it seem.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm not saying that it is the sum of everything you've done in life. However, throughout the gospels Jesus, again repeatedly, speaks of righteousness in absolute terms. He never says, 'it doesn't matter how good you are as long as you are heading in the right direction.' He always says - this is the bar for entry into the kingdom.

I don't think you've reconciled that with grace yet.

The grace is in the fact that we are all able to change at any point. God loves us all equally and is constantly providing us with the means. Heaven is never shut to us right up to the end of our life - and even then it is only shut if we shut it.

But it's not a literal bar. They aren't literal gates. It's about happiness and suffering, and how to find happiness and avoid suffering. These are simply not black and white concepts. Still, that is the way that we talk about them, and that is the way the Bible addresses them.

I'm trying to show how this is about how life really works. The imagery is useful for conveying the message, but if you let the imagery dominate your thinking you end up with concepts that really don't make sense.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, Jesus does speak that way. It is right/wrong, good/evil, in/out, true/false. And you do end up in either heaven or hell.

...

The language of the Bible, and the way that Jesus puts it, makes it sound black and white. I think that it is more complex than the simplistic, universally applicable, biblical descriptions would make it seem.

Sure, it is quite possible to interpret it like this. I'm struggling to see why you should though - i.e. what criteria / authority you use to come to this conclusion.

If Jesus sometimes spoke about the kingdom as shades of grey and sometimes in black and white terms I could see how you were using one to interpret the other. But he doesn't. In the gospels he always talks about those who enter / will enter and those who won't.

Why are you not saying 'Jesus said X, but he was mistaken because life is more complicated'? You seem to be correcting his hyperbole. (I'm sure you don't mean to do that but it seems like that to me.)
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Why are you not saying 'Jesus said X, but he was mistaken because life is more complicated'? You seem to be correcting his hyperbole. (I'm sure you don't mean to do that but it seems like that to me.)

I'm not saying that Jesus' words are hyperbole. Everyone talks in black and white terms. Everyone also knows that reality is more complicated than black and white can express. I'm a little surprised that you're even taking this line of argument.

Are you saying that anything less than perfection is wicked and damnable in the sight of God? Isn't better better and worse worse? [Confused]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you saying that anything less than perfection is wicked and damnable in the sight of God?

And yet perfection is exactly what Jesus called for:

quote:
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 5: 48

Now, I'm not necessarily arguing for that to be taken literally. My point is just this:

1. You say that we should take our view of righteousness from Jesus.

2. You don't take your view of righteousness from what Jesus said, but from how you re-interpret him.

Now we all do that. I'm just after the reasons you have for doing so. So far you've only given me external reasons. None that are internal to the teaching of Christ.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Now we all do that. I'm just after the reasons you have for doing so. So far you've only given me external reasons. None that are internal to the teaching of Christ.

Sure, I understand.

You agree that all of life works in terms of degrees, and seldom in strict all-or-nothing dichotomies. I think that Jesus also gives us good reason to see the righteousness/unrighteousness, good/evil, truth/falsity, saved/damned dichotomies as matters of degree, as opposed to all-or-nothing alternatives.

For example, Jesus said that we are judged according to our ways:
quote:
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
This is repeated from the Old Testament:
quote:
Job 34:11 For He repays man according to his work, and makes man to find a reward according to his way.

Psalm 62:12 Also to You, O Lord, belongs mercy; For You render to each one according to his work.

Proverbs 24:29 "I will render to the man according to his work.”

The Psalmist connects this concept with mercy - the Lord is merciful because He rewards and punishes in the measure of our real quality.

This idea is found in the gospels, the epistles and Revelation:
quote:
Romans 2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”.

1 Corinthians 3:7 Neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

Revelation 2:23 I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

Revelation 22:12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.”

I understand "according to" to mean "in the measure of", the implication being that it is not one-size-fits-all but is different for every person, some better some worse.

This is similar to the teaching that we will be measured as we have measured others:
quote:
Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

Mark 4:24 Then He said to them, “Take heed what you hear. With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who hear, more will be given.

Luke 6:38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.”

This is not an all-or-nothing dichotomy but one in which a person's state is better or worse in exact accord with what they are really like.

Jesus says that our final state will vary according to a number of factors. It is not all-or-nothing:
quote:
Luke 12:48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
Still, for the most part Jesus talks in terms of first/last, greatest/least without mentioning the degrees in between. As I have said, though, this is how most people normally speak. We talk of success or failure, passing or failing, and winning or losing when we all know that these alternatives are seldom clear cut. So people are either saved or not saved, and go to heaven or hell, but these concepts are necessarily more complex than these simple terms would imply.

I expect that you have in mind Paul's statement that:
quote:
Romans 3:10 “There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”

I agree that none of us has any righteousness at all. I acknowledge that all righteousness belongs to God and not to us. Nevertheless He gives us free choice and therefore the ability to believe in and obey Him as a free gift - and we are judged, or judge ourselves, according to our use of that free gift.

I assume that you are also driving at Jesus' statement that:
quote:
Matthew 5:19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
The implication is that breaking even the least commandment results in total damnation. Understood that way this statement would seem to be saying that it is fruitless to think that obedience to Jesus' teachings is the way to salvation.

I'm not sure why it isn't obvious that such an understanding negates 90% of the rest of Jesus' statements.

I think that a better way to understand this statement is that intentional disobedience to one commandment implies a disregard for all of them, and likewise intentionally obeying one implies obedience to all. The point is about respect for the commandments and their source. To say that all of the commandments are good except the sixth is to question their source in God.

The idea that the smallest slip-up condemns a person to hell is inconsistent with almost everything Jesus says. His consistent point is that people need to repent from their sins and follow Him, and that His yoke is not difficult despite the fact that the way is narrow. He urges us to change our ways, and He praises even the smallest signs of change in people in the gospel stories.

But I understand that the idea that condemnation for the smallest slip-up is integral to the PSA formula. Just one more reason that I consider this to be a detestable doctrine.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Despite there having been nothing new on this thread for a very long time, is Freddy trying to win some prize for the Ship's longest thread?

Can't it go to Dead Horses, please?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Despite there having been nothing new on this thread for a very long time,

What? It's packed with new information! [Disappointed]
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
is Freddy trying to win some prize for the Ship's longest thread?

Is there a prize? I've been hoping so. [Axe murder]

I think this thread would be a good candidate. Where do we apply?

But don't blame me. Jamat is the one who brought this out of obscurity. I'm just responding to questions.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Can't it go to Dead Horses, please?

Isn't Dead Horses for topics that breed numerous repetitive threads? This is only one repetitive thread. [Snore]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I understand "according to" to mean "in the measure of", the implication being that it is not one-size-fits-all but is different for every person, some better some worse.

But of course those expressions don't have to mean that. If Jesus was saying, for example, there is a 50% pass mark to get into heaven then it would still be a one-size-fits-all / all-or-nothing measurement where each individual gets rewarded according to what they have done.

Now, I'm not suggesting that it is actually like that example just pointing out that the examples you have used do not prove your point.

I think the following quote is just about the only case in the gospels where Jesus does not speak in 'all-or-nothing' terms:

quote:
Luke 12:48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Still, for the most part Jesus talks in terms of first/last, greatest/least without mentioning the degrees in between.

So you are left with having to interpret the vast pages of teaching from Jesus according to one verse. It's not a very compelling argument, is it?

Now, again, I'm not necessarily disputing the way you handle particular verses. (e.g. the one from Luke 12 above). My point is just that you are being incredibly selective with the teaching of Jesus and then claiming that PSAers do the same.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Understood that way this statement [from Matthew 5] would seem to be saying that it is fruitless to think that obedience to Jesus' teachings is the way to salvation.

You've dodged my question here. Jesus is clear in the S o t M. There is little figurative language. Jesus is speaking plainly here. According to you he doesn't mean what he says. Not just in one obscure verse, but in 3 chapters of Matthew's gospel. Yet again, we all have to interpret Jesus using things he said elsewhere. So that is not at stake here. Rather the S o t M has been used on this thread as the 'core' of Jesus' teaching which, apparently, contradicts PSA. But here we are right in the heart of this purple passage and, once more, it is you who has to say 'Jesus didn't really mean that'.

I am beginning to feel very sorry for Jesus. He said so much that he didn't mean. He really needed someone around who could have helped him to express himself more clearly. [Biased]


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The idea that the smallest slip-up condemns a person to hell is inconsistent with almost everything Jesus says. His consistent point is that people need to repent from their sins and follow Him, and that His yoke is not difficult despite the fact that the way is narrow. He urges us to change our ways, and He praises even the smallest signs of change in people in the gospel stories.

But I understand that the idea that condemnation for the smallest slip-up is integral to the PSA formula. Just one more reason that I consider this to be a detestable doctrine.

[Confused] You can think PSA is detestable if you want but the description of Jesus in the gospels you have given above is entirely consistent with PSA.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I understand "according to" to mean "in the measure of", the implication being that it is not one-size-fits-all but is different for every person, some better some worse.

But of course those expressions don't have to mean that. If Jesus was saying, for example, there is a 50% pass mark to get into heaven then it would still be a one-size-fits-all / all-or-nothing measurement where each individual gets rewarded according to what they have done.
I hear you. So are you saying that you might conceivably need a 50% mark to pass? I thought you were saying that Jesus' bar is impossibly high, requiring 100% to pass.

The words "according to" cannot mean one-size-fits-all". The dictionary definitions are:
quote:
1. in agreement or accord with: according to his judgment.
2. consistent with; in conformity with: to be paid according to one's experience.
3. on the authority of; as stated or reported by: According to her, they have gone.
4. in proportion to: He'll be charged according to his ability to pay.
5. contingent on: According to the number of winners, the judges will award duplicate prizes.

Which of these could indicate that the the Bible means one-size-fits-all by "according to"?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think the following quote is just about the only case in the gospels where Jesus does not speak in 'all-or-nothing' terms:
quote:
Luke 12:48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

Sure, if you want to throw out the passages that say "according to" and "with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you." But you have no good reason to dismiss those passages.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So you are left with having to interpret the vast pages of teaching from Jesus according to one verse. It's not a very compelling argument, is it?

Except that it is not one verse. Although Jesus does use black-and-white, all-or-nothing language, as is the convention in all human language, He also describes many things as better or worse, greater or less. For example, some are greater and some less great in the kingdom of God:
quote:
Matthew 18:4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 20:26 whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve

Luke 22:26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves.

Jesus speaks in superlatives here, but the language clearly describes a prioritization based on inner qualities. The more like a child you are the happier you will be. Similarly, the more you humble yourself and the more you enter the spirit of service, the greater will be your joy.

Every person is different and each receives God in his or her own way. The Lord judges each of us individually, and the fate of each of us is unique. As Paul says:
quote:
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
These words are not consistent with the idea that Jesus sets an impossibly high standard which all fail.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Now, again, I'm not necessarily disputing the way you handle particular verses. (e.g. the one from Luke 12 above). My point is just that you are being incredibly selective with the teaching of Jesus and then claiming that PSAers do the same.

It seems to me that I have quoted a healthy number and variety of Scriptures. Where are your references? If you are going to claim that Jesus says something you need to give examples. More than one.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Jesus is clear in the S o t M. There is little figurative language. Jesus is speaking plainly here.

I don't think that anyone claims this. The Sermon on the Mount is loaded with figurative speech. Do you take it literally when Jesus says:
quote:
Matthew 5:13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned?"
Do you think we are really salt? What does this mean?
quote:
Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
Do you think that Jesus literally expects us to pluck out eyes and cut off hands?
quote:
Matthew 5:37 But let your words be ‘Yes, Yes,’ ‘No, No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
Really?
quote:
Matthew 5:39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
Do you think that Jesus really requires these things? Isn't He rather making the point that we should not be inspired by revenge but should love everyone?

The Sermon on the Mount uses plenty of figurative language. This doesn't make it impossible to understand. But if you take His words literally I can see why you think that He sets the bar impossibly high.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But I understand that the idea that condemnation for the smallest slip-up is integral to the PSA formula. Just one more reason that I consider this to be a detestable doctrine.

[Confused] You can think PSA is detestable if you want but the description of Jesus in the gospels you have given above is entirely consistent with PSA.
It's not consistent with PSA. Jesus describes a God who is love itself. PSA requires an angry, vengeful God, one who can be satisfied by blood, who can turn away from the suffering of His Son, and one who does not require people to love one another but only that their sins be paid for.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Essentially Freddy, ISTM that you use a metaphorical view to soften the rigor of Jesus' teaching which is actually uncompromising. The unrighteous WILL not enter, end of story. PROBLEM = I cannot make myself righteous
ANSWER = Christ does this for me.
If you reject this, I can't see how you are not locking yourself outside the gate.

Regarding the sermon on the mount. Yes, I've read it. The issue about Jesus objective in giving it is salient.

IMV he is explaining to his followers the spirit of true righteousness available under the law of Moses. Remember, Moses was the only guide they had at that point. The righteousness he was explaining here is to do with the motives for keeping the law. What it serves to illustrate from our vantage point is the reiteration of Paul's point that this righteousness is impossible to man in his natural state apart from the Holy Spirit, who at that time was only in one person, Christ himself.

My point is that this sermon in context is not an injunction for Christians to live righteously. It is a demonstration of what a life that truly kept it in fact and in spirit would look like.

It is of course what we aspire to and for believers full of the Holy Spirit, it is theoretically possible now in a way that it wasn't when he gave it.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Essentially Freddy, ISTM that you use a metaphorical view to soften the rigor of Jesus' teaching which is actually uncompromising.

Precisely the opposite. The PSA formula not only softens the rigor of Jesus' teachings, it entirely eliminates them.

Don't believe me? I'll show you how.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The unrighteous WILL not enter, end of story.

Yes, this is what I believe. This is what Jesus said.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
PROBLEM = I cannot make myself righteous
ANSWER = Christ does this for me.

I completely agree that I cannot make myself righteous, and I also agree that Jesus does it for me.

However, to you this means that He does it by His sacrifice on the cross, satisfying the Father's anger.

To me it means that He gives us the strength to keep His commandments - just as if that strength were our very own. But the strength belongs to Him only.

Your solution means that your salvation does not actually depend on obedience to Jesus.

My solution means that my salvation depends on obedience to Jesus.

This is what I mean that the PSA formula not only softens the rigor of Jesus' teachings, it entirely eliminates them. [Disappointed]

And you wonder why I consider PSA to be mistaken and harmful? [Confused]
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
IMV he is explaining to his followers the spirit of true righteousness available under the law of Moses. Remember, Moses was the only guide they had at that point.

That's what you think? I think that Jesus is explaining actual righteousness to them.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The righteousness he was explaining here is to do with the motives for keeping the law. What it serves to illustrate from our vantage point is the reiteration of Paul's point that this righteousness is impossible to man in his natural state apart from the Holy Spirit, who at that time was only in one person, Christ himself.

That explains a lot! [Ultra confused]

So Jesus was explaining to them how impossible it is to be righteous? He set the bar so high to illustrate that it can't be achieved?

I thought His point was that with God's help it could be achieved.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My point is that this sermon in context is not an injunction for Christians to live righteously.

Incredible. You think that this sermon is not an injunction for Christians to live righteously? And yet here you are saying that I am the one softening the rigor of Jesus' teaching. The PSA formula not only softens the rigor of Jesus' teachings, it entirely eliminates them, as you have just illustrated. [Disappointed]

Don't you ever wonder why Jesus said, at the end of the Sermon on the Mount:
quote:
Matthew 7:26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand"
If the sermon is not an injunction to live righteously, then why would Jesus have said that? [Confused]
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I hear you. So are you saying that you might conceivably need a 50% mark to pass? I thought you were saying that Jesus' bar is impossibly high, requiring 100% to pass.

The words "according to" cannot mean one-size-fits-all".

No, you are not hearing me. It can be 100% if you like I was merely choosing a hypothetical example. The point is that the judgment is mafe "according to" the criteria chosen by God. that is, by definition, a one-size-fits-all statement. (If, again for example, the pass mark was 100% the point would still stand. I can say that a pupil will receive the rewards according to how they fare in an entrance exam, but it still would ultimately come down to pass / fail. Now I'm not saying you have to agree with me on the 100% thing, just that the "according to" definition doesn't prove anything. There are plenty of examples in life where we all have different outcomes / circumstances but the overall result is a binary division.

Of course, those criteria may or may not involve a gradation of rewards / punishments for everyone. Nevetheless all those statements made by Jesus are talking about a one-size-fits-all. I don't see how it can be any other way.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It seems to me that I have quoted a healthy number and variety of Scriptures. Where are your references? If you are going to claim that Jesus says something you need to give examples. More than one.

I haven't cited one, I cited the whole of the S ot M. Of course Jesus uses figurative language there. However, you have only quoted the analogies he makes. There is also plenty where he speaks about fulfilling the OT law and then goes on to make it harder than the Pharisees did.

For example, are you going to tell those who divorced (apart from because their spouse committed adultery) that they won't be able to enter the k of h? (Even if speaking about the body being thrown into hell is figurative, it is not symbolic of something good!)

I'm not expecting you to roll over and accept PSA. There are two reasons why I accept PSA:

1. Because of passages of scripture that seem to teach it.

2. Because of problems with scripture (like Jesus' impossible demands of obedience) that can't seem to be solved without it.

All I'm trying to do is get you to see that there are any problems (i.e. in number 2) at all.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The point is that the judgment is mafe "according to" the criteria chosen by God. that is, by definition, a one-size-fits-all statement. (If, again for example, the pass mark was 100% the point would still stand. I can say that a pupil will receive the rewards according to how they fare in an entrance exam, but it still would ultimately come down to pass / fail. Now I'm not saying you have to agree with me on the 100% thing, just that the "according to" definition doesn't prove anything. There are plenty of examples in life where we all have different outcomes / circumstances but the overall result is a binary division.

Yes it is a binary division in the sense that sickness/health is a binary division or happiness/suffering. You are not sick just because your health isn't perfect, nor are you suffering just because your happiness isn't complete.

When the Bible says "according to" it means that if you sin more it will be worse and if you sin less it will be better. There is no other way to interpret these passages:
quote:
Job 34:11 For He repays man according to his work, and makes man to find a reward according to his way.

Psalm 62:12 Also to You, O Lord, belongs mercy; For You render to each one according to his work.

Proverbs 24:29 "I will render to the man according to his work.”

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

Romans 2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”.

1 Corinthians 3:7 Neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

Revelation 2:23 I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

Revelation 22:12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.”

Similarly, there is no other way to interpret the teaching that we will be measured as we have measured others than that it will be better or worse for us depending on our own fairness:
quote:
Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

Mark 4:24 Then He said to them, “Take heed what you hear. With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who hear, more will be given.

Luke 6:38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.”

This is not an all-or-nothing dichotomy but one in which a person's state is better or worse in exact accord with what they are really like.

The point is that it is fair. Your ultimate state depends precisely on your own free choices and efforts - or what seem like your own efforts, since all efforts are really God's.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Of course, those criteria may or may not involve a gradation of rewards / punishments for everyone. Nevetheless all those statements made by Jesus are talking about a one-size-fits-all. I don't see how it can be any other way.

It can't be one-size-fits-all and involve gradations at the same time. I don't dispute the there is a saved/damned dichotomy. But the difference between the two is not that the smallest sin brings on damnation. Rather, salvation recedes and damnation approaches as sins become more numerous and greater.

The point is that you are saying that Jesus sets the bar impossibly high. One slip-up and you are out. I'm saying that the language of "according to" and "in the measure of" precludes that possibility.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
For example, are you going to tell those who divorced (apart from because their spouse committed adultery) that they won't be able to enter the k of h? (Even if speaking about the body being thrown into hell is figurative, it is not symbolic of something good!)

That is not how it works. Divorce is wrong because it is harmful to your life and the lives of others. No one denies that divorce is a painful process that is inevitably accompanied with enormous unhappiness. Jesus is saying that divorce without just cause is the equivalent of adultery. It robs your life, and the lives of others, of heaven's happiness.

But every divorce is different. A person's ultimate state does not depend on any one thing they have done but on their true nature formed over a lifetime of free choices and actions. Everyone is ultimately more happy or less happy "according to" the quality of their lives.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm not expecting you to roll over and accept PSA. There are two reasons why I accept PSA:

1. Because of passages of scripture that seem to teach it.

2. Because of problems with scripture (like Jesus' impossible demands of obedience) that can't seem to be solved without it.

All I'm trying to do is get you to see that there are any problems (i.e. in number 2) at all.

The problems you refer to are problems with your interpretation of Scripture and your understanding of God. A loving and fair God would not make the kind of impossible demands that you imagine Scripture to teach.

For example, I imagine that you would say that every man is condemned to hell by Jesus' statement:
quote:
Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
This could be seen as raising the bar to impossibly high levels.

Isn't it more reasonable, though, to see this statement as acknowledging what every man and woman already knows - that lust is a problematic behavior. The more you indulge in it the closer it comes to real infidelity. Implicit in Jesus' statement is the idea that you have choices, and that you can give free reign to your desires or not.

The same is true for each one of Jesus' supposedly impossible demands. He says:
quote:
Matthew 5:39 whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Taken literally this is an impossible demand, a bar raised impossibly high. But Christians do not actually turn their cheeks this way. People understand that Jesus is saying that we are not to desire revenge or retribution, but that we should seek the welfare even of our enemies.

If you postulate a good God, one who is kind and fair according to the teaching of Scripture, and if you interpret Scripture accordingly, the so-called problems that you see disappear.

But PSA postulates an angry, punishing God, and interprets Scripture by that measure. It's no wonder that this leads to a search for a way out - one that PSA obligingly provides.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The problems you refer to are problems with your interpretation of Scripture and your understanding of God. A loving and fair God would not make the kind of impossible demands that you imagine Scripture to teach.

I think you misunderstand my aim in returning to this lengthy thread.

I'm not trying to convinced you of PSA or my understanding of righteousness.

My point is that both of us are interpreting the words of Jesus according to our systematic theology. You keep coming up with quotes that you think contradict my theology, and I have done the same to you on many occasions.

This is an 'implements for boiling water and very dark colour' discussion. You say that I have to awkwardly squeeze some verses into my theology. At which point I cop a plea - guilty as charged.

What is currently twisting my noodle is that you refuse to admit that you do the same.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think you misunderstand my aim in returning to this lengthy thread.

I'm not trying to convinced you of PSA or my understanding of righteousness.

Just to be clear, my aim is to demonstrate that PSA is a mistaken and harmful doctrine, and that Christus Victor, or some version of it, is a fine doctrine that is consistent with both reason and Scripture.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My point is that both of us are interpreting the words of Jesus according to our systematic theology. You keep coming up with quotes that you think contradict my theology, and I have done the same to you on many occasions.

Sure. It is impossible to understand Scripture without having an overall systematic theology through which to interpret it.

I haven't noticed you or Jamat coming up with many quotes to demonstrate your points. Those you come up with are almost exclusively statements from the Epistles. I have no argument with those statements, but the fact that you both have so much trouble finding other biblical support for your positions is evidence to me that there is not much biblical support for your positions.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This is an 'implements for boiling water and very dark colour' discussion.

I'm not familiar with that interesting expression. [Paranoid]
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You say that I have to awkwardly squeeze some verses into my theology. At which point I cop a plea - guilty as charged.

What I would say is that you have to ignore huge sections of the Bible in order to accept your theology.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
What is currently twisting my noodle is that you refuse to admit that you do the same.

That's right. I'm happy to admit that the Bible needs to be interpretted to be understood, and that all of us have our own methods of interpretation.

What I refuse to admit is that my interpretation is inconsistent with an overall understanding of the Bible. I think that your position, on the other hand, is inconsistent with an overall understanding of the Bible. Not that there are not passages that support what you say, but that the more passages you quote the more your argument falls apart.

Fundamentally your repeated argument falls apart in two major ways:
You end up with a religion that negates the basic tenet of all religion - that God is good and we must obey Him. Your God is not good and obedience to Him is impossible.

So yes, I deny that I have to awkwardly squeeze some verses into my theology. A good theology, I think, ought to smoothly integrate every verse from every part of the Bible. It is tested by searching for verses that might contradict it. The assumption here, of course, is that every part of the Bible is authored by God and so cannot be contradictory if properly understood.

What keeps this thread going, I think, is that the concepts of salvation and Christ's mission are overwhelmingly important to Christianity. PSA, or some version of it, is an easily understood and firmly entrenched model of how salvation works and what Christ did. But I think that the Bible provides endless support for a different model.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Freddy, we've obviously come to the end of the road on this one. (Cheer from Leo [Yipee] ) I'm surprised, because you are normally so good at listening to different POVs. However, on this occasion (and it is a first) I give up because you are simply not listening to what I say.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I haven't noticed you or Jamat coming up with many quotes to demonstrate your points. Those you come up with are almost exclusively statements from the Epistles. I have no argument with those statements, but the fact that you both have so much trouble finding other biblical support for your positions is evidence to me that there is not much biblical support for your positions.

[brick wall] Jamat and I are not the same person. Read back over the last two pages. Since I returned to this thread, after months absence, I have been only talking about the teaching of Jesus, and specifically the S o t M.

There are plenty of examples in the teaching of Jesus that support PSA. Jamat has mentioned some. One key one would be the Tax Collector story in Luke 18. (Who prays not for forgiveness but for 'atonement'.)

But that is not the point. Whenever we raise examples like this, you dismiss them because they doesn't fit with your system. Fine. We all do that. We can do the same with your system.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This is an 'implements for boiling water and very dark colour' discussion.

I'm not familiar with that interesting expression. [Paranoid]
That's because it was an analogy and you were stuck in the 'plain meaning' of the text. If you had studied it more carefully you would have been able to grasp the figurative teaching easily. [Razz]

implements for boiling water = pots and kettles.

very dark colour = black.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
What keeps this thread going, I think, is that the concepts of salvation and Christ's mission are overwhelmingly important to Christianity. PSA, or some version of it, is an easily understood and firmly entrenched model of how salvation works and what Christ did. But I think that the Bible provides endless support for a different model.

And I disagree. Well, with the last sentence anyway. So not much more to say.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Freddy, we've obviously come to the end of the road on this one.

Don't say that. I think we are quite close to resolution. [Biased]
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
There are plenty of examples in the teaching of Jesus that support PSA. Jamat has mentioned some. One key one would be the Tax Collector story in Luke 18. (Who prays not for forgiveness but for 'atonement'.)

Huh? [Paranoid]
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But that is not the point. Whenever we raise examples like this, you dismiss them because they doesn't fit with your system. Fine. We all do that. We can do the same with your system..

Yes, we can both dismiss each other's examples. The point is to at least engage with them.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
implements for boiling water = pots and kettles.

very dark colour = black.

How could I be so stupid? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
Regarding Sermon on the mount.

I don't dismiss it as ideal and great teaching.

My comment was that in context, Jesus is addressing those who knew no other revelation than Moses, and were constrained by the Pharisaic interpretation of this. Jesus is here offering his own interpretation of Moses. He focuses on the spirit of the law rather than its letter.

This raises the problem as to how we, in the church age, approach it seeing that it is not actually addressed to Christians since there were none at that time.

IMV then It represents the highest standard of human behaviour which is possible only with supernatural help.

In that sesnse Jesus is setting the bar impossibly high as he does elsewhere eg You look lustfully and you are guilty of adultery. Who now is not guilty of same?

In conclusion, Freddy, My view is that righteous living from a righteous heart is only possible on the basis of the internal revolution that changes our sinful nature into a Godly nature; viz, "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature.." Don't forget also, Jesus injunction that "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no wise enter."
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This raises the problem as to how we, in the church age, approach it seeing that it is not actually addressed to Christians since there were none at that time.

That's a red herring if I ever saw one. So Jesus' sayings don't apply to us since they were directed at Jews?

How about His sayings to the disciples? Would they qualify, since we all seek to be His disciples?

To His disciples He said:
quote:
Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.

John 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

John 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

Wouldn't the Sermon on the Mount count among the things that they had been commanded by Jesus?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In that sesnse Jesus is setting the bar impossibly high as he does elsewhere eg You look lustfully and you are guilty of adultery. Who now is not guilty of same?

Again if you do not see degrees of culpability here you can see this as an impossibly high bar. But no society encourages the harboring and free expression of lustful desire. It is not respectful, nor is it something that people are proud of. At the same time, everyone acknowledges that sexual desire is a part of our natural being, and that there are legitimate ways to express it.

Jesus is merely pointing out what everyone knows, which is that it is not only the act but also the desire that is problematic. And just as your actions are not completely out of your control neither are your desires.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In conclusion, Freddy, My view is that righteous living from a righteous heart is only possible on the basis of the internal revolution that changes our sinful nature into a Godly nature; viz, "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature.."

I certainly agree with that. The issue is how this happens. Jesus says that it happens as we hear and obey Him. You say that it happens by faith apart from works.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Don't forget also, Jesus injunction that "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no wise enter."

What does that have to do with it? According to Jesus the Scribes and Pharisees were as wicked as they come. It wouldn't take much to be more righteous than they were.
 
Posted by Kid Who Cracked (# 13963) on :
 
Jamat, how is it "impossibly high"? Honestly, that seems a bit dismissive. Jesus put great emphasis on those teachings, saying that whoever hears and does them are like a man who builds his house on a rock. He also calls it the narrow way that leads to life, if I'm not over-contextualizing. How is it impossible for a married man (or woman) not to desire to commit adultery? Shouldn't that be the case in a truly healthy relationship? I think the harder one may be giving to those who ask of you, and lending without asking again.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0