quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


If you are an evangelical, it's not a case of a litmus test, a mark of orthodoxy, it's a matter of this is what evangelicalism is about and therefore we emphasise it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But then, to be fair, it is quite interesting to wonder what theory is being discussed in individual Evangelical hymns and song in their hymnbooks.

I have a feeling we're talked about this before so I'll not say too much; but my impression is that the vast majority are talking about some version of PSA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Which rather suggests that the problem is with those who refuse to believe in PSA: you are insisting that we evangelicals MUST only believe in PSA and you don't believe it therefore you criticise us for doing so.

---

quote:

---

If an evangelical sings When I survey the wondrous cross with that wonderful final line about Love so amazing...demands my all, do you really think we are looking behind every letter to try and fond PSA? Are you suggesting that we are looking for PSA even though it isn't there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If an evangelical sings When I survey the wondrous cross with that wonderful final line about Love so amazing...demands my all, do you really think we are looking behind every letter to try and fond PSA? Are you suggesting that we are looking for PSA even though it isn't there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If an evangelical sings When I survey the wondrous cross with that wonderful final line about Love so amazing...demands my all, do you really think we are looking behind every letter to try and fond PSA? Are you suggesting that we are looking for PSA even though it isn't there?

---

Is that, that common a song (obv in the case of Watt's songs they get everywhere, I mean in evangelical services).
In any case the fourth verse (which is actively a non-PSA model of atonement, though of course not itself anti) is ommitted allegedly starting from George Whitfield (just seen a sixth verse I've not seen before, which could be similar). So it cuts both ways

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mudfrog:

---

When I Survey is indeed popular. I've just checked: it's in Songs of Fellowship.

Not sure why you would think that it wouldn't be acceptable to evangelicals. Is the 4th verse really omitted??
[/URL]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

I am surprised that someone is trying to say that we don't really believe the words of WISTWC and that it's not really in evangelical hymn books - and, quite surprisingly, that Songs of Fellowship is not really evangelical.

Odd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What I am trying to do is avoid a rerun of the discussion on the other thread and answer the question 'why' evangelicals like PSA.

---

quote:

---

What I am also trying to do is suggest, once again, that evangelicals are not also narrow-minded as to ONLY believe in PSA - hence the use of the songs/hymns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
However, if sola PSA is a mark of the true Calvinist, then Calvin himself wasn't a Calvinist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well as I'm evidently not a true evangelical and therefore not one of the 'some evangelicals' I'm evidently engaging in a discussion that has bugger all to do with me...

I'll leave you all to it in case there is a real Calvinist evangelical here who wants to talk to you.

...which I very much doubt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
There was extensive discussion on this topic in this recent thread.

My take is that while many Evangelicals, at least in the States, will say they value all theories of atonement, PSA is treated as non-negotiable—or as fletcher christian said, a litmus test of orthodoxy—while all other theories are treated as optional add-ons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I have never met a Calvinist who said I wasn't an evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The really interesting thing about PSA, at least as far as the Ship is concerned, is why its opponents are so obsessed with it.

They are like a dog with a bone which they cannot leave alone.

We recently had a very long thread about it, and here we go again.

Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In my very long experience as an evangelical, I have not noticed any tendency for Arminians to be any less supportive of PSA than Calvinists - just more likely to recognise other models in addition.

---

quote:

---

If it helps, Fletcher Christian lives in Northern Ireland.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
FWIW across the Southern Baptists and other US denominations there's currently a big Reformed Evangelical push going on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:


For example several decades ago UCCF, the British University umbrella group for evangelicals, had a policy of refusing to allow presidents who were female and IIRC having some policy about women speakers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I stand corrected. There was an issue, I thought it was due to the UCCF but it appears to have been down to local university groups not the UCCF.

Apols, memory problem.

---

Thanks

Back to the subject of the thread, UCCF do have a policy on that, if that helps.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:


Back to the subject of the thread, UCCF do have a policy on that, if that helps.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:


Back to the subject of the thread, UCCF do have a policy on that, if that helps.

---

What is it? Also - is it wrong to think that UCCF is calvinistic in outlook?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Gam:

quote:

---

If it helps, Fletcher Christian lives in Northern Ireland.

---

First I heard, lol. I did once though.

---

quote:

---

Well, that PSA is true and the central, not only, way of understanding the atonement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:


For example several decades ago UCCF, the British University umbrella group for evangelicals, had a policy of refusing to allow presidents who were female and IIRC having some policy about women speakers.

---

You do not RC. No such policy on either female presidents or speakers ever existed. This is simply utter rubbish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Personally, I think this is part of the problem: everyone (almost everyone!) is talking in coded language.

I wonder how many Evangelicals would accept someone that said PSA wasn't true and wasn't a central way to understand the atonement.

And how that compares to what would happen if someone was to deny one of the other theories.

ISTM that the first would cause problems and the second wouldn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's not a litmus test per se, but an evangelical would ask, how can Jesus take my sins away if they are not transferred to him? How can he take my guilt away if he doesn't take it on himself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No Cross no Resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No Cross no Resurrection.

---

No death no resurrection I'll grant you - after all, Christ could hardly be resurrected from the dead without being dead first!

But the way I see it, death is death - and it could have been defeated just as well had Christ died of old age after a long and productive life. The specific means of death wasn't necessary, and was down to a bunch of stupid humans acting out of good old-fashioned fear and self-interest.

---

quote:

---

And yet, even as we were murdering Him in one of the most painful ways imaginable, He still forgave us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I can see that to a point. But I don't think death from old age works. I think it's vitally important that the death was, in some sense, sacrificial, that Jesus voluntarily accepted his death for a bigger purpose. I think Jesus clearly alludes to that at various times—"Greater love has no one," etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Lep:

quote:

---

Well, that PSA is true and the central, not only, way of understanding the atonement.

---

This is what I hear from quite a number of sources but I'm not sure I can follow the reasoning. If, for instance, someone chose not to see PSA as central then would they be considered 'true' in the sense of belonging, or would their belief be considered 'true'? If not, then surely saying PSA is 'true' and 'central' is really just code for 'the only acceptable and true theory of atonement'. To hold PSA as central and true would also mean firmly shutting the door to most other understandings of atonement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:


For example several decades ago UCCF, the British University umbrella group for evangelicals, had a policy of refusing to allow presidents who were female and IIRC having some policy about women speakers.

---

You do not RC. No such policy on either female presidents or speakers ever existed. This is simply utter rubbish.

---

Are you sure about this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If you don't think that's sacrificial then I'm not sure you've really thought about it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But the classic evangelical view, as I understand it, in its modern form put forward by John Stott in the Cross of Christ is that Jesus' death does pay the price for sin, defeat sin death and the devil, and move us to repentance. But it can only do this because PSA has happened. You may not agree with this, but it's not the same as saying PSA is the only possible way to explain the cross, just that it lies beneath the other achievements of the cross.

---

quote:

---

Kaplan Corday: The really interesting thing about PSA, at least as far as the Ship is concerned, is why its opponents are so obsessed with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But the classic evangelical view, as I understand it, in its modern form put forward by John Stott in the Cross of Christ is that Jesus' death does pay the price for sin, defeat sin death and the devil, and move us to repentance. But it can only do this because PSA has happened. You may not agree with this, but it's not the same as saying PSA is the only possible way to explain the cross, just that it lies beneath the other achievements of the cross.

---

It seems to me you're saying that you can have other explanations as long as PSA is there underlying them. Which seems another way to say that (a) it is essential and (b) it is more important, more complete than any of the other explanations.

---

quote:

---

Yes. But that doesn't mean only PSA is true, which seems to be the view that fletcher christian is coming across.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How many times have you told half the Ship that they (not to mention most of the world's Christians) are going to go to Hell now, Jamat?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
If my faith is in a Christ who is not God, I am not saved. If my faith is in a God who became my sin and died for me, I am.

---

quote:

---

If I define what Christ achieved on the cross

---

quote:

---

to be short of a full substitution for my sin, I cannot avoid responsibility for that sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And what was Calvin's view? Nick Tamen has suggested it wasn't PSA.

---

quote:

---

Mr Cheesy: Whilst Evangelicals might be prepared to go as far as to say that Other Atonement Theories Are Available, they often qualify that by saying that actually PSA is the only important one - and if you don't believe it then you're not a real Christian

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Mr Cheesy: Whilst Evangelicals might be prepared to go as far as to say that Other Atonement Theories Are Available, they often qualify that by saying that actually PSA is the only important one - and if you don't believe it then you're not a real Christian

---

In terms of theological analysis, it is only exegesis versus eisigesis. However, Christ is accessible to the simplest person who is incapable of formulating atonement theories if they can say "Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief," which in the end, I think, is all anyone does.

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel: Of course we all ultimately say, 'Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief,' Jamat.

Which makes a nonsense of your apparent claim that if people don't share your particular view of the atonement then they aren't saved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
My distinction was between the experience and the intellectualisation or exegetical explanation. Lots of us can know we are saved but few can tease out the theology. My beef, if I have one, is with the clever ones, say Chalke and co, who deliberately contradict what the scriptures teach because they find it unacceptable politically. Or alternatively, they are false teachers who are sent by Satan to cause Christians to stumble..the ones Paul warns Timothy about.

---

Yeah, or maybe it could be that your understanding of the bible is complete bollocks and Chalke has more Christian maturity than you'll ever aspire to.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
For Jamat and most people, a metaphor in the flesh, theatre, especially a life and death one, is ontological, is legalistic, is the Law from the Court of Heaven on down.

And therefore misses the point, the pivot, the example of incarnationality in the greatest story ever told, ever lived.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Jamat, I like you. I found you personally gracious in our marathon exchanges on the infamous CV thread of blessed memory. But really, you should know by now that those who don't share your views here have come to that position because they think you are wrong about what the Bible says, and that, conversely, they are convinced that their own views are more in alignment with what the scriptures actually say. To accuse people such as Chalkie in these terms:

quote:

---

deliberately contradict what the scriptures teach because they find it unacceptable politically. Or alternatively, they are false teachers who are sent by Satan to cause Christians to stumble..the ones Paul warns Timothy about.

---

is to break the ninth commandment, that is, to bear false witness. I respectfully suggest that this brings no honour to your cause, and, furthermore, that pretending an opponent holds views or motivations that they do not is disrespectful of them, and likely to get you branded as a loony.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
There's also a vein of anti-intellectualism going on there too ...

Steve Chalke isn't particularly 'intellectual'. He's a good communicator and good at what he does with the Oasis Trust, but he's certainly not a heavy-weight theologian, academic or intellectual.

Neither would he claim to be.

Besides, if scripture was so 'plain' on the issue, how come vast swathes of Christendom didn't come up with an evangelical understanding of PSA from the outset?

The fact is that PSA is an interpretation/attempt to understand the atonement just like all the other models are.

It was given particularly piquancy in a subset of Western Christianity as part of an evolutionary process that stretches from Augustine to Anselm to Aquinas to Calvin to Dort and to the 18th and 19th century evangelicals ... ultimately being enshrined by some/most evangelicals as THE definitive way of understanding the atonement during the 20th century ...

That isn't to say it's right, wrong, good bad or indifferent. But it is to acknowledge that there is a tradition at work here and that it doesn't simply tumble out of the pages of the NT ready-baked.

But Jamat - likeable and gracious as he undoubtedly is and can be - appears to favour a highly reductionist approach to these matters.

Steve Chalke disagrees with the 'plain meaning of scripture' - therefore Steve Chalke is a servant of Satan ...

Sure, it's possible to find RC and Orthodox people using similar rhetoric in relation to their particular emphases.

I seem to recall that an organisation called ISIS is currently going around causing mayhem by applying a similar logic to their own 'plain meaning' or their own particular scriptures ...



Of course, Jamat isn't going to go around beheading any body or hunting Steve Chalke down ...

But the fundamentalist impulse is similar - even if it doesn't lead to such nefarious results.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I haven't been contributing much to this thread, because Gamaliel, as he so often does, is putting all much better than I could. But two comments of my own.

First, the atonement is independent of us. We are saved because of what Jesus has done, not because we have the right belief about what he has done. That turns faith into a work.

What we are asked to do is to say, 'thank you'.

Second, I can see what you dislike, Mr Cheesy, about over personalising the message.

quote:

---

Jesus' atonement paying the price for your (singular) sin. It seems to me that most of the other theories are expressed in a form which isn't necessarily about "me" singular;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

It is a fundamental glory of the Christian message that even though there are millions of us, Jesus does indeed call each of us by name. The gospel is not addressed to the important people, Pope Francis, bishops, rulers, leaders of megachurches etc. Nor is it addressed to society, societies or nations. It is addressed to each one of us, where we are now, individually and personally. This matters. It must not be sneered at.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I'd certainly accept Mudfrog's point that evangelical hymnody and preaching/teaching is a lot broader in scope than its critics tend to make out.

But that's not the issue here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Oh, and is The One Atonement for the myriad civilizations in this galaxy alone too? Let alone the practically infinite ones in this one universe in the middle of infinity halfway between the eternities?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

As well as that we are usually conservative; if the Bible talks about our sins laid on him and the chastisement that brought us peace was laid on him, well that's what we believe.

To deny PSA, in the eyes of an evangelical, is to deny the interpretation of the Scriptures that we hold. You might have a different interpretation and that's fine; but you cannot tell a conservative that your interpretation is right and his is wrong. That's the basic position

But all that aside, this is the frustrating thing here:
As Gamaliel has pointed out, the critics do not allow for evangelicals to have a broader outlook on the atonement. They (the critics) have decided that they don't like PSA - for whatever reason, and some are honourable hermeneutic reasons, I grant) - and therefore evangelicals are also 'wrong'. And so intent on proving that evangelicals are wrong, they cannot allow any evangelical to have a 'correct' view on the atonement.

---

quote:

---

So much so, that when an evangelical comes online and says, 'but I believe in other theories as well as PSA' the retort is 'Ah, but you might describe yourself as 'evangelical' but you evidently can't be an Evangelical because by definition (in your eyes) a true Evangelical ONLY believes in PSA.'

---

quote:

---

And then, when I use a hymn like When I Survey the Wondrous Cross, the response is 'Oh but Isaac Watts wasn't Evangelical either, and in any case, when a true PSA-believing sings 'See from his head...' and 'love so amazing...demands my soul...' he's actually secretly crossing his fingers and shoehorning PSA into those words even though they have nothing to do with PSA!'

And then, to add insult to injury, the final salvo is 'yes, you might call yourself an evangelical, but a true PSA-placard-waving Evangelical would never recognise you as one, and some might say you're not even saved.'

---

quote:

---

All speaks of desperation to me.
You don't like PSA.
You don't like Evangelicals.
You can't separate the two things and therefore anyone who doesn't think like your stereotype of an Evangelical (or an evangelical) evidently can't be an evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Oh, and is The One Atonement for the myriad civilizations in this galaxy alone too? Let alone the practically infinite ones in this one universe in the middle of infinity halfway between the eternities?

---

Surely that depends if their non-human life forms experienced a Fall.

---

What's that?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, thanks for the acknowledgement, Mudfrog but I'm afraid you are still overlooking some of the points I was making.

Yes, I well understand why evangelicals stress PSA. I've spent the greater part of my life within evangelicalism. I know it backwards. I know it inside out.

I certainly wasn't suggesting you weren't a 'proper' evangelical - FWIW I think you most definitely are.

All I was saying was that to SOME ... I will spell that out S.O.M.E. Big E, Big R, Big Pains In The Neck Reformed Evangelicals wouldn't consider you to be a proper Evangelical (Big E) like they are.

Why not?

Because you are Arminian for a kick-off and for that particular brand of evangelical, Arminians aren't true Evangelicals like they are. They might be small e evangelical, they are certainly Christians (although not in the view of some hyper-hyper extreme Calvinists), but they are not Big E Evangelicals.

That's all.

That.is.all.

I wasn't making a value-judgement on your evangelicalism. I wasn't making a value judgement on evangelicalism per se.

I was simply making the point that to certain - admittedly fairly rare - Hyper-Calvinists you wouldn't qualify as an Evangelical. You'd certainly qualify as an evangelical but not an Evangelical.

Notice what I did there? Do you have capital letters on your keyboard?



The point I was making about Isaac Watts was a different one. Yes, evangelicals (and Evangelicals) do draw on hymnody from the broader Christian tradition - of course they do.

But in practice - and I'm not pointing a finger at you here necessarily - they tend to interpret any reference to the atonement in PSA terms.

I'm being very broad-brush there ...

But I've known evangelicals (and Evangelicals) read their own favoured doctrines into the writings of the Fathers, for instance - ignoring whatever comments those same Fathers might make that don't fit their neat evangelical schema.

As was said further up thread, by Jolly Jape I think (I've not checked), there were verses cited on the earlier PSA thread that were given an evangelical/PSA interpretation when they didn't necessarily carry such connotations at all - or could be interpreted differently without doing violence to the text.

I'm not commenting here on the rights/wrongs, good, bad and indifferent qualities of a PSA interpretation but I am making the point that most evangelicals are highly reluctant to question or abandon PSA because they feel their entire salvation and soteriological schema is threatened if they let go of it ...

They assume that their sins can't possibly be forgiven without it.

So it's a big deal.

I get that.

The issue is whether it's a valid concern or not.
 

---

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Gam:

quote:

---

Meanwhile​, I was intrigued by Fletcher Christian's comment that he comes across PSA in circles other than evangelical ones.

Which circles are those, Fletcher?

Surely not the RCs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:

Now to answer the quoted questions. I have heard many RC's espouse it, believe it or not. It strikes me as a very Protestant doctrine, but I guess the influence on this island is such that there may be a certain inevitability about that. I've come across it in many of the Reformed churches (with a capital R) which would not be 'evangelical' in the traditional sense, in many conservative and traditional denominations (which again, wouldn't necessarily be 'evangelical'), in episcopalian anglo-catholic circles (this might seem unusual, but if you have a concept of God as wholly other and an emphasis on holiness it is perhaps not that surprising) and I've heard a somewhat convoluted form of it among some Orthodox but with a high degree of nuance and looseness that isn't present in the forms we would find in the west. Now, not all of those mentioned above hold fast to it as the litmus test for Christian belonging and orthodoxy (or 'necessary for salvation' or whatever way you wish to phrase it), but nevertheless that is my experience in what I've heard preached and through engaged discussion. It is of course possible to say they are wrongly set within their own tradition, but there it is.

---

quote:

---

Interesting regarding Anglo-Catholics - I suppose the difficulty there is that it would appear to contradict various other teachings in particular the notion of baptism as a sacrament. I wonder how they get around that.

---

quote:

---

I might be wrong, but I take from your explanation that people seem to be using PSA-type concepts in a fairly loose way ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I still can't get my head around the idea that one can be Reformed but not Evangelical. In my experience the most conservative Evangelicals like to call themselves Reformed - but then maybe that just shows that I've not been around Reformed-but-not-Evangelicals, whoever they are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I still can't get my head around the idea that one can be Reformed but not Evangelical. In my experience the most conservative Evangelicals like to call themselves Reformed - but then maybe that just shows that I've not been around Reformed-but-not-Evangelicals, whoever they are.

---

quote:

---

Again, part of the problem is understanding exactly what is an Evangelical and what people mean when they use (or don't use) the term.

---

This. Very much this. And as part of this challenge, it strikes me that there is a real pond difference in what is meant by the term.
 

---

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Leprechaun - I've tried to send you a Private Message about the tangent of women being able to lead UCCF CUs, but your box is full. I would be grateful if you could give me more information about this, either here, or through private messages. Many thanks, RA
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Dafyd, 'God and Jesus ...'?

Don't you mean 'God the Father and Jesus'?

Also, where's the Holy Spirit in there?

Here we see another feature of the Reformed tradition as it attenuated over time ... a tendency to Binitarianism and Arianism ...



Seriously, it's not accident that many Reformed became Unitarian ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I wouldn't over-emphasise the Pond Difference, Nick.

Your post makes absolute sense to me and I've always lived on this side of the Pond.

No disrespect to mr cheesy, but I suspect he's mostly been exposed to the Reformed tradition in its Evangelical form rather than in its broader guises ...
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suggest that the explanations given above by Lep and Jamat together answer the question asked in the OP. Whilst Evangelicals might be prepared to go as far as to say that Other Atonement Theories Are Available, they often qualify that by saying that actually PSA is the only important one - and if you don't believe it then you're not a real Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Thinking about it, I'm not sure you'd find many Free Church of Scotland or more full-on Calvinists at Spring Harvest these days. And some might find the UCCF and university CU's a bit too 'liberal' for their liking.

In fact, anyone who is in a different setting to themselves would be regarded as compromised to some degree or other ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
My impression is that "Evangelical" in the USA is more-or-less what we'd describe in the UK as FIEC style Evangelicals here. In the UK we have a messy middle space - which I'd still describe as Evangelical - which cuts across various denominations. I don't think that exists in quite the same way in the USA, perhaps because other denominations have retained distinctiveness and because there are other options available eg Mennonites.

But then I've always been confused by terms - the conservative Evangelicals I know seem to have very good relations with at least some who are described as Reformed (is the Free Church of Scotland Evangelical?).

And I assumed that less conservative British Presbyterians might associate with other Evangelicals in various parachurch organisations such as University Christian Unions, the Evangelical Alliance, Spring Harvest and so on. I must be wrong about that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
My distinction was between the experience and the intellectualisation or exegetical explanation. Lots of us can know we are saved but few can tease out the theology. My beef, if I have one, is with the clever ones, say Chalke and co, who deliberately contradict what the scriptures teach because they find it unacceptable politically. Or alternatively, they are false teachers who are sent by Satan to cause Christians to stumble..the ones Paul warns Timothy about.

---

Yeah, or maybe it could be that your understanding of the bible is complete bollocks and Chalke has more Christian maturity than you'll ever aspire to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Oh, but perhaps Jesus did not REALLY say this in Matt 20:28

" just as the son of man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, that could suit the Ransom Theory as well as PSA ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Yet it sometimes seems as though PSA is being used to mean any substitutionary model.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Thanks, but can you explain how that differs from Reformed, Dafyd?

I've seen lots of claims about the origins of the novel. I rather like the idea that it developed from Don Quixote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Didn't I say where I thought the marks that distinguish evangelicalism from other varieties of Reformed Christianity lay? Activism, emotionalism, assurance? It is a branch of Reformed thought (though Wesley at least had Moravian influence).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

And then, when I use a hymn like When I Survey the Wondrous Cross, the response is 'Oh but Isaac Watts wasn't Evangelical either, and in any case, when a true PSA-believing sings 'See from his head...' and 'love so amazing...demands my soul...' he's actually secretly crossing his fingers and shoehorning PSA into those words even though they have nothing to do with PSA!'

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Good insights, Nick Tamen.

I think you're onto something. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So do I.

I also think that the 'cosmic child abuse' accusation smacks of Arianism. I'm less sure whether it's those who make the accusation who are the unwitting Arians, or whether it's the language that some people use to describe their understanding of what happened at the cross that suggests a less than full appreciation of the Trinity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Oh, but perhaps Jesus did not REALLY say this in Matt 20:28

" just as the son of man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, that could suit the Ransom Theory as well as PSA ...

---

Actually, I would say it suits the Ransom model much, much better than it suits PSA. I don't see it as support for PSA at all. Where's the penal aspect in it?

Which raises another issue: Just as there can be some fuzziness in exactly what is meant by "Evangelical," I sometimes think there is a lack of precision in the use of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. There is more than one model of Substitutionary Atonement; Indeed, most atonement models, with the exception of the moral influence model, are substitutionary in some respect. PSA specifically involves an understanding that punishment is necessary to satisfy divine justice, hence the need for the qualifier "Penal." Yet it sometimes seems as though PSA is being used to mean any substitutionary model.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Jamat, I like you. I found you personally gracious in our marathon exchanges on the infamous CV thread of blessed memory. But really, you should know by now that those who don't share your views here have come to that position because they think you are wrong about what the Bible says, and that, conversely, they are convinced that their own views are more in alignment with what the scriptures actually say. To accuse people such as Chalkie in these terms:

quote:

---

deliberately contradict what the scriptures teach because they find it unacceptable politically. Or alternatively, they are false teachers who are sent by Satan to cause Christians to stumble..the ones Paul warns Timothy about.

---

is to break the ninth commandment, that is, to bear false witness. I respectfully suggest that this brings no honour to your cause, and, furthermore, that pretending an opponent holds views or motivations that they do not is disrespectful of them, and likely to get you branded as a loony.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can see the attraction of PSA in the way John Stott expresses it - as God 'assuming' our guilt, sin and shame into himself and nullifying it. That is an attractive view and whilst it might be hair-splitting on my part, a preferable one to the very grotesque portrayals of PSA we find in much popular evangelism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Leprechaun - I've tried to send you a Private Message about the tangent of women being able to lead UCCF CUs, but your box is full. I would be grateful if you could give me more information about this, either here, or through private messages. Many thanks, RA

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the Sydney Anglicans - sure, I don't doubt that they present PSA that way.

I'm sure the Moore College and Sydney hyper-Calvinist Anglicans would claim that their presentation doesn't fall into that category either - even though that's the impression they certainly give to everyone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... it's the idea that 'without the shedding of blood' there is no forgiveness.

It's the idea that God's wrath needs to be appeased/propitiated in order for the atonement to a full and complete one.

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel: That's the way the argument runs and it's fuelled and propelled by its own interior logic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Jamat, this is all very well, it is a good description as to what the atonement does, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with PSA. It applies to any objective, ontologically explanation of the "Paschal event", or, indeed, any account of the incarnation. Nobody on here, maybe apart from Martin, is denying the need for an objective atonement that, in some concrete way, alters the, if you like,course of history. But you make no case that that may be brought about only by penal means, especially not from Romans. In fact, Paul goes out of his way to dismiss the "justice" argument in Romans 3 vvs 25-26.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
You're not going to find me arguing with you about that, Martin. But the Paschal event is where that all meets its focus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
You're not going to find me arguing with you about that, Martin. But the Paschal event is where that all meets its focus.

---

Ah go on Jolly Jape.

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel: Whilst I respect the PSA position and those who hold tightly to it, I can see that it doesn't tick all the boxes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Gamaliel: Whilst I respect the PSA position and those who hold tightly to it, I can see that it doesn't tick all the boxes

---

But this just shows that you don't have a clue what is at stake. You simply CANNOT have regeneration and all its benefits UNLESS Jesus was a penal substitute. It is NOT about preferences, or hermeneutics and as for the Orthodox they are as irrelevant as ever the Catholics were. It is about what scripture objectively states about what the Christ must do, not only in the NT but also in Is 53 and elsewhere. Jesus' Emmaus Rd conversation was all bout the total necessity of the crucifixion to effect salvation. PSA is not a foible of theologians, amongst competing models. It is the grand design of Biblical strategy. The sort of total tripe voiced about it as one of many ideas created by the clever clogs theologians is like a spectator's view of the skills of a loose head prop in a rugby scrum. It is uninformed because the real understanding is so far from the spectator's experience of the pressures involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
You simply CANNOT have regeneration and all its benefits UNLESS Jesus was a penal substitute.

---

quote:

---

If we are going to bring personality types into it - Personality Type X is going to be naturally inclined towards PSA, Personality Type Y isn't ... then it's hard to see how we can avoid value judgements of some kind.
Favours PSA? = authoritarian.
Doesn't favour PSA? = non-authoritarian.
I don't think it plays out as neatly as that.

---

quote:

---

This just shows that you [Gamaliel] don't have a clue what is at stake. You simply CANNOT have regeneration and all its benefits UNLESS Jesus was a penal substitute. It is NOT about preferences, or hermeneutics and as for the Orthodox they are as irrelevant as ever the Catholics were. It is about what scripture objectively states about what the Christ must do, not only in the NT but also in Is 53 and elsewhere. Jesus' Emmaus Rd conversation was all bout the total necessity of the crucifixion to effect salvation. PSA is not a foible of theologians, amongst competing models. It is the grand design of Biblical strategy. The sort of total tripe voiced about it as one of many ideas created by the clever clogs theologians is like a spectator's view of the skills of a loose head prop in a rugby scrum. It is uninformed because the real understanding is so far from the spectator's experience of the pressures involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
You simply CANNOT have regeneration and all its benefits UNLESS Jesus was a penal substitute.

---

quote:

---

Jesus' Emmaus Rd conversation was all bout the total necessity of the crucifixion to effect salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Leprechaun - I've tried to send you a Private Message about the tangent of women being able to lead UCCF CUs, but your box is full. I would be grateful if you could give me more information about this, either here, or through private messages. Many thanks, RA

---

I have tried to reply to your PM, but your box os now full.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think that's taking things too far, mr cheesy.

I'd suggest that PSA is certainly orthodox within the context of small-o orthodox Western Christianity. It's one of several complementary models within that context as Mudfrog maintains. Historically, he's right as reformed (small r) and Reformed Christianity allows scope for development and variety in doctrinal understandings.

---

quote:

---

Ok, so do Rome and the Orthodox, but the process there takes a lot, lot longer in each case ...

So, from within a Western Christian and specifically Protestant evangelical perspective, PSA is certainly orthodox.

On what grounds and on what criteria are you suggesting it isn't?

---

quote:

---

Who decides?

I can understand the Orthodox considering it a heterodox - or even heretical - position as it neither accords with their understanding of the scriptures or Tradition.

But I can't understand why a Protestant might regard PSA as beyond the pale of what is doctrinally orthodox or not. The strongest thing they might say is, 'I don't like PSA and prefer to see the atonement in terms of X, Y or Z model ...'

---

quote:

---

Or else give a nod to all available models but not plump for any one of them in particular - which is what C S Lewis seems to have done.

---

quote:

---

This begs the question to me of what constitutes a lack of small o orthodoxy in a Western Christian context - specifically a Protestant one?

Is it the Creeds? Is it 'The plain-meaning of scripture' (if such a thing were possible)? Is it my personal preference or opinion?

What is it? Who decides?

You? me? Jamat?

---

quote:

---

Jolly Jape: The whole rationale for PSA depends on the proposition that forgiveness can only be realised if someone is punished for the sin

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Jolly Jape: The whole rationale for PSA depends on the proposition that forgiveness can only be realised if someone is punished for the sin

---

No, the rationale is that GOD found a solution to the justice vs mercy problem. Without justice, God's character is compromised. Without mercy, his love is. The punishment was taken by God himself in order that he can show mercy. IOW it is not that 'someone' needed to be punished, it was that we all did and God, in Christ, took the punishment in our place. The issue hardly anyone here gets, is that the wages of sin are and remain DEATH. Without what Christ did on the cross we are LOST. My main point which you virtually all reject is that scripture, teaches this from the start so I am done with the discussion. Anyone remotely interested might like to google: 'Pierced for Our Transgressions' by Steve Jeffrey, Mike Ovey, Andrew Sach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue hardly anyone here gets, is that the wages of sin are and remain DEATH.

---

quote:

---

Without what Christ did on the cross we are LOST.

---

quote:

---

My main point which you virtually all reject is that scripture, teaches this from the start. . .

---

quote:

---

. . . so I am done with the discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
FWIW, my main difficulty with PSA is that it appears to lock God into some kind of moral obligation that is bigger than He is ... were such a thing possible.

God can't possibly forgive unconditionally. He has to receive satisfaction ... he has to have blood ...

One could argue that the atonement turns that kind of Bronze Age concept on its head, that by suffering an undignified and bloody death, Christ was showing that such sacrifices were defunct and unnecessary ... but again, that's a pretty convoluted argument.

But then, so are any arguments about this, that or the other aspect of the atonement ...

It's rather like my issue with Calvinism - as it is popularly portrayed. Because it effectively paints God into a corner where he becomes trapped and subject by his own sovereignty ...

'Look guys, I would really, really like to predestine you to eternal bliss too, just like those others - but I'm afraid I can't ... it's nothing personal ... but you see, my hands are tied ... I've got this sovereignty thing to contend with ...'

Sure, I know that's a hideous caricature of the Reformed position but no more hideous and no more grotesque than some of the stuff the hyper-Calvinists come out with.

Not that there's a competition to see which Christian tradition can up with the most grotesque 'takes' on things ... we'd all get prizes for that somewhere or other along the line ...

I suppose where I'm at now is that whilst I respect the PSA position and those who hold tightly to it, I can see that it doesn't tick all the boxes - no one atonement model does - and raises additional questions and difficulties to those it apparently resolves.

Which is why I'm inclined, rather like C S Lewis, not to fillet the atonement up into bite-size chunks but to regard it as part of a continuum of the entire 'Christ event' - alongside and in conjunction with all elements - the Incarnation, Christ's exemplary life, his moral teachings, his miracles, parables, his atoning death and resurrection, his ascension and his continuing intercession for us, his second advent and coming again in glory ...

---

quote:

---

For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that's Moses, not Jesus. I haven't heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.

"Blessed are the merciful" in a courtroom? "Blessed are the peacemakers" in the Pentagon?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I believe in Jesus Christ: his life, death and resurrection.

That's what makes me a Christian. Not a belief in some half-baked theology cooked up in the last few hundred years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's what constitutes discussion on Planet Jamat, Nick.

But he's gone. Our attempts to engage are in vain. Perhaps they always wete. Right from the outset. As in scripture ...

---

quote:

---

Nick Tamen: What has been questioned is the idea that PSA—not just any theory of substitutionary atonement, but specifically penal substitutionary atonement—definitively and completely explains how what Jesus did on the cross saves us from being lost

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Jamat, not wanting to rerun the CV thread, but if your whole soteriology is based on a single verse from Isaiah 53, a verse that is not backed up anywhere else in scripture, and your authority is the theological bollocks (to use Mr Cheesy's eloquent phrase) pedalled by Messrs Ovey and co, forgive us for being underwhelmed. Yes, we inherit the benefits of eternal life because we are adopted by the Father. No, that has nothing whatsoever to do with Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and you have not presented any evidence to even suggest that it has. The reason for this is that the evidence does not exist, at least, not in the Bible. If you think it does, then present it. Make your case. I challenge you! The fact that you continue to assert something is not, by the way, evidence as it is normally understood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
The point is later reinforced by Paul, 1Cor5:7 and Peter, 1Peter 1:18,19. QED

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:


It is not me, Mr Cheesy, who has left orthodox evangelicalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
IOW it is not that 'someone' needed to be punished, it was that we all did and God, in Christ, took the punishment in our place. The issue hardly anyone here gets, is that the wages of sin are and remain DEATH.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I believe in Jesus Christ: his life, death and resurrection.

That's what makes me a Christian. Not a belief in some half-baked theology cooked up in the last few hundred years.

---

No, what makes you a Christian is what makes you an adopted son of God. What does that is the blood atonement.

The devil believes in Jesus Christ, the life, death and resurrection.

---

What did Jesus say makes one a follower of Him? I.e. a Christian?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
To be fair to Jamat, mr cheesy, your view does not represent 'orthodox evangelicalism' as traditionally understood within evangelical circles overall.

Sure, evangelicalism is messy and difficult to pin-down and define, but the kind of 'Crucicentrism' identified by Bebbington as one of its 'Quadrilaterals' does tend to be seen in PSA terms - by and large.

Sure, there are some from within the evangelical fold who have challenged or modified that 'received' understanding - and you've named a few of them.

However, many evangelicals wouldn't regard those characters as being 'true' evangelicals at all - certainly not Chalke - and Rob Bell is certainly seen as beyond the pale by many full-on Big E Evangelicals ...

But I'm probably not telling you something you don't know already.

What some Big E Evangelicals don't appear to be aware of, however, is that their position is in itself a 'tradition' ... just as all the other Christian traditions are.

Of course, those who are more 'ecumenical' in outlook are fully aware of that but in my experience, in practice, many evangelicals and Evangelicals seem to think that everyone else is part of a 'tradition' but that they themselves miraculously elide such a thing and are only going by 'the plain meaning of scripture' ...

Which, as we all know, is so incontrovertibly obvious that there must be something wrong with you if you don't see things the same way ...



So, something like 'He Was Pierced For Our Transgressions' isn't informed or shaped by its particular context or tradition but simply an exposition of Holy Writ.

It wouldn't occur to some of these people that their views have been shaped by a particular interpretative framework, just as everyone else's has been.
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
I'm just a little baffled by something in this whole discussion. I understand that it focuses on one particular explanation of what atonement is about.

However, it's not as if atonement is exactly a new concept. For all the time and energy spent in the OT discussing the various sacrifices for sin, almost all of them were for inadvertent, minor occasions of sin. The big stuff had to wait for the annual Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). If you want to know what the OT foreshadowing of the atonement achieved by Jesus means, then how can you avoid discussion of what went on there?
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair to Jamat, mr cheesy, your view does not represent 'orthodox evangelicalism' as traditionally understood within evangelical circles overall.

Sure, evangelicalism is messy and difficult to pin-down and define, but the kind of 'Crucicentrism' identified by Bebbington as one of its 'Quadrilaterals' does tend to be seen in PSA terms - by and large.

---

quote:

---

Sure, there are some from within the evangelical fold who have challenged or modified that 'received' understanding - and you've named a few of them.

However, many evangelicals wouldn't regard those characters as being 'true' evangelicals at all - certainly not Chalke - and Rob Bell is certainly seen as beyond the pale by many full-on Big E Evangelicals ...

---

quote:

---

Again, that's no great surprise.

But I'm probably not telling you something you don't know already.

What some Big E Evangelicals don't appear to be aware of, however, is that their position is in itself a 'tradition' ... just as all the other Christian traditions are.

Of course, those who are more 'ecumenical' in outlook are fully aware of that but in my experience, in practice, many evangelicals and Evangelicals seem to think that everyone else is part of a 'tradition' but that they themselves miraculously elide such a thing and are only going by 'the plain meaning of scripture' ...

---

quote:

---

.......... and Rob Bell is certainly seen as beyond the pale by many full-on Big E Evangelicals

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Rob Bell

quote:

---

.......... and Rob Bell is certainly seen as beyond the pale by many full-on Big E Evangelicals

---

I must confess I'm surprised to learn Rob Bell was ever regarded as an Evangelical. What limited exposure I've had with him and his work suggested to me he was a nice guy, heart in the right place, means well, but lacks serious intellectual rigour: a bit milk and water, a sort of soft-centred popular preacher- but, perhaps, none the worse for that!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Bell studied at both Fuller and Wheaton - both evangelical seminaries. He certainly started out within the broadly evangelical fold.

---

quote:

---

I'm often quite slap-dash in my posts. I ought to post less and more pertinently.

---

How about: "post less and pertinently more."?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Doh!

Well, yes, that ...
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: I agree. However, if DEATH is the punishment for sin, and Christ took that punishment in our place - that is, instead of us - then why do we still die?

Surely the whole point of penal substitution is that the person who would originally have received the punishment no longer does? If we still receive the wages of sin - which we do - then Christ cannot have died instead of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I think that's spot-on, Nick Tamen. Which is why Bell is popular in some 'emerging' and 'post-evangelical circles', because they are reacting to particular forms of hard-line (mostly US-style) evangelicalism..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
I wonder why atonement needs a theory? What theory, for example, is needed to explain the reconciliation of the prodigal to his father? If we accept that God desires humanity to be reconciled to him, might we not better ask what experience(s) individuals need to seek reconciliation with God?

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel: It wouldn't occur to some of these people that their views have been shaped by a particular interpretative framework, just as everyone else's has been

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK Jamat, lets deal with these one at a time.

Exodus 12:13. Who is being punished. The Egyptians, for sure. But that is hardly redemptive. God's wrath was not appeased, it was fully played out. The redemptive part is the blood painted around the lintels, which is a sign of covenant commitment; sealed in blood, certainly, but we don't regard the lambs as being punished. It's not a penal thing, if anything it is sacrifice. Sacrifice does not equal penal. Not all death is penal.

1 Cor 5:7. This is a reference back to the Exodus. Paul explicitly makes the point that Christ's death is a sacrifice, like that of the lambs. Again, sacrifice does not equal penal. Not all death is penal.

1 Peter 1:18-19. Again, sacrifice, with an added dollop of ransom. No indication that Christ was punished, indeed, as in your other quotations, no mention of punishment at all. Ransom/redemption does not equal penal. Not all death is penal.

For someone who purports to take the scriptures so seriously, you seem to have little interest in what they actually say, rather than what the authors of Pierced For Our Transgressions say they say. NOT ALL DEATH IS PENAL!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I quite like the Barrabas analogy. Imagine Barrabus, now freed viewing the crucifixion. Would he not say, that fellow up there has taken my place and paid my penalty? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Imagine Barrabus, now freed viewing the crucifixion. Would he not say, that fellow up there has taken my place and paid my penalty?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
FWIW Jamat, I do regard the scriptures as inspired, but I'm not a fundamentalist.

I also accept that there are metanarratives - and I'd suggest that there are closer links between a 'pre-modern' approach and a 'post-modern' approach in some ways than there are between both of those and a 'modernist' approach - which is what some forms of evangelicalism effectively are.

If I've been patronising, I do apologise.

But I'm afraid I can't be doing with fundamentalist approaches - be they fundamentalist atheist, fundamentalist evangelical or fundamentalist Catholic - although I am certainly quite conservative theologically speaking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Pretty,...
I'm not sure what his actual thoughts would have been, I suspect not quite taken my place (that would require more), but a definite that could have been me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
We do not die spiritually but our physical frame still exists in a fallen world and is the casing of our redeemed personality.

---

quote:

---

Regarding the atonement and its completeness, we do not gain all of its benefits in the here and now.

---

quote:

---

A believer's physical death is not the same as an unbeliever's. The believer who dies is absent from the body present with the Lord.

---

quote:

---

I think the point of penal substitution, which is only a descriptor of a theological idea, is that we deserved condemnation from God because of our evil actions that spring from our flawed nature, but that we instead are redeemed. The justice element that demanded our condemnation has been dealt with by the crucifixion of Jesus, the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. It was all set in place and anticipated by God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
If there was a punishment due us, then did God overlook it? If so then he compromised his righteousness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
We do not die spiritually but our physical frame still exists in a fallen world and is the casing of our redeemed personality.

---

I reject this sort of Dualism. My body is not merely a flawed shell or vehicle for my true self, my body is my true self.

quote:

---

Regarding the atonement and its completeness, we do not gain all of its benefits in the here and now.

---

No, we gain them when our own resurrection occurs at the end of time.

quote:

---

A believer's physical death is not the same as an unbeliever's. The believer who dies is absent from the body present with the Lord.

---

Wait, what? Are you saying we don't really die because we're not really there when it happens?

quote:

---

I think the point of penal substitution, which is only a descriptor of a theological idea, is that we deserved condemnation from God because of our evil actions that spring from our flawed nature, but that we instead are redeemed. The justice element that demanded our condemnation has been dealt with by the crucifixion of Jesus, the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. It was all set in place and anticipated by God.

---

The thing is, I don't agree that justice demands a violent punishment for the guilty. Christ's death and resurrection redeemed us by mitigating our punishment, not by transferring it.

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: I don't agree that justice demands a violent punishment for the guilty. Christ's death and resurrection redeemed us by mitigating our punishment, not by transferring

---

quote:

---

I don't think mystery is involved rather the crucifixion and its outworkings are revelations of God's ongoing attempt to build a bridge with us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
If there was a punishment due us, then did God overlook it? If so then he compromised his righteousness.

---

No he didn't.

This is exactly the point of disagreement I have with you, as I mentioned in an earlier post - there is nothing wrong - i.e. compromising of righteousness - about forgiveness. Quite the opposite, indeed, Jesus repeatedly exhorts us to do it all the time!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Jamat

quote:

---

I don't think mystery is involved rather the crucifixion and its outworkings are revelations of God's ongoing attempt to build a bridge with us.

---

Couldn't agree more, but doesn't prove your theory, or any other theory, metaphor or whatever, of how the atonement works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
But I don't know how it works, only that it does. Theory does not seem the right word. Maybe model is better. One can only reason by analogy. The NT writers also do this as in Paul, 1Cor5:7, 'Christ, our Passover, sacrificed for us'.

---

quote:

---

Nick Tamen: is why many of us have trouble with the position that penal substitutionary atonement fully and completely explains how it works

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
If Christ mitigated but did not transfer then does one need to understand that merely as a supernatural act, a mystery, or is there a 'mechanism'?

---

quote:

---

You are rejecting sacrifice, substitution and ransom and any concept of punishment.

---

quote:

---

Personally, I don't think mystery is involved rather the crucifixion and its outworkings are revelations of God's ongoing attempt to build a bridge with us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Karl, the big issue at the heart of this is whether God can just forgive as we are enjoined to forgive each other?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Nick Tamen: is why many of us have trouble with the position that penal substitutionary atonement fully and completely explains how it works

---

As far as I know, no one claims PSA as a complete explanation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Nick Tamen: What has been questioned is the idea that PSA—not just any theory of substitutionary atonement, but specifically penal substitutionary atonement—definitively and completely explains how what Jesus did on the cross saves us from being lost

---

You have none of the benefits that you say you agree about if it does not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Nick Tamen: is why many of us have trouble with the position that penal substitutionary atonement fully and completely explains how it works

---

As far as I know, no one claims PSA as a complete explanation. It sits happily with ransom, and CV. Most of the issue occurs when people want to claim PSA is unbiblical. It is the PSA deniers that created the controversy. My own position I am not sure of not being a theologian but the objection that PSA is immoral or misrepresentative of a loving God is rooted in modern conceptions and definitions. All I would assert is that it makes sense in terms of Christian doctrine and that attempts to discredit it as a scriptural doctrine by folk like CH Dodd, have been debunked.

---

quote:

---

Greek scholars would be able to enlighten us here, but it's my understanding that there is some debate among them whether the apostle Paul is referring to 'propitiation' or 'expiation' in Romans 3:25.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
The idea of 'karma' contains the concept of punishment as well as reward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
People are attracted to PSA as it is so easy. It's from the childhood of humanity and appeals to our inner child. Our frightened, violent, superstitious, irrational, ignorant, weak inner child.

---

Sometimes, good sir, you really say something profound. Most of the time, you're off your rocker, but this time...thanks, Martin!
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

I read that to mean "You have none of the benefits you say you agree about if it [PSA] does not definitively and completely explain how what Jesus did on the cross saves us from being lost."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

I read that to mean "You have none of the benefits you say you agree about if it [PSA] does not definitively and completely explain how what Jesus did on the cross saves us from being lost."

---

Oversimplification perhaps on my part. You can certainly have the benefits without the cognitive grasp of how it all works. However IF you cognitively consider that Jesus did NOT die in our place as a substitute in place of us human sinners, one wonders why you would bother with the whole deal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The5thMary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
People are attracted to PSA as it is so easy. It's from the childhood of humanity and appeals to our inner child. Our frightened, violent, superstitious, irrational, ignorant, weak inner child.

---

Sometimes, good sir, you really say something profound. Most of the time, you're off your rocker, but this time...thanks, Martin!

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel: Thing is, Jamat, all you are telling us is that you find it difficult to conceive of a way of being a devout Christian without sharing your particular 'take' on the atonement

---

quote:

---

Nick Tamen: Again, you seem to be missing what I said.

---

quote:

---

What I am saying is that you do not have a gospel unless you have sin sorted and that cannot happen without Jesus sorting it.

---

quote:

---

What is yours pray tell? If it is 'another' gospel, ( as in one Paul did not preach), of which there are many, then it will not save, will it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Jamat

quote:

---

What I am saying is that you do not have a gospel unless you have sin sorted and that cannot happen without Jesus sorting it.

---

I don't think that is in dispute. It does not mean, however, that PSA is the only way of understanding and addressing the problem.

Jamat

quote:

---

What is yours pray tell? If it is 'another' gospel, ( as in one Paul did not preach), of which there are many, then it will not save, will it?

---

Let the apostle bare witness: " what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice." (Phil 1:18)

******************************

What it seems to me PSA supporters are trying to say is that its critics, especially liberals, are not taking the problem of evil and sin, its corrosive consequences for individuals and society, as seriously as it deserves. So radically heinous is the impact of sin that it requires to be judged by God for what it is and the severest penalty imposed to fit the crime. It cannot be dismissed with a waive of the hand as a minor infraction of a social convention. It cannot be resolved with a community service order. Though I'm far from convinced by PSA I think its supporters are flagging an issue that needs to be properly recognised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


I can understand what a marvellous example the cross is, but then, for millions of years birds have been a marvellous example of flying.

Their example of flapping never helped anyone to actually fly though did it?

---

quote:

---

... the atonement is fully explained by the fact that Jesus death created both a sacrifice as in the Passover and a substitute as in his statement at the last supper "this is my body broken for you" which created a possibility for human sin to be forgiven and sin 'passed' over ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


I can understand what a marvellous example the cross is, but then, for millions of years birds have been a marvellous example of flying.

Their example of flapping never helped anyone to actually fly though did it?

---

Didn't it? I'd have thought nature was frequently used as an example in various technical and engineering fields.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
When was the last time you rode in a plane with flapping wings?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
When was the last time you rode in a plane with flapping wings?

---

I see. So you're going to use some facet of nature which isn't used to prove a point even though various other parts of nature clearly have been the inspiration for various kinds of technology.

---

I couldn't give a stuff about 'other parts of nature.' I was simply using a little illustration to say that just watching a bird fly doesn't help you actually to fly yourself.

Example is a great thing but it doesn't actually give me the ability to do the things exampled in the lives of others.

What does the atonement actually DO in my life other tan give me an example of how loving God is?
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Kwesi, I see exactly where you are coming from, and I can appreciate it. In my Salvationist tradition we also say quite a lot about the healing power of the cross. Our songs are full of it and our teaching talks about the healing of the soul.

Paul in Romans says that he doesn't understand himself at all. (Why he can't stop sinning).
The Psalmist tells us that God knows our hearts, that we are dust, he understands our constitution, as ne version puts it.

It seems to me that we have a sinful nature - in rebellion before God.
We also have a broken nature in need of healing - and often our actions betray the existence of 'sin-sick soul'.

Through the cross there is healing of the diseased nature so that the symptoms of that disease, our wrongful actions, are no longer inevitable.

We are forgiven of the acts - some through weakness, negligence and even our own deliberate fault - and then the heart is cleansed by 'the balm in Gilead that can heal the sin-sick soul.'


 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I couldn't give a stuff about 'other parts of nature.' I was simply using a little illustration to say that just watching a bird fly doesn't help you actually to fly yourself.

---

quote:

---

Example is a great thing but it doesn't actually give me the ability to do the things exampled in the lives of others.

---

quote:

---

What does the atonement actually DO in my life other tan give me an example of how loving God is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I couldn't give a stuff about 'other parts of nature.' I was simply using a little illustration to say that just watching a bird fly doesn't help you actually to fly yourself.

---

It's nonsense. Its a stupid illustration that doesn't even stand up on its own terms, and when challenged you munter something about flapping. Newsflash: not all birds flap.

quote:

---

Example is a great thing but it doesn't actually give me the ability to do the things exampled in the lives of others.

---

On this we can agree. We're not able to be perfect, but I'm not sure taking the atonement as an example fails because we're not perfect.

quote:

---

What does the atonement actually DO in my life other tan give me an example of how loving God is?

---

Mmm. I think you can only really ask this from your Wesleyan position which has very defined ways to understand it. Not everyone thinks like you do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
OK, let me put it another way:
How does moral influence actually forgive my sins?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


For many people 'it is enough that Jesus died and that he died for me'; but we cannot undo 2000 years of questioning and shrug our shoulders and say 'it doesn't matter how his death justifies, it just does.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
What I am saying is that you do not have a
What it seems to me PSA supporters are trying to say is that its critics, especially liberals, are not taking the problem of evil and sin, its corrosive consequences for individuals and society, as seriously as it deserves. So radically heinous is the impact of sin that it requires to be judged by God for what it is and the severest penalty imposed to fit the crime. It cannot be dismissed with a waive of the hand as a minor infraction of a social convention. It cannot be resolved with a community service order. Though I'm far from convinced by PSA I think its supporters are flagging an issue that needs to be properly recognised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What I would like to ask of all the theories is how does each one actually affect me, benefit me, 'do something' for me?

---

quote:

---

Whch is all, of course, why we have theories and metaphors; because we do want to know 'how'. It really isn't sufficient merely to say, 'we don't know, it just does'.

---

quote:

---

We want to know how does Jesus forgive? How does the cross cleanse? how does everything actually remove my sins as far as the east is from the west? How does it actually effect an atonement?

---

quote:

---

For many people 'it is enough that Jesus died and that he died for me'; but we cannot undo 2000 years of questioning and shrug our shoulders and say 'it doesn't matter how his death justifies, it just does.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's the 'identification' aspect that 'does' the job.

---

quote:

---

No, rather it is the totality of the Christ Event - his Incarnation, his sinless and exemplary life, his moral teaching, his miracles and his Deity, his sacrificial and atoning death, his rising again and his ascension to glory, his continual intercession for us, his coming again to judge the quick and the dead ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would mostly agree. However, I would counter that the problem with PSA is that it suggests that individual human sin is the only problem with the world, the only thing that needs to be set right by the power of Christ's inaugurating the Kingdom. It fails to take seriously the impact of large-scale, communal systemic sin-- injustice, oppression, inequality. <snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Yes, I think the atonement is fully explained by the fact that Jesus death created both a sacrifice as in the Passover and a substitute as in his statement at the last supper "this is my body broken for you" which created a possibility for human sin to be forgiven and sin 'passed' over. Without that, I do not think there is any meaningful 'good news' for the likes of thee and me. Anyone who claims to be 'evangelical' needs a gospel to preach. What is yours pray tell? If it is 'another' gospel, ( as in one Paul did not preach), of which there are many, then it will not save, will it?

---

quote:

---

?.the problem with PSA is that it suggests that individual human sin is the
only problem with the world, the only thing that needs to be set right by the power of Christ's inaugurating the Kingdom. It fails to take seriously the impact of large-scale, communal systemic sin-- injustice, oppression, inequality. It fails to take seriously the level of natural evil built into creation itself-- disease, death, predators, famine, natural disasters. It fails to take seriously spiritual forces for evil that are opposed to the work of Christ. Things that the "Satan-ward" theories of Ransom and Christus victor more effectively address.

---

quote:

---

Nick Tamen: I think you're limiting the gospel that Paul and the other apostles, not to mention Jesus, preached—if not ignoring much of what they preached—if you say that that Christ's Jesus's sacrificial death (Passover-like and substitutionary), which created the possibility for sin to be forgiven, "fully explains" God's reconciling work

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
What I am saying is that you do not have a gospel unless you have sin sorted and that cannot happen without Jesus sorting it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 " For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried and that he was raised according to the scriptures"

'Died for our sins' suggests individual sinners [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
'Died for our sins' suggests individual sinners had their sin problem sorted by Christ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

?.the problem with PSA is that it suggests that individual human sin is the
only problem with the world, the only thing that needs to be set right by the power of Christ's inaugurating the Kingdom. It fails to take seriously the impact of large-scale, communal systemic sin-- injustice, oppression, inequality. It fails to take seriously the level of natural evil built into creation itself-- disease, death, predators, famine, natural disasters. It fails to take seriously spiritual forces for evil that are opposed to the work of Christ. Things that the "Satan-ward" theories of Ransom and Christus victor more effectively address.

---

This just proves you are totally clueless. Yes, there is am emphasis on individual sin, which multiplied a few million times adds up to collective sin. No this does not suggest a standing aside from collective or social evil. One eg is the Salvation Army who effectively initiated social action as an outworking of individual transformation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
What I am saying is that you do not have a gospel unless you have sin sorted and that cannot happen without Jesus sorting it.

---

I've posted numerous times to this thread about how sin can be "sorted" without recourse to PSA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
'Died for our sins' suggests individual sinners had their sin problem sorted by Christ....

---

How so? In what way does "our sins" mean anything individualistic? Do you know something about the Greek that we don't? Please enlighten us.

---

quote:

---

NO prophet's Flag : But my point-- and the point of this thread-- was not about how evangelicals are doing at living out their faith. It was about whether PSA alone is an adequate image to understand and articulate the atonement. I argue that it doesn't, for several reasons sprinkled throughout this thread. Among those, I stand by the above-- that it implies that individual human sin is the only wrong that needs to be set right. I am not disputing that many, many evangelicals and other Christians see past that-- in part because they are reading the whole of the gospel laid out in the NT, which articulates that quite clearly. I'm simply saying that when you are looking for a summary of the gospel-- of what Christ has done for us-- PSA alone proves inadequate, which is why we need more than just a few verses in the book of Romans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think everyone here agrees that sin is 'sorted' by Christ, Jamat.

The issue isn't whether Christ 'sorts' it but how he does that.

As people are repeatedly saying, there are plenty of indications of how he has done so which go beyond one particular understanding of the atonement

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

NO prophet's Flag : But my point-- and the point of this thread-- was not about how evangelicals are doing at living out their faith. It was about whether PSA alone is an adequate image to understand and articulate the atonement. I argue that it doesn't, for several reasons sprinkled throughout this thread. Among those, I stand by the above-- that it implies that individual human sin is the only wrong that needs to be set right. I am not disputing that many, many evangelicals and other Christians see past that-- in part because they are reading the whole of the gospel laid out in the NT, which articulates that quite clearly. I'm simply saying that when you are looking for a summary of the gospel-- of what Christ has done for us-- PSA alone proves inadequate, which is why we need more than just a few verses in the book of Romans.

---

Another way of looking at it is 'What's left if you take that out?' I think, not much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

Moral Influence
When chosen as the sole model, seems to be selected so as to let a person off having any belief in sin or any supernatural or cosmological reality. So it has nothing to offer anybody's existential angst. Which is why many people reject it. However, without it, much of the basis for Christian ethics disappears.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
They haven't indicated ANY way atonement makes sense if you exclude it. There is no discernible mechanism for Atonement without Christ being the one who subsumed judgement into himself or maybe the Father laying the sin and sins of the world upon his son/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[QB] Yes they have. It's simply that they haven't laid out one that you agree with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

It is SO clearly implied in scripture, it is hard to argue with. In the end opponents find it unpalatable so they try to find another path.

---

quote:

---

They haven't indicated ANY way atonement makes sense if you exclude it. There is no discernible mechanism for Atonement without Christ being the one who subsumed judgement into himself or maybe the Father laying the sin and sins of the world upon his son.
It is SO clearly implied in scripture, it is hard to argue with. In the end opponents find it unpalatable so they try to find another path.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
'Died for our sins' suggests individual sinners had their sin problem sorted by Christ....

---

How so? In what way does "our sins" mean anything individualistic? Do you know something about the Greek that we don't? Please enlighten us.

---

'Our' as in all of us individually?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Jamat:

quote:

---

They haven't indicated ANY way atonement makes sense if you exclude it. There is no discernible mechanism for Atonement without Christ being the one who subsumed judgement into himself or maybe the Father laying the sin and sins of the world upon his son.
It is SO clearly implied in scripture, it is hard to argue with. In the end opponents find it unpalatable so they try to find another path.

---

I've thought of PSA being a Reformation way of viewing salvation. Before the fifteenth century, who else examined the idea and found it "unpalatable" and thus turned to other paradigms like ransom theory and Christus victor as a reaction to it?

---

quote:

---

So, no, to Jamat PSA isn't an understanding that developed in its current form from the time of the Reformers onward but something that was there from the outset but which was overlooked and forgotten about at some stage.

One wonders when that was. The 4th century? Sometime in the mid 2nd century? The end of the first century? Or was it later? The 9th century? 14th century?

---

The time table of how PSA was "overlooked" is exactly what I was after. Jamat asserted that other atonement theories were reactions to distaste with PSA. Is there a smoking gun of ancient theology showing that say, Christus victor, was an idea "they tried to find" because of distaste with PSA rather than because of evidence of what church fathers saw in scripture themselves?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well yes, but you see, in Jamat's rather binary and dualistic world, there are only a limited number of options.

There are the conservative evangelicals on one side - who are correct in every respect because they are more 'biblical' - irrespective of their differences over secondary issues ...

Then there is Everyone Else.

This Everyone Else includes liberal Protestants of course and also the older Christian traditions such as Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy - who are manifestly less 'biblical' ...

So the world falls into two neat categories:

1) The Evangelicals.
2) Everyone Else.

So, with that in mind it will be self-evident that the Everyone Else-ers must have rejected what is so patently obvious to The Evangelicals.

Because they don't see PSA in scripture they must be 'blind' in some way. Satan has obviously deluded them.

Therefore they have deliberately elided PSA and sought to concoct alternative theories ... even though most, if not all, of those alternative models and theories predate evangelicalism by some considerable period of time.

But no ... Paul the Apostle and all the other disciples were Evangelicals because the Bible says so.

Somewhere along the line the original Evangelical message, so clear in the scriptures, was lost. It must have been those evil, wicked Catholics and Orthodox who obscured it ...

Mercifully, Luther and Calvin then cleared away some of the crap, but they didn't go far enough and it was left to various 19th century Protestant groups to uncover the true meaning of the scriptures ...

It's a nice idea and very neat.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

So the world falls into two neat categories:

1) The Evangelicals.
2) Everyone Else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Another way of looking at it is 'What's left if you take that out?' I think, not much.

---

On the hymn/song front (as it's easier than sermons, and has much lower hanging fruit than scripture or liturgies). And depending on if you mean take out the minimum or maximum.

At least one lyric that pretty much only works with a PSA model.
A few modern songs (In Christ Alone, and I'm sure others)

as mentioned WISTWC has had another model excised, so if I really was playing the game I could pretty much keep my cake and eat it.

At least one lyric that could be covered easily by another specific model, but probably most naturally fits PSA.

The vast majority of modern songs (that I know of). About quarter-half of the new songs in Mission Praise. A few old songs (including at least one from the first millenium).

At least one lyric that could be covered easily by any other model, or a heavy cross focus.

Starting to hit deep. Kendrick is probably half gone (unfortunately the Servant King's gone both ways, while Shine Jesus Shine hasn't). The Crucification section in hymnals is getting emptier. Some of the Psalm based songs aren't safe.

Anything explicitly to do with any model description or: Jesus saving on the cross, Jesus saving from sins, cross being a victory, etc...
I think all modern songs are gone (oh, maybe not When the music fades). School assembly ones are still mostly safe Kendrick hit hard but could still do a service with whats left. The hymnals starting to get hit but still has a lot left (more than I was expecting).

Anything to do with, Salvation, Jesus's Death, the cross, God rescuing.
Even the hymnals are looking emptier (about time too), but quite a few classics stll getting through
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Jay, could you include a few verbs in those sentences? I'm having trouble following your train of thought with all those "one lyric with..." fragments-- are those suggestions? observations? arguments? to what end?

[ 01. May 2017, 16:39: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well that's songs, Jay-Emm. How about liturgies?
 

---

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

So the world falls into two neat categories:

1) The Evangelicals.
2) Everyone Else.

---

How do I go about changing teams? Is there a rigorous vetting process?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Jay, could you include a few verbs in those sentences? I'm having trouble following your train of thought with all those "one lyric with..." fragments-- are those suggestions? observations? arguments? to what end?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

So the world falls into two neat categories:

1) The Evangelicals.
2) Everyone Else.

---

How do I go about changing teams? Is there a rigorous vetting process?

---

Depends on which team you're moving to. I mean, everyone knows that Team Everyone Else has no standards at all and will take just about anyone.

 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
balaam wrote

quote:

---

I prefer, however to stand back, and look at a larger narrative, which starts with the Last Supper, and ends with the ascension. The date of the crucifixion and the upper that proceeded the passion tie it closely with the Passover, a spring festival, rather than with the autumnal Atonement.

The Passover is about bringing Gods people out from slavery to freedom. The two main themes are freedom and building a people of God, and it is not only just the Jesus died for me thing which some Evangelicals major on (and some Jesuits like as well), but also corporate, about God bringing out a people for himself.

It is also about the atonement, you'd have to rip out quite a large part of the New Testament to say otherwise, but the atonement works within a framework of God setting his people free, and not the other way around.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Jay, could you include a few verbs in those sentences? I'm having trouble following your train of thought with all those "one lyric with..." fragments-- are those suggestions? observations? arguments? to what end?

---

Thank you for saying that Cliffdweller. I was having the same problem but was too polite to say so.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Whereas I am all too rarely polite
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
What I am saying is that you do not have a gospel unless you have sin sorted and that cannot happen without Jesus sorting it.

---

I've posted numerous times to this thread about how sin can be "sorted" without recourse to PSA.

---

OK, sorry, though I recall the issue was justice. You think it is not a problem? PSA is very justice oriented.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
What I am saying is that you do not have a gospel unless you have sin sorted and that cannot happen without Jesus sorting it.

---

I've posted numerous times to this thread about how sin can be "sorted" without recourse to PSA.

---

OK, sorry, though I recall the issue was justice. You think it is not a problem? PSA is very justice oriented.

---

I don't agree that God choosing not to punish us (or anyone else) for our sins is a denial of justice. What's so wrong with the idea of forgiveness?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Kwesi. For all Martin's cavilling, I think PSA proponents are flagging something that needs addressing - and part of the attraction of PSA is that it addresses the 'sin and guilt issue' in a way that some of the other models don't...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think that all of us would agree that without the cross and the vindication of the resurrection, there can be no salvation, no Christian faith. ...

---

quote:

---

I just don't get this idea of retribution. To me it seems just to multiply woes; no-one gains. To suggest this is some kind of morality seems to fly in the face of all that Jesus says about forgiveness. If someone nicks my computer, I just want it back. I have no interest in seeing the perpetrator punished.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
We won't need theories in paradise.

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: What's so wrong with the idea of forgiveness?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Somewhere along the line the original Evangelical message, so clear in the scriptures, was lost. It must have been those evil, wicked Catholics and Orthodox who obscured it ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't agree that God choosing not to punish us (or anyone else) for our sins is a denial of justice. What's so wrong with the idea of forgiveness?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think that all of us would agree that without the cross and the vindication of the resurrection, there can be no salvation, no Christian faith. ...

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel: Jamat's rather binary and dualistic world,

---

quote:

---

Mousethief:The resurrection doesn't vindicate.

---

quote:

---

Mousethief: killing an innocent man for the crimes of the guilty man isn't justice on anyone's definition. It's a gross miscarriage of justice. And "it's not if God does it" doesn't change the fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Mousethief:The resurrection doesn't vindicate.

---

God's vindication of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
You can get into the straw man as much as you like but the essential nub of it is that God took care of the sin issue without 'overlooking' or negating the seriousness of sin.

---

quote:

---

Anthropocentric outrage is just the result of an analogy taken too far.

---

quote:

---

Mousethief: Straw man my arse. Show it to be a straw man, don't just claim it.

---

quote:

---

Mousethief:God vindicated Christ at Christ's baptism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:


Both his baptism and transfiguration were local events with limited witnesses some of whom were not equipped to grasp what they witnessed. The resurrection on the other hand was a public and universally attested event which is actually only possible to deny by lies and rewriting of history, even after 2000 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: What's so wrong with the idea of forgiveness?

---

Just that the reasoning is based on a category error as I posted above but no one cared to comment on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: What's so wrong with the idea of forgiveness?

---

Just that the reasoning is based on a category error as I posted above but no one cared to comment on.

---

Do you mean this "category error"?

---

quote:

---

No, this one...the big issue at the heart of this is whether God can just forgive as we are enjoined to forgive each other?

The standard answer is that forgive is used in 2 senses. If you wrong me and seek forgiveness then the Christian thing to do is to offer what is sought.

But when Jesus said to the man lying on the stretcher "your sins are forgiven" this was not forgiveness of the same nature and he incensed the Pharisees by assuming the authority of God. It was not human to human interaction that was at issue.
The word forgive assumes a meaning in the second case, of a reconciliation of man and God.

Pretty well all of Paul's letters are dedicated to aspects and out workings of this reconciliation. In Romans, the word 'propitiation' is used to describe what Jesus did and the word 'reconciliation' or atonement was its outcome. So the present discussion follows. What was this propitiation, how does it work and what is its outcome?

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Jamat, you are incorrect in saying that sin needs atonement. We need atonement, to be put at one with God. God is not constrained by any one, any thing, any law. He is above all. He shows mercy on whom he will show mercy. In doing so He violates no aspect of His Personality. The quandary he is in, if I can put it like that, is not how does he forgive, but how does he save. We are under the curse of sin and death. Yes, we are forgiven, but we are not saved from the ontological state of dying, day by day. We need to be joined to the risen life of Christ, and in order for that to happen, Christ needed to share our humanity, to go through death and to rise again. That is the atonement. it's not about sin, or even the forgiveness of sin. It's about Life!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
No, this one...the big issue at the heart of this is whether God can just forgive as we are enjoined to forgive each other?

---

quote:

---

The standard answer is that forgive is used in 2 senses. If you wrong me and seek forgiveness then the Christian thing to do is to offer what is sought.

But when Jesus said to the man lying on the stretcher "your sins are forgiven" this was not forgiveness of the same nature and he incensed the Pharisees by assuming the authority of God. It was not human to human interaction that was at issue.
The word forgive assumes a meaning in the second case, of a reconciliation of man and God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
It is more like God is fire, people are water. Fire cannot exist in the midst of water. One or the other will be destroyed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
What PSA actually teaches is that sin needed atonement. This goes way back to Exodus and the teaching of the 'day of atonement'.(Ex 29:36, Lev 16:26, 9,7) The concept of sin as endemic in humanity is clearly shown as incompatible with God's character. If atonement was not made, that holiness would break out on the Israelites and they would be destroyed. Your problem is that you do not grasp the huge category error involved when comparing this to human justice. It is nothing like human justice. It is more like God is fire, people are water. Fire cannot exist in the midst of water. One or the other will be destroyed. What the atonement does is enable coexistence. Carried forward to The NT, it is enabled in Christ.

---

Amazing how you can purport to describe what PSA means without ever mentioning punishment. Basically, all you have said is "PSA means atonement," albeit with a nod to "justice" of some sort in there—though where the idea that divine justice is in a category different to human justice is beyond me. It certainly doesn't seem to be consistent with anything Jesus said.

What PSA actually teaches is that in order for atonement to happen, there must be punishment for sin—that sin has consequences and those consequences, as a matter of justice, cannot be avoided—but that Jesus voluntarily took that punishment/bore those consequences on our behalf so that we can be reconciled to God. In the original formulations of PSA, this was not so much an appeasement of divine wrath as it was an act of divine love. "For God so loved the world...."

Without the specific component of the inevitability of punishment for sin, PSA is just SA, or maybe even just A.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Don't thank me, I need to thank you, Jolly Jape, you've help to crystalise my thinking on the issue.


 

---

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Jolly Jape: I just don't get this idea of retribution. To me it seems just to multiply woes; no-one gains. To suggest this is some kind of morality seems to fly in the face of all that Jesus says about forgiveness. If someone nicks my computer, I just want it back. I have no interest in seeing the perpetrator punished.

Kwesi :The problem with your computer example, Jolly Jape, is that in a secular context it is not simply a question of an individual's desire to have his/ her stolen property returned because there is a societal interest in the discouragement of theft. If justice was to be satisfied simply by the return of stolen property then a thief would not be discouraged in the exercise of his/her profession. Punishment has a role to play in the discouragement of crime and anti-social behaviour. Thus, a juridical approach to sin would see the necessity of punishment for the promotion of righteous behaviour, and that while in the "corrupted currents of this world offence's guilded hand may shove by justice, 'tis not so above," as Hamlet observed. There has to be an ultimate reckoning, retribution for sinful behaviour, hence the need for penal substitution if we are to be saved from our just deserts. (Claimed ignorance of what is right by "gentiles" is no defence, Martin, see Romans 1).

To my mind the gospel presents the problem of sin not in terms of a formal legal process prompted by the requirements of justice, but of problems within a family that can only be resolved by an outpouring of grace. Thus, the father runs to embrace the prodigal stinking of pig and unprompted restores to him the symbols of sonship, which not only the elder son but also the prodigal recognises as undeserved. The parable ends with an unresolved confrontation in the farmyard between the elder son insisting on his just rights and the father just happy to get his son back. Atonement is not a matter of satisfying the terms of a contract but of human and divine reconciliation in which, as Martin might say, 'love wins'.

Jolly Jape: Kwesi, I'm confused. I agree with your second paragraph, but it seems completely at odds with your first.

I see that society has an interest in trying to limit criminal and antisocial behaviour. Thus we need, for now, a legal system. I'm not, however, convinced we need a penal system, in the literal sense, one based on punishment. Thus, we need to incarcerate people on public safety grounds. But if the purpose of such incarceration focusses on punishment, then we skew the system in such a way as to produce all sorts of undesirable side effects, put basically, we incarcerate far too many people who shouldn't be incarcerated.

Laying all that aside, though, it seems obvious to me that this is an accommodation to the fallenness of creation, and to apply its logic to the escaton is, I suggest, inappropriate. The fact that we have punitive systems here and now does not force upon us a belief that there must be such a system in God's mind. He has many more options than we do.



Jolly Jape, I don’t think that you and I are too far apart. I agree with you that penal systems incarcerate too many people. On the other hand there are penalties other than gaoling and I don’t think an element of punishment in sentencing in inappropriate. Do I need to elaborate further?

The point I was trying to make is that there is a danger of being sucked into the judicial paradigm as a way of understanding the atonement. IMO your allusion to the theft of your computer leads you exposed to a line of reasoning that ends up as a case for penal substitution, as I tried to demonstrate in the first paragraph of my post. Apart from any problems with the logic of PSA, the fundamental criticism of it lies in the basic assumptions from which its flawed understandings flow.

Just laws, whether they relate to inter-personal relations, the conduct of business, the treatment of the fatherless, widows and strangers, the restraint of vice and so on are designed to ensure that rewards, financial, social esteem and so on are fairly distributed. Rewards have to be merited, and infractions penalised by the denial of privileges. When applied to the material world they sustain a sense of personal and social justice that is seen as right, fair, and desirable. When applied to the religious sphere and the question of atonement, however, law only serves to highlight our weaknesses and condemn us to whatever penalty a righteous judge might impose. In the context of atonement it can only lead literally to a dead end: “none is righteous, no not one” , “the wages of sin is death” and so on.

The New Testament solves the problem with a paradigm based on grace in which God is “our father” rather than a righteous judge, we are his children rather than prisoners in the dock facing a charge sheet, (as the apostle writes: “God does not keep a record of wrongs”), and rewards are a function of our needs and not our deserts. As Jesus remarked “If you then, evil as you are, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your father in heavenly give good gifts to those who ask.”. The problem of effecting atonement lies not with an offended God unable to accept his sinful children, but of sinful children unwilling to be reconciled: the prodigal delaying his return home, the tenants of the vineyard taking their opportunity to remove the influence of the owner.

To my mind, Jolly Jape, PSA has simply got the wrong end of the stick, and we should not oblige its proponents by grasping it with them. Otherwise we shall end up like the frustrated elder brother arguing the toss with our gracious creator and saviour in the farmyard.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Kwesi, I think that we are saying the same thing, really, it's just that I was wanting to engage with Jamat on his own terms, that of a basically (indeed, essentially) penal understanding of the atonement and show, not only is this mistaken, but also counter intuitive. I think we possibly do differ in the usefulness of penal ideas in the secular realm, but are in complete agreement about its lack of appropriateness in the Kingdom of God. I don't think that, in arguing against Jamat's premises we are in any way supporting the schema that emerges from such premises. Rather, we are subverting them by seeking to demolish the flawed foundations on which PSA has been built.
 

---

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Jolly Jape, I agree we are really on the same page, and completely understand your point of view. I just wanted to clear up the confusion of my earlier post.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Thanks Kwesi
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
The concept of sin as endemic in humanity is clearly shown as incompatible with God's character. If atonement was not made, that holiness would break out on the Israelites and they would be destroyed. Your problem is that you do not grasp the huge category error involved when comparing this to human justice. It is nothing like human justice. It is more like God is fire, people are water. Fire cannot exist in the midst of water. One or the other will be destroyed. What the atonement does is enable coexistence. Carried forward to The NT, it is enabled in Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think that all of us would agree that without the cross and the vindication of the resurrection, there can be no salvation, no Christian faith. ...

---

Not sure what you mean by the "vindication of the resurrection."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

It is more like God is fire, people are water. Fire cannot exist in the midst of water. One or the other will be destroyed. What the atonement does is enable coexistence. Carried forward to The NT, it is enabled in Christ.

---

Look, I realize this is an analogy, and the point I and others have been striving for here is that all analogies break down so let's not push it too hard-- but seriously, dude, this particular analogy just demonstrates everything that is wrong with PSA-- at least when pushed as anything more than simply one among many metaphors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think that all of us would agree that without the cross and the vindication of the resurrection, there can be no salvation, no Christian faith. ...

---

Not sure what you mean by the "vindication of the resurrection."

---

Try This

---

That is one of the most confused things I have read in a month of Fridays. As a vindication of resurrection as vindication, it leaves clarity and logical straightforwardness to be desired.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Cliffdweller and Kwesi,
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I like that link, Mudfrog and would also be interested in Mousethief's 'take' on it. My guess would be that he'd either agree, with some caveats about the somewhat 'Protestant' sounding language, or else he may consider it to be an example of unwelcome Western convert emphases entering the Orthodox Church.

FWIW I think it's certainly right to see the Resurrection in those terms - but it is much more than that.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I find it quite different from any Orthodox teaching I've heard, and I'm suspicious as to why he even decided to go there. It strikes me very much as trying to suck up to evangelicals, like he's applied to teach at some seminary who thought he was insufficiently western. Although given his name and affiliation that seems unlikely.
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Clffdweller: It's only when PSA becomes the be-all and end-all or is treated not as metaphor but as transaction that it becomes truly toxic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Clffdweller: It's only when PSA becomes the be-all and end-all or is treated not as metaphor but as transaction that it becomes truly toxic.

---

There is a lot in your post that I agree with but I would argue that rightly grasped it, PSA, is clear in scripture.
Here This guy covers most of the ground pretty succinctly. His basic view is probably softer than mine as it is hard for me to see ANY gospel without it..rightly understood of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Re the blog you linked, the author begins by making the same point as me re PSA being one metaphor among many so I gotta love that. And props must be given to the author for identifying and naming clearly all the primary objections commonly raised with PSA. But I am disappointed with how very often his answer is simply "because it's not".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
the way I see the Bible metanarrative, you cannot have the others, ransom, CV and moral influence, without the foundation of PSA . However, I do agree that these models, are just that and that when using theoretical constructs you only approximate the reality. If you come back and say, but you cannot show how PSA does completely explain atonement, I would agree..but what could?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Clffdweller: It's only when PSA becomes the be-all and end-all or is treated not as metaphor but as transaction that it becomes truly toxic.

---

There is a lot in your post that I agree with but I would argue that rightly grasped it, PSA, is clear in scripture.
Here This guy covers most of the ground pretty succinctly. His basic view is probably softer than mine as it is hard for me to see ANY gospel without it..rightly understood of course.

---

I'm not disputing that PSA is in Scripture. Very few here are. But it is clearly not the only image for the atonement found in Scripture or the early church. And the way multiple images are interwoven throughout the NT often even within a book or even chapter demonstrates that it is a metaphor-- not a transaction-- and must be treated as such

---

Wah-HOO! I thought it was just me! It fascinates me how it just didn't take.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
And the author should have read the link out loud:

4. Classically, some have objected that PSA is morally repugnant because moral guilt is not transferable. It is wicked to punish the guilty in the place of the innocent.
 

---

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I'm not sure I've followed the thread meanderings correctly. Are some suggesting that the only atonement present in scripture is PSA or that PSA is the only correct understanding of the atonement in scripture? Either of these present major problems as far as I can see.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think it's more a case that some are holding that all the available atonement theories are correct, as far as they go - but that PSA is the most correct or the one that goes further than the others in dealing with the essential problem - in the eyes of some of a hard-line juridical bent - of how God can forgive the sinner without his justice being satisfied in some way ...

So, in order to do that, God effectively takes on the punishment himself - through Christ.

As none of the other theories contain that element they are seen as falling-short in some way or leaving some bases uncovered.

That's the idea.

Whether it is one that bears the weight that's put upon it is the moot point.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Meanwhile, I get that you don't 'like' Western theology, Mousethief but I'm not sure why you have to frame the motivation for the Antiochian guy's article in such potentially negative terms - 'perhaps he's trying to suck up to evangelicals ...'

Admittedly, you leave the options open ...

I have to say, that it does sound unusual from what I've read and encountered among the Orthodox, but I'm not sure I'd suspect a particular 'agenda' as such ... 'he's only saying that because he knows evangelicals will like it ...'

But then, I'm not Orthodox and can only speak from the outside, as it were.

I know I can be one of these irritating both/and, let's find common ground people ... and I might be naive - but why can't it simply be a case of the writer putting forward a view-point that might 'sound' more Western in some respects but which doesn't, in and of itself, undermine anything that is Big O Orthodox ...?

Just wonderin' ...

I can't remember the term the Orthodox use for those beliefs which can be held as personal opinions rather than dogma, provided they don't directly contradict the received wisdom / Tradition ...

In the same way that whilst you aren't going to pray 'Lord we really just ...' in an Orthodox Liturgy, there are no 'prayer-police' about to beat your door down if you pray such a thing in the privacy of your own home ...


 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
To be honest, I was a bit surprised when mousethief posted those comments on vindication. Whilst it isn't a major theme in Western theologising, my understanding is that it was a major POV in the early church - the very early church. I don't think it's an east v. west thing in this case.

We are all children of the furious arguments and theologising that followed the disciples' experience with the risen Christ. Those of us who like to consider ourselves as orthodox - let alone Orthodox - don't really have a lot of need for vindication arguments, so perhaps they are a bit of a surprise when we come across them. But try putting yourself back in the position of an early Jesus-follower. A committed monotheist who was expecting a kick-ass messiah. The landscape for such followers had been tilted out of shape by the unexpected. And yet it seemed to be all of a piece with what Jesus had been (paradoxically) going on about before.

In such a scenario, I think it is easier to see why vindication arguments make good sense.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can't remember the term the Orthodox use for those beliefs which can be held as personal opinions rather than dogma, provided they don't directly contradict the received wisdom / Tradition ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can't remember the term the Orthodox use for those beliefs which can be held as personal opinions rather than dogma, provided they don't directly contradict the received wisdom / Tradition ...

---

Adiaphora?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mousethief will correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect that's partly the reason for his unease with 'vindication' language in this instance.

Would I be right? Or should I get my coat?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Re the blog you linked, the author begins by making the same point as me re PSA being one metaphor among many so I gotta love that. And props must be given to the author for identifying and naming clearly all the primary objections commonly raised with PSA. But I am disappointed with how very often his answer is simply "because it's not".

---

His answer generally, is 'It just is', only because he argues that it is clearly Biblical. He makes the point that while PSA is not particularly emphasised by the NT fathers, there is a lot in their writings that accords with it, but goes on to say that theology must be based directly on scripture. He also exposes the straw men and the category errors of critics. He would not say this, but the way I see the Bible metanarrative, you cannot have the others, ransom, CV and moral influence, without the foundation of PSA . However, I do agree that these models, are just that and that when using theoretical constructs you only approximate the reality. If you come back and say, but you cannot show how PSA does completely explain atonement, I would agree..but what could?

---

quote:

---

the problem here is elevating PSA as "foundational". It's not--

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

the problem here is elevating PSA as "foundational". It's not--

---

Says you. Well fine. The issue is not the image, the model or the theory. The issue is 'What is the gospel?'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

the problem here is elevating PSA as "foundational". It's not--

---

Says you. Well fine. The issue is not the image, the model or the theory. The issue is 'What is the gospel?'

---

PSA is nit the gospel. PSA is an image to help us grasp the logistics if the gospel

The gospel is the heartbroken father waiting and watching at the window fir just the slightest turning back on our part, so he can run to us

The gospel as proclaimed by the disciples and the early church is "Jesus is Lord". In a world ruled by cruel and ruthless powers-that-be, that is God news indeed. Jesus is making all things new

---

quote:

---

That's nice, but how does it affect or transform you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
That's nice, but how does it affect or transform you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
now you're sounding like Martin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

the problem here is elevating PSA as "foundational". It's not--

---

Says you. Well fine. The issue is not the image, the model or the theory. The issue is 'What is the gospel?'

---

PSA is nit the gospel. PSA is an image to help us grasp the logistics if the gospel

The gospel is the heartbroken father waiting and watching at the window fir just the slightest turning back on our part, so he can run to us

The gospel as proclaimed by the disciples and the early church is "Jesus is Lord". In a world ruled by cruel and ruthless powers-that-be, that is God news indeed. Jesus is making all things new

---

That's nice, but how does it affect or transform you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
That's nice, but how does it affect or transform you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think that all of us would agree that without the cross and the vindication of the resurrection, there can be no salvation, no Christian faith. ...

---

Not sure what you mean by the "vindication of the resurrection."

---

Try This

---

That is one of the most confused things I have read in a month of Fridays. As a vindication of resurrection as vindication, it leaves clarity and logical straightforwardness to be desired.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mousethief will correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect that's partly the reason for his unease with 'vindication' language in this instance.

Would I be right? Or should I get my coat?

---

That's a big part of it. And this writer clearly is suggesting it as if bringing in something from the outside. That should tell you something right there. A lot of somethings, actually.

It's interesting and even amusing that people here keep digging up articles written by people who are not authorities of the Orthodox Church that are basically apologetics pieces for western theological concepts that have historically had no traction in the East, and presenting them as if it proved something about what "The Orthodox" believe. This perhaps is just a cogent demonstration of the dangers of doing theology by Google. Let alone comparative theology. Let alone trying to school someone on what their church believes, when you're not a member of it. Which gets tedious on the receiving end.

The word you want is theologoumenon plural theologoumena.

---

Yeah, I get that.
It's been a HUGE tendency on the Ship for non-Evangelicals to try and tell Evangelicals what they believe, get it wrong, and then try to knock it down.

Tell you what, I'll not tell you what the Orthodox believe if you don't try and tell me what I do and don't believe

[ 04. May 2017, 14:30: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
I'm surprised you say this Mudfrog. There are quite a few posters here, self included, who take a different line to yourself, but are, by any objective standard (Bebington Quadrilateral, for example) evangelicals. Goperryrevs, Arethosemyfeet, Gameliel are names that spring to mind. Evangelicals try to embrace and understand scripture. It's there in the definition, indeed in the name; the people of the evangel, the good news. If there is a choice to be made between received wisdom and what the Bible actually says, I submit, we should go with the Bible. This isn't telling you what you believe, it's calling on you, as a fellow evangelical, to re-evaluate your data. You can, of course choose not to do so, or you can go through the process and still come to the decision that your understanding is better than that of your challengers. But debate, even robust debate, has always, historically, been at the heart of evangelicalism. Getting prissy about your interlocutors doesn't really further such debate.

[ 04. May 2017, 15:23: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
 

---

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well, it's from the Orthodox Church - I can't help that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
That's nice, but how does it affect or transform you?

---

It doesn't. The Holy Spirit does.

---

 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Kwesi: PSA rests on a transaction between the Father and the Son in which human beings have no role except as manipulated actors in the process of the crucifixion. There still remains the problem of how humans are to be brought into the atoning process, to benefit from the sentence that has been carried out on their unwitting behalf

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yeah, I get that.
It's been a HUGE tendency on the Ship for non-Evangelicals to try and tell Evangelicals what they believe, get it wrong, and then try to knock it down.

Tell you what, I'll not tell you what the Orthodox believe if you don't try and tell me what I do and don't believe

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Kwesi: PSA rests on a transaction between the Father and the Son in which human beings have no role except as manipulated actors in the process of the crucifixion. There still remains the problem of how humans are to be brought into the atoning process, to benefit from the sentence that has been carried out on their unwitting behalf

---

No, it rests upon a grasp of a heavenly reality that God in his grace enacted to enable reconciliation between himself and his fallen human creation. The transaction you refer to is the foundational way to grasp it based on the accounts in scripture. .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well, it's from the Orthodox Church - I can't help that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Kwesi: PSA rests on a transaction between the Father and the Son in which human beings have no role except as manipulated actors in the process of the crucifixion. There still remains the problem of how humans are to be brought into the atoning process, to benefit from the sentence that has been carried out on their unwitting behalf

---

No, it rests upon a grasp of a heavenly reality that God in his grace enacted to enable reconciliation between himself and his fallen human creation. The transaction you refer to is the foundational way to grasp it based on the accounts in scripture. To benefit from it requires both revelation and choice, neither of which God is prepared to force. Instead he offers it. Your comments are ridiculous as you are seeing a metaphor (penal transaction ) as the reality itself. However, such realities can only be discerned spiritually they cannot be fully apprehended intellectually since, as Paul said "The natural man knoweth not the things of God for they are foolishness to him, but he that is spiritual knoweth all things." 1Cor 2:14,15.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yeah, I get that.
It's been a HUGE tendency on the Ship for non-Evangelicals to try and tell Evangelicals what they believe, get it wrong, and then try to knock it down.

Tell you what, I'll not tell you what the Orthodox believe if you don't try and tell me what I do and don't believe

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
OK, but what do I do when you and Jamat present a version of evangelicalism that is 180 degrees opposed to everything I am ordained to teach and preach in my evangelical church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
OK, but what do I do when you and Jamat present a version of evangelicalism that is 180 degrees opposed to everything I am ordained to teach and preach in my evangelical church?

---

Can you remind me which evangelical church you are ordained in?

I'm quite interested to know about evangelical churches where PSA isn't part of the theological landscape and am interested to hear how that came about.

---

quote:

---

Martin 60: So now we know you know everything, how has that made you a better person? More Christ-like? That we might follow your example

---

quote:

---

Cliff dweller: We mostly all agree that PSA (or at least SA) is attested to in Scripture. But where we might question is if it is the "foundational" image-- that it has some priority above the other 4 or more biblical images. Can you provide any explanation for this assertion?

---

quote:

---

In other words, can you have them without Jesus being a sacrifice, a victim and a representative of humanity. Again, I think not though obviously others differ. What is the foundational truth of the atonement then? It has to be that Jesus died as a sacrifice, for the sin of humanity and that this was directed and accepted by God and served to deflect his wrath from the benefactors of what Jesus did

---

quote:

---

In other words, can you have them without Jesus being a sacrifice, a victim and a representative of humanity. Again, I think not though obviously others differ.

---

quote:

---

What is the foundational truth of the atonement then? It has to be that Jesus died as a sacrifice, for the sin of humanity and that this was directed and accepted by God and served to deflect his wrath from the benefactors of what Jesus did

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
What is foundational is the truth behind the intellectual model. Perhaps the question could be approached differently. Could you have PSA without ransom or substitution or the defeat of evil(CV.) I would suggest the answer is no.

---

quote:

---

But then can you have these others without a penal transaction? (bearing in mind that it is a metaphor) In other words, can you have them without Jesus being a sacrifice, a victim and a representative of humanity. Again, I think not though obviously others differ.

---

quote:

---

What is the foundational truth of the atonement then? It has to be that Jesus died as a sacrifice, for the sin of humanity and that this was directed and accepted by God and served to deflect his wrath from the benefactors of what Jesus did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

In other words, can you have them without Jesus being a sacrifice, a victim and a representative of humanity. Again, I think not though obviously others differ.

---

I could agree to all that.

quote:

---

What is the foundational truth of the atonement then? It has to be that Jesus died as a sacrifice, for the sin of humanity and that this was directed and accepted by God and served to deflect his wrath from the benefactors of what Jesus did

---

It's the bit that I've italicized that is a complete unbiblical non-sequitur. You rightly recognised that this is the heart of PSA,band it is this, not the sacrifice, not the victim good of Christ, not the representative nature of His death, with which I have a problem. It is, in Mr Cheesy's words, complete bollocks. There are, I'm told, 31173 verses in the Bible, and just one of them could be said to support PSA. That's a mighty slender peg on which to hang a foundational doctrine, don't you think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
You dispute what exactly? That God has wrath or that it is deflected? Was the one verse in Is 53? There is plenty of evidence of wrath elsewhere eg Romans 1:18, or 2:5. The logic is that Gods wrath is against sin right? However, in Ro6:6, we see that sin is taken care of by faith in Christ. But how is that possible? Well a fair inference is that the reconciliation we receive in Christ Romans 5:11, does the job. While you will no doubt bang on about penal or non penal as usual, it is hard to see how the wrath was not somehow absorbed by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross so that by our faith in him the faith,Martin 60, of whoever chooses, even the weak ignorant and helpless, we are justified before God. That seems like the gospel to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Oooh, I will. What right has God got to be angry?

---

quote:

---

Mr. Cheesy: ..the right of the creator to be angry at the state of things. The objections to PSA are about the way that it is said that there are inevitable consequences of that wrath - that God must punish the sinner, that there must be a cost and that someone must pay, even if it isn't the person to blame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Oooh, I will. What right has God got to be angry?

---

quote:

---

The opposite of anger is not love, it's apathy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Oooh, I will. What right has God got to be angry?

---

The opposite of anger is not love, it's apathy.
I don't want a God who doesn't care about what's going on as the result of people's sin.

A God without wrath is not loving either.

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel :, Jamat, the 'curse' thing can be understood in various ways. What was the 'curse' of the Law? In what way was it a curse? How does Christ deliver us from it? There are lots of ways to understand that - by conquering death, by superseding the old sacrificial system ... By a whole range of things

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Oooh, I will. What right has God got to be angry?

---

The opposite of anger is not love, it's apathy.
I don't want a God who doesn't care about what's going on as the result of people's sin.

A God without wrath is not loving either.

---

OK, where, when is God's wrath? Or any other emotion? How does God feel about what He omnipathically ... feels?

---

quote:

---

iGamaliel: people have come to a range of conclusions on the issue that may differ from yours or mine

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Oooh, I will. What right has God got to be angry?

---

The opposite of anger is not love, it's apathy.
I don't want a God who doesn't care about what's going on as the result of people's sin.

A God without wrath is not loving either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I commit myself to all sorts of things, Jamat. I'm committedly Trinitarian for instance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
U

quote:

---

iGamaliel: people have come to a range of conclusions on the issue that may differ from yours or mine

---

Really? If they differ from yours then they are probably right...if you ever, by any chance, commit yourself.

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel: there's no fence to sit on as far as Dispensationalism us concerned, for instance ...

---

Well at least that is something you and I can agree on.
I am totally convinced there'll be a rapture.. just don't know when. Make sure there's oil in the lamp when the bridegroom comes.

 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
U

quote:

---

iGamaliel: people have come to a range of conclusions on the issue that may differ from yours or mine

---

Really? If they differ from yours then they are probably right...if you ever, by any chance, commit yourself.

---

Commit yourself? This is religion, there's no firm evidence for any position; commitment can only logically be provisional.

---

That's one of the reasons I'm not an evolutionist Karl.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Do you mean by that "I don't believe in the scientific evolution of species" or "I don't believe that religion evolves over time" or "I don't believe that human thinking changes and develops"?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Jamat, it's the pre-tribulation rapture business I object to, Jamat.

It's not a question of having oil in our lamps in this instance, more a case of whether we are shining them in the right direction - exploring caves and blind alleys or keeping to the main and steady path.

Yes, it can be fun to explore the side chambers but if we want to get anywhere we need to stick to the main drag.

I'm not interested in 19th century detours and meanderings, I'm interested in the main path.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Oooh, I will. What right has God got to be angry?

---

The opposite of anger is not love, it's apathy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Oooh, I will. What right has God got to be angry?

---

For a relatively easy answer that then stalls in I think a dead end...

He really, really cares for (among others) the Widow, the Worker, the Alien and the Orphan and they get mistreated (sometimes spectacularly so). Those he loves are being abused and it pisses him off. Which easily explains a wrathful God (and ties in with many of the verses where it's mentioned)

But then need to explain why it seems he could do more, why was the Widow's oil a one off (though the addage about pointing fingers is true here too). And how any wrath associated with the crucifixion helps with that aspect of wrath.
Which is also hard to do.

---

quote:

---

I infer, I hope correctly. He doesn't care as we care. He doesn't love or get pissed off as we do. Obviously. Because apart from in Jesus and ineffably by the Spirit, He does nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

I infer, I hope correctly. He doesn't care as we care. He doesn't love or get pissed off as we do. Obviously. Because apart from in Jesus and ineffably by the Spirit, He does nothing.

---

Ah Martin 60, that is because God in Christ has already done everything needed for your miserable life to have hope. He will get pretty upset if you ignore it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

I infer, I hope correctly. He doesn't care as we care. He doesn't love or get pissed off as we do. Obviously. Because apart from in Jesus and ineffably by the Spirit, He does nothing.

---

Ah Martin 60, that is because God in Christ has already done everything needed for your miserable life to have hope. He will get pretty upset if you ignore it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

I infer, I hope correctly. He doesn't care as we care. He doesn't love or get pissed off as we do. Obviously. Because apart from in Jesus and ineffably by the Spirit, He does nothing.

---

Ah Martin 60, that is because God in Christ has already done everything needed for your miserable life to have hope. He will get pretty upset if you ignore it.

---

Ah. The "kissing Hank's arse" version of the Gospel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

I infer, I hope correctly. He doesn't care as we care. He doesn't love or get pissed off as we do. Obviously. Because apart from in Jesus and ineffably by the Spirit, He does nothing.

---

Ah Martin 60, that is because God in Christ has already done everything needed for your miserable life to have hope. He will get pretty upset if you ignore it.

---

Ah. The "kissing Hank's arse" version of the Gospel.

---

So your version? We are apes with better DNA? Where is the good news there?

---

Yes, Jamat, because your version and your straw man are the only two alternatives.


 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

I infer, I hope correctly. He doesn't care as we care. He doesn't love or get pissed off as we do. Obviously. Because apart from in Jesus and ineffably by the Spirit, He does nothing.

---

Ah Martin 60, that is because God in Christ has already done everything needed for your miserable life to have hope. He will get pretty upset if you ignore it.

---

Ah. The "kissing Hank's arse" version of the Gospel.

---

So your version? We are apes with better DNA? Where is the good news there?

---

Yes, Jamat, because your version and your straw man are the only two alternatives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Just a thought; have you really, deeply,honestly, been open to actually allowing the Lord to touch YOUR entrenched positions? You see, I have and I am not deeply affected by anything you or others have said here.

---

quote:

---

I know from previous posts that you are some kind of pastor....

---

quote:

---

...and I wish you well on your journey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, Jamat, your standard is the Bible plus the interpretative framework you bring to bear upon it, your tradition if you like ...

That equally applies to the rest of us.

It's just that some of us are more aware of that than you appear to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

I infer, I hope correctly. He doesn't care as we care. He doesn't love or get pissed off as we do. Obviously. Because apart from in Jesus and ineffably by the Spirit, He does nothing.

---

Ah Martin 60, that is because God in Christ has already done everything needed for your miserable life to have hope. He will get pretty upset if you ignore it.

---

Ah. The "kissing Hank's arse" version of the Gospel.

---

So your version? We are apes with better DNA? Where is the good news there?

---