Thread: "There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025191

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :
 
There has been some objection to this line.

Why is this? Is this something to do with PSA - which is why I'm cautiously posting this here?
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Although we tend to talk it to death, I don't think PSA is a Dead Horse.

But BTW, who actually made that quote? I tried Bible Gateway, but no luck.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
There has been some objection to this line.

Why is this? Is this something to do with PSA - which is why I'm cautiously posting this here?

The objection is that the price of sin was set by God. God wrought amiss in the Garden of Eden. God, being judge, jury, and executioner, set the price. Then, realising the punishment was ridiculously harsh and the price was ludicrously high, God paid the debt God had imposed.

Or in other words "Under my arbitrary rules, you owe me fifty million dollars." [Insert Doctor Evil Laugh] "But my Son is going to pay it off for you. Isn't that nice of him? You therefore owe everything to my son."
 
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Although we tend to talk it to death, I don't think PSA is a Dead Horse.

But BTW, who actually made that quote? I tried Bible Gateway, but no luck.

CF Alexander
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Although we tend to talk it to death, I don't think PSA is a Dead Horse.

But BTW, who actually made that quote? I tried Bible Gateway, but no luck.

It's from the hymn "There is a green hill far away."
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
This isn't a Dead Horse - so I'm moving it to Purgatory - same rules.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's from the hymn "There is a green hill far away."

Here is the stanza where the line occurs.
quote:

There was no other good enough
To pay the price of sin.
He only could unlock the gate
Of heaven and let us in.

Moo
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
People object to it because they see it as bringing in a whole package around penal subtitutionary atonement (PSA). Certainly it is language that is used within that metaphor of atonement, but it is also language present in the NT:

I don't think the language of the NT requires a particular model of atonement, but I think it is hard to argue that the idea of paying a price, and Jesus' unique status enabling him to do that are not thoroughgoing New Testament ideas.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Christian doctrine often tends to lose a bit of subtlety when it's made to rhyme and fit a common metre tune.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
People object to it because they see it as bringing in a whole package around penal subtitutionary atonement (PSA). Certainly it is language that is used within that metaphor of atonement, but it is also language present in the NT:<snip>

At least on my computer, every one of your links returns an error. Divine intervention?

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
People object to it because they see it as bringing in a whole package around penal subtitutionary atonement (PSA). Certainly it is language that is used within that metaphor of atonement, but it is also language present in the NT:

I don't think the language of the NT requires a particular model of atonement, but I think it is hard to argue that the idea of paying a price, and Jesus' unique status enabling him to do that are not thoroughgoing New Testament ideas.

'sall baggage, innit?

Take the song "Be still for the presence of the Lord".

(take it, pleasse, take it!)

Seriously, though, it seems to be making inroads as a communion hymn at churches further up the candle than where you'd ever have expected it to hear it.

Looking at the words on their own, it's easy to see how you can interpret it that way.

I can't, because I was in the charevo scene whence came the wretched (to me) thing back around the time it was written. And I'm pretty sure that in the writer's intention it's got bugger all to do with the Eucharist and everything to do with hands being hovered over people whilst the ministry team mutters in gobbledegook (if you're Gamaliel) or tongues (if you're Jolly Jape) and so on and so forth.

So I still hate it.

Of course, I could be wrong. Baggage doesn't have to be well informed.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
People object to it because they see it as bringing in a whole package around penal subtitutionary atonement (PSA). Certainly it is language that is used within that metaphor of atonement, but it is also language present in the NT:<snip>

At least on my computer, every one of your links returns an error. Divine intervention?

--Tom Clune

[Hot and Hormonal] It does on mine too. I didn't check the links 'cos I used the site's own Quicklink generator to create them. I'll have another go...
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've noticed the 'Be Still For The Presence of the Lord' song catching on in other places beyond its immediate constituency - but that's been happening for some time.

A rule of thumb is that as soon as it appears on BBC's Songs of Praise you know that it's jumped across the boundaries and is becoming ubiquitous in all but the 'Highest' of High Church settings.

As for the 'Fanny Alexander' hymn, 'There is a green hill far away ...' it was pretty standard fare all over the place when I were a lad ... even in places that wouldn't have nailed their colours to a PSA mast necessarily.

I once heard a Methodist minister say that some had claimed that all the theology you needed could be found in that hymn. He didn't think so himself, but he could understand why some might claim so.

I also remember some evangelicals taking exception to elements within it - not the atonement aspects - but the 'try his works to do' element. We weren't to 'try' but to 'trust' ... God would work in us and through us without fleshly self-effort ... yadda yadda yadda ...

So it's not just the more liberal types or those squeamish about PSA who have voiced some concerns about this well known hymn.

But it's always going to be difficult, as has been said, to squeeze every bit of nuance and range into a regular, metrical, rhyming quartet.
 
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
There has been some objection to this line.

Why is this? Is this something to do with PSA - which is why I'm cautiously posting this here?

The objection is that the price of sin was set by God. God wrought amiss in the Garden of Eden. God, being judge, jury, and executioner, set the price. Then, realising the punishment was ridiculously harsh and the price was ludicrously high, God paid the debt God had imposed.

Or in other words "Under my arbitrary rules, you owe me fifty million dollars." [Insert Doctor Evil Laugh] "But my Son is going to pay it off for you. Isn't that nice of him? You therefore owe everything to my son."

But neither the hymn nor scripture actually say that the price was set by God. Just that God announced it.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
I've sorted the links now (using Bible Gateway instead) and checked them before reposting…
People object to it because they see it as bringing in a whole package around penal subtitutionary atonement (PSA). Certainly it is language that is used within that metaphor of atonement, but it is also language present in the NT:

I don't think the language of the NT requires a particular model of atonement, but I think it is hard to argue that the idea of paying a price, and Jesus' unique status enabling him to do that are not thoroughgoing New Testament ideas.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
I don't think the line (and hence the hymn) is exclusively PSA - think about the line,

"He only could unlock the gate
Of heaven and let us in."

Couldn't that also refer to CV?

Having said that PSA and CV aren't completely exclusive of each other.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I don't think the language of the NT requires a particular model of atonement, but I think it is hard to argue that the idea of paying a price, and Jesus' unique status enabling him to do that are not thoroughgoing New Testament ideas.

Paying a price to whom though? PSA says Jesus paid the price required by God, doesn't it? But the New Testament language of paying a price is in the context of a ransom, i.e. a price paid to a slave-owner for the release (redemption) of a slave. But that doesn't really fit with the PSA model - it's not God from whose enslavement we need to be released, is it?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Actually, I was going to say that paying the price of sin has nothing whatever to do with PSA>

Where is the punishment in 'there was no other good enough to pay the price of sin'?

ITSM that it's being used here as just another hammer with which to bash PSA. This line is all about ransom.

We are valuable in God's eyes, we have been taken prisoner by the devil/sin and we have 'been bought with a price' - not that the devil gets the money. He thought he was, as Jesus died, but the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.

Stupid devil didn't see that coming! LOL
 
Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :
 
Gamaliel said:
quote:
'Be Still For The Presence of the Lord' ... is becoming ubiquitous in all but the 'Highest' of High Church settings.
Nowadays it is sometimes used at Benediction for children (instead of O Salutaris) while incense is offered to Jesus present in the Blessed Sacrament.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
Gamaliel said:
quote:
'Be Still For The Presence of the Lord' ... is becoming ubiquitous in all but the 'Highest' of High Church settings.
Nowadays it is sometimes used at Benediction for children (instead of O Salutaris) while incense is offered to Jesus present in the Blessed Sacrament.
I went to an ordination service at Lincoln Cathedral and they used it there.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We are valuable in God's eyes, we have been taken prisoner by the devil/sin and we have 'been bought with a price' - not that the devil gets the money. He thought he was, as Jesus died, but the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.

Stupid devil didn't see that coming! LOL

Now this is interesting - are there two different understandings of PSA?

  1. Where the ransom is required by God
  2. Where the ransom is required by Satan

 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
But neither the hymn nor scripture actually say that the price was set by God. Just that God announced it.

Somebody else set a price that God was forced to pay? Then that somebody else is more powerful than God.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We are valuable in God's eyes, we have been taken prisoner by the devil/sin and we have 'been bought with a price' - not that the devil gets the money. He thought he was, as Jesus died, but the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.

Stupid devil didn't see that coming! LOL

Now this is interesting - are there two different understandings of PSA?

  1. Where the ransom is required by God
  2. Where the ransom is required by Satan

Er no. Penal substitutionary atonement is where, in a legal context, Jesus is the condemned prisoner suffering the penalty of God's justice.

It has nothing to do with paying prices.

That, a ransom, is an entirely different atonement theory.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
All of the atonement theories, like all analogies, fall when you push them too far.

The emphasis is basically on the value of the soul and the extent to which God is willing to ransom the captive soul. The 'price' paid is basically the full value of the soul.

The analogy falls down when you ask 'to whom is the 'money' paid?' That is entirely irrelevant, as far as the analogy is concerned. All that is needed is that we have been 'bought at a price.'

In other words, Christ's atoning death was sufficient to 'cover' the full value of the soul. There is nothing left to 'pay'.

Consummatum est.

The problem is that the medieval mind liked to nail down every aspect of a parable, allegory, so that every word had a meaning. We don't need to do that. Jesus mentioned often that he was giving his life a ransom for many. He never mentioned once to whom it may be paid, which suggests there wasn't a 'person' (i.e. the devil) who received it.

[ 05. March 2013, 15:45: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
But, Mudfrog, the penalty for sin is death - it is a price, though not in monetary terms.

"The wages of sin is death" - so who is the wage owed to?

You previously said
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.


 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But, Mudfrog, the penalty for sin is death - it is a price, though not in monetary terms.

"The wages of sin is death" - so who is the wage owed to?

You previously said
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.


Yes, but PSA is about punishment, condemnation, the handing down of just sentence under the wrath of God.

Jesus, the innocent, takes the place of the guilty in the dock and the Father, the judge, hands down the death penalty to Jesus to suffer death in the place of the guilty, who goes free.

That is penal substitution.

Ransom simply 'pays' the value of the captive - just like in a kidnap situation.

It has nothing to do with penalty or substitution.

[ 05. March 2013, 16:02: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
Ransom/redemption can be seen two ways surely? Either you pay the ransom demanded, or you destroy the thing/person who is holding the captive.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I think what we should not do however is to think that each atonement theory 'cancels out' another. You can hold to CV and also appreciate ransom and PSA. None of them are perfect theories - they are just ways of explaining the rich meaning of 'Christ died for us.' and trying to answer the question, 'how?'
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think what we should not do however is to think that each atonement theory 'cancels out' another. You can hold to CV and also appreciate ransom and PSA. None of them are perfect theories - they are just ways of explaining the rich meaning of 'Christ died for us.' and trying to answer the question, 'how?'

Agreed (with minor reservations about PSA...). As Tom Smail pointed out very well in "Windows on the Cross", there are a variety of "windows" through which we can look and try and make sense of the cross (and resurrection). They are all partial pictures, with their own strengths and weaknesses.

With regards to the line in question - I must admit that I've always been a little baffled by the people who have expressed a desire to avoid the hymn because of it. It doesn't actually say anything more than we already find in various parts of the NT. And it's (sort of) poetry - it doesn't have to be completely self-explanatory.

I'm very nervous about PSA theories, but I'll happily sing "There is a green hill far away" (In fact, I sang it with gusto this very afternoon!)
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We are valuable in God's eyes, we have been taken prisoner by the devil/sin and we have 'been bought with a price' - not that the devil gets the money. He thought he was, as Jesus died, but the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.

Stupid devil didn't see that coming! LOL

Now this is interesting - are there two different understandings of PSA?

  1. Where the ransom is required by God
  2. Where the ransom is required by Satan

But the understanding some people have of 'ransom' is unscriptural.

Lutron = the payment to an owner for a slave’s freedom or a captive’s ransom is not used in the Bible for anything like vicarious satisfaction or vicarious atonement to God for sin.

The sixth-century Persian emperor Cyrus conquered Babylon, freed and sent home those Jews taken into captivity by the Babylonians. And Cyrus did it not for price or reward says Isaiah 45:13 Cyrus not only freed them; he didn’t demand any ransom in return.
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
quote:

originally posted by Oscar the Grouch

I must admit that I've always been a little baffled by the people who have expressed a desire to avoid the hymn because of it.

I remember a guy at a former church who refused to sing "There is a green hill far away" because of the line "where the dear Lord was crucified who died to save us all". "No", he said, "he only died to save the elect".
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Christian doctrine often tends to lose a bit of subtlety when it's made to rhyme and fit a common metre tune.

For that reason, I think it can be fine to express things in hymns in ways that wouldn't be acceptable in a sermon or an introduction to doctrine.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
Where we cause chagrin to God by our sin, it is us who are in debt to God. He loves us so much that we were given Jesus to show us that our debt is cancelled out. God has taken the debt upon himself and set us free from it.

Even though the people were so cruel to his Son, the resurrection and subsequent gift of the Holy Spirit demonstrate the forgiveness of God. Now that's truly showing us the way.

There was no other good enough. Nobody except Jesus could have achieved this and left us with its good news message.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I remember a guy at a former church who refused to sing "There is a green hill far away" because of the line "where the dear Lord was crucified who died to save us all". "No", he said, "he only died to save the elect".

For a second, I had an urge to rewrite the first verse in a way which would be more pleasing to your Calvinist friend - but no, perish the thought! [Devil]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Christian doctrine often tends to lose a bit of subtlety when it's made to rhyme and fit a common metre tune.

For that reason, I think it can be fine to express things in hymns in ways that wouldn't be acceptable in a sermon or an introduction to doctrine.
It's also, of course, possible to get most people to sing the most dreadful nonsense if you disguise it with a memorable tune.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Christian doctrine often tends to lose a bit of subtlety when it's made to rhyme and fit a common metre tune.

For that reason, I think it can be fine to express things in hymns in ways that wouldn't be acceptable in a sermon or an introduction to doctrine.
It's also, of course, possible to get most people to sing the most dreadful nonsense if you disguise it with a memorable tune.
[Ikea meatball]A quick thumb through any collection from Hymns Ancient and Prehistoric through to Songs of Fluffiness 45 or whatever they're up to by now will quickly inform you that the memorable tune is not required for this.[/Findus bolog'neighs']
 
Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :
 
The notorious (in his time) Bishop James Pike would not say the Nicene Creed, but he would happily sing it.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Where we cause chagrin to God by our sin, it is us who are in debt to God. He loves us so much that we were given Jesus to show us that our debt is cancelled out. God has taken the debt upon himself and set us free from it.

Even though the people were so cruel to his Son, the resurrection and subsequent gift of the Holy Spirit demonstrate the forgiveness of God. Now that's truly showing us the way.

There was no other good enough. Nobody except Jesus could have achieved this and left us with its good news message.

Maybe this will take us back to the OP. I wonder about the line "there was no other good enough". It implies that God was looking around for someone to martyr themselves for the punishment that God really needed to exact on himself. If Jesus is part of the Trinity, then the issue of 'there was no other' makes very little sense. I think that part of this issue is with crappy lyrics, rather than crappy theology, per se.

There are some useful things in this thread about trying to use theories (CV, PSA) as lenses through which to view the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Where we cause chagrin to God by our sin, it is us who are in debt to God. He loves us so much that we were given Jesus to show us that our debt is cancelled out. God has taken the debt upon himself and set us free from it.

Even though the people were so cruel to his Son, the resurrection and subsequent gift of the Holy Spirit demonstrate the forgiveness of God. Now that's truly showing us the way.

There was no other good enough. Nobody except Jesus could have achieved this and left us with its good news message.

Maybe this will take us back to the OP. I wonder about the line "there was no other good enough". It implies that God was looking around for someone to martyr themselves for the punishment that God really needed to exact on himself. If Jesus is part of the Trinity, then the issue of 'there was no other' makes very little sense. I think that part of this issue is with crappy lyrics, rather than crappy theology, per se.
Let's remember that it was written for children and not be too harsh on the good lady who wrote it.

Also, she isn't far wrong - there was no other good enough:

quote:
I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. Then one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals...
And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation." Revelation 5 v 4,5 & 9

And as far as the 'he only could unlock the gate of heaven' is concerned, we look here:

quote:
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4 v 12
I think if a writer can express profound eternal truths such as these in a form that even children can understand, then she is to be applauded. It's why this song is universally known whilst many other atonement hymns are less well-known and loved, and are often ignored.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Maybe this will take us back to the OP. I wonder about the line "there was no other good enough". It implies that God was looking around for someone to martyr themselves for the punishment that God really needed to exact on himself. If Jesus is part of the Trinity, then the issue of 'there was no other' makes very little sense. I think that part of this issue is with crappy lyrics, rather than crappy theology, per se.

There are some useful things in this thread about trying to use theories (CV, PSA) as lenses through which to view the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

In Trinitarian terms, that does make sense. It is part of the understanding, but only part. Not only are we not able to save ourselves - there is indeed no other good enough - but if you are saying, "the punishment that God really needed to exact on himself", then you could say that God having created what is for us a Catch 22, it falls to him to break the deadlock.

Going back to the two more fundamental questions:-

1. Frances Alexander was writing a hymn for children. So it's silly to criticise her for not trying to fit the more subtle arcanae of Atonement theology into Common Metre.

2. You can't strain the Atonement into any of the explanations as the one, full, perfect and sufficient explanation. The thing one can say with complete certainty is that anyone who insists that Christus Victor, PSA, Ransom, Moral Influence or whatever is either 'the only explanation' or outrageous is wrong.

Incidentally,

a. not all substitutionary explanations are penal: and

b different cultures and eras seem to find some explanations resonate more for them than others, are more helpful in leading them to grasping something of what the Atonement is about.

3. If somebody is really hostile to one of the explanations, it's worth asking them, or yourself, 'what is it about that explanation that is bugging them?' Usually, it seems to turn out to be either,

a. they are resistant to any suggestion that the Atonement, or any other part of the Christian message, has objective ontological supernatural effects; or

b. it's personal. They don't like the people they think like that explanation.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
I'm not normally known as being "soft" on PSA, but, as the lyrics from the good Mrs Alexander go, I take far more exception to
quote:
"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate;
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate"

than I do to anything in "TIAGHFA" (though I do think "and try His works to do" is a bit lame for the climax of the hymn).
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not normally known as being "soft" on PSA, but, as the lyrics from the good Mrs Alexander go, I take far more exception to
quote:
"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate;
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate"

than I do to anything in "TIAGHFA" (though I do think "and try His works to do" is a bit lame for the climax of the hymn).
Which is why you'll not find it in any hymn book.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not normally known as being "soft" on PSA, but, as the lyrics from the good Mrs Alexander go, I take far more exception to
quote:
"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate;
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate"

than I do to anything in "TIAGHFA" (though I do think "and try His works to do" is a bit lame for the climax of the hymn).
Which is why you'll not find it in any hymn book.
Really? Perhaps, like the ex-president, I misremembered, but I'm sure I didn't make it up [Confused]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Really? Perhaps, like the ex-president, I misremembered, but I'm sure I didn't make it up [Confused]

You didn't make it up, but that verse is omitted from hymnals these days.

Moo
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Christian doctrine often tends to lose a bit of subtlety when it's made to rhyme and fit a common metre tune.

For that reason, I think it can be fine to express things in hymns in ways that wouldn't be acceptable in a sermon or an introduction to doctrine.
It's also, of course, possible to get most people to sing the most dreadful nonsense if you disguise it with a memorable tune.
This attitude would be difficult to defend in a traditional Methodist context, because Methodists famously sing their theology. How can your theology be represented in your singing if you don't really care about the theological content of your hymns?

(I refer to 'a traditional Methodist context' because over time a church's theology can easily drift away from what it was when its favourite hymns were written. When this happens, traditional hymns are sung in order to celebrate a shared heritage, rather than to enunciate a shared belief.)
 
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
The ransom, penalty, and substitution components of the atonement can be found in Gal.3:13. I say ‘can’ because this is obviously open to discussion, but I find the argument convincing. I don’t have the time or space to explain in detail, but simply give the bare outline.

The word translated as ‘redeemed’ is exēgorasen from exagorazō to buy or pay a price for (presumably from the marketplace, though I might be committing the etymological fallacy there). It has a very close meaning to the luō/lutron word group as indicated by their collocation in one semantic domain in Louw & Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains (definitions 37.127-37.138).

‘Curse’ is functionally equivalent to ‘punishment’ and hence the penal element – see Deuteronomy 27:26 (alluded to in verse 10)and Deut.28, and read ‘blessing’ as reward, and ‘curse’ as punishment; and here the LORD is clearly identified as the source of both blessing/reward and curse/punishment. Thus the LORD is the source of the curse, and Jesus becomes the object of it.

The substitution element comes from the phrase: genomenos huper hēmōn katara through a grammatical analysis of the use of the preposition huper, to which Daniel B Wallace devotes six-and-a-half pages in his book Greek Grammar beyond the Basics : An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, and discusses the options for understanding the meaning as representative (on behalf of) or as substitutionary (in place of, instead of), and comes down in favour of substitution.

This verse needs to be analysed in the context of Paul’s argument in the first three chapters of Galatians, which raises an interesting question as to who the ‘us’ refers to in 3:13. It might be that it is only the Jews, and not the gentiles, since only the Jews were under the Law, and therefore the blessings and curses of Deut.28. Hmm, interesting... Maybe we need to transfer to Kerygmania. [Biased]
Angus
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

And as far as the 'he only could unlock the gate of heaven' is concerned, we look here:

quote:
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4 v 12
[/QUOTE]
Bad translation and out of context.

The context is one of healing, not eternal destiny.

'Salvation' = wholeness = healing.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Frances Alexander was writing a hymn for children. So it's silly to criticise her for not trying to fit the more subtle arcanae of Atonement theology into Common Metre.

Not at all silly.
It is a pedagogical commonplace that we should not teach children things they must unlearn later.

Causing children 'to stumble;' is a very serious matter.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We are valuable in God's eyes, we have been taken prisoner by the devil/sin and we have 'been bought with a price' - not that the devil gets the money. He thought he was, as Jesus died, but the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.

Stupid devil didn't see that coming! LOL

Now this is interesting - are there two different understandings of PSA?

  1. Where the ransom is required by God
  2. Where the ransom is required by Satan

But the understanding some people have of 'ransom' is unscriptural.

Lutron = the payment to an owner for a slave’s freedom or a captive’s ransom is not used in the Bible for anything like vicarious satisfaction or vicarious atonement to God for sin.

The sixth-century Persian emperor Cyrus conquered Babylon, freed and sent home those Jews taken into captivity by the Babylonians. And Cyrus did it not for price or reward says Isaiah 45:13 Cyrus not only freed them; he didn’t demand any ransom in return.

William Barclay has an excellent chapter on the world lutron in his book New Testament Words.

I summarised it here. This is in the context of Mark 10:45.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Excellent. Thank you for that.

And it's not PSA - so I don't understand the objection to TIAGHFA and the verse in question.

Are we saying now that not only was Jesus not under the penalty of sin, neither did he give his life a ransom?

Someone will soon say that they think the cross is also unnecessary.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Well, lotsa people died on a cross. Not necessary.

None of em were resurrected but.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, but no cross, no resurrection. Are you saying it would have been the same if Christ had died of natural causes, say or in a random accident? Tower falling on top of him as on the 18 in the incident recounted in Luke's Gospel?
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
I reckon God's response, resurrection, would have been the same. But the point of the cross to me is that HUMANITY'S actions were, well, that. Instead of anything benign or accidental.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We are valuable in God's eyes, we have been taken prisoner by the devil/sin and we have 'been bought with a price' - not that the devil gets the money. He thought he was, as Jesus died, but the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.

Stupid devil didn't see that coming! LOL

Now this is interesting - are there two different understandings of PSA?

  1. Where the ransom is required by God
  2. Where the ransom is required by Satan

But the understanding some people have of 'ransom' is unscriptural.

Lutron = the payment to an owner for a slave’s freedom or a captive’s ransom is not used in the Bible for anything like vicarious satisfaction or vicarious atonement to God for sin.

The sixth-century Persian emperor Cyrus conquered Babylon, freed and sent home those Jews taken into captivity by the Babylonians. And Cyrus did it not for price or reward says Isaiah 45:13 Cyrus not only freed them; he didn’t demand any ransom in return.

William Barclay has an excellent chapter on the world lutron in his book New Testament Words.
I quite like that, not that i agree with all of it.

Barclay was no evangelical - evos accuse him of being too 'liberal'.
I summarised it here. This is in the context of Mark 10:45.


 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Well, lotsa people died on a cross. Not necessary. ...

Yebbut. They were neither Son of God nor Incarnate deity.

If someone were to put me to death unjustly and cruelly, I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be salvific

[ 07. March 2013, 21:53: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I read THIS HYMN this morning in my prayers and I quote this verse:

quote:
Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
In my place condemned He stood;
Sealed my pardon with His blood.
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

To know this truth, to recognise what Jesus did for me, just makes me want to praise him and worship him more. To know that he took my place in judgment so that 'there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus' (Romans 8 v 1) is just wonderful.

I can only think that some of those who reject this truth - and even the necessity of the cross - are those who refuse to see they need a Saviour and need someone to atone for and remove their sins.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
You might think that, Mudfrog, and I would have said the same at one time, but I'm not sure it's as simple and clear cut as that. Speak to the Orthodox. They regard Christ as Saviour and believe in the atonement and so on but not in the vicarious, penal-substitutionary way that you or that well-known hymn have articulated it.

Are you saying that the Orthodox don't see the need for a Saviour?

That said, in the context of some of the more liberal forms of Protestantism I think you have a case.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You might think that, Mudfrog, and I would have said the same at one time, but I'm not sure it's as simple and clear cut as that. Speak to the Orthodox. They regard Christ as Saviour and believe in the atonement and so on but not in the vicarious, penal-substitutionary way that you or that well-known hymn have articulated it.

Are you saying that the Orthodox don't see the need for a Saviour?

That said, in the context of some of the more liberal forms of Protestantism I think you have a case.

I don't know enough about Orthodoxy to say anything, for or against; and they are certainly not what I meant. There are those, however, who see any atonement theory that actually deals with sin as being offensive. My opinion of that is that it is simply because they do not recognise sin in their own lives, nor do they recognise that God has any reason to have an opinion anbout their so-called sin, even if it did exist.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
In any case, it matters not to me which theory one favours over and against another - the truth is, the fact is, that all of them are true because not one of them expresses fully the depth of riches that we see in the cross.

There is not one theory of atonement I cannot accept - I thank God for them all, facets of the 'diamond of salvation' that they are. I cannot afford to ignore or discard any one of them.

One thing I must insist on however, is that the atonement does something forensically with my sin.
It must take it away and not just, say, provide an example of love, or show how victorious Jesus was. It must do something for me, for my sin.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I can see that, Mudfrog and I don't know enough about the other traditions to say how they deal or don't deal with that aspect.

However, don't you think it's a tad ad-hominem to suggest that people who take a different view of these things 'do not recognise sin in their own lives'?

I don't think I've ever met anyone with a broadly Christian faith position who would claim to be without sin or that sin didn't have an effect in their own life ... even if they defined sin differently to how you're doing here.

That seems a pretty reductionist approach on your part to me.

'They don't understand the atonement in the way that I do therefore they can't be that bothered about sin ...'

Don't get me wrong, I'm not seeking to minimise sin nor its effects. But it seems a bit of a jump to me to suggest that people who don't see things the way you do only do so because of their darkness of their minds or their winking at sin and what-have-you ...

'Do not judge lest ye also be judged ...' and so on.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
As an aside, this isn't the only thread where people claim an almost supernatural insight into what other people really think.

I for one am heartily sick of it, especially given that every time someone's said "you say/do that because..." they've been completely and utterly wrong.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As an aside, this isn't the only thread where people claim an almost supernatural insight into what other people really think.

Don't I know it! [Projectile]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Admittedly I'm not Orthodox, but I'm not convinced by the argument that Orthodoxy has a fundamentally different understanding of atonement.

Some extracts from the Catechism of St Philaret - this dates from the 1830s and so must be well out of copyright.
quote:
207. How does holy Scripture speak of this deliverance?
Of deliverance from sin:
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace". Eph 1:7.
Of deliverance from the curse:
"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us". Gal 3:13.
Of deliverance from death:
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage". Heb 2:14-15.

208. How does the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross deliver us from sin, the curse, and death?
... Therefore as in Adam we had fallen under sin, the curse, and death, so we are delivered from sin, the curse, and death in Jesus Christ. His voluntary suffering and death on the cross for us, being of infinite value and merit, as the death of one sinless, God and man in one person, is both a perfect satisfaction to the justice of God, which had condemned us for sin to death, and a fund of infinite merit, which has obtained him the right, without prejudice to justice, to give us sinners pardon of our sins, and grace to have victory over sin and death.


 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Mudfrog quotes a hymn which insists on seeing Jesus as our substitute.

He does not deal with the real problem. A substitute may indeed pay the penalty of sin but one thing a substitute cannot do is to incur the guilt which is associated with a sinful act.

In plain English - guilt cannot be transferred; it can only be forgiven.

IMO Christ's death justifies God in offering us a free forgiveness. Which is very different from saying it justifies us in some way.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
Being something of a novice to Orthodoxy, my understanding is that we do not have any problem with the two extracts of St Philaret which Enoch posted.

The problem seems to be with the idea that Christ died for our sins to appease an angry God and pacify His wrath. This would mean that on the cross, the Father and the Son could not be One God. The other issue would be who the Sacrifice would be offered to in heaven - would the Son offer the Sacrifice of Himself to the Father? Again, if that were to be the case we should have serious problems with Trinitarian doctrine.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Being something of a novice to Orthodoxy, my understanding is that we do not have any problem with the two extracts of St Philaret which Enoch posted.

The problem seems to be with the idea that Christ died for our sins to appease an angry God and pacify His wrath. This would mean that on the cross, the Father and the Son could not be One God. The other issue would be who the Sacrifice would be offered to in heaven - would the Son offer the Sacrifice of Himself to the Father? Again, if that were to be the case we should have serious problems with Trinitarian doctrine.

You should read some Moltmann then - both |father and Son suffer, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. it is a parody of PSA to say that Jesus appeases an angry God. If that were so, then we would have to be adoptionists.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You should read some Moltmann then - both |father and Son suffer, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. it is a parody of PSA to say that Jesus appeases an angry God. If that were so, then we would have to be adoptionists.

If one follows Moltmann, one becomes patripassionist.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
I'm still trying to figure out what sort of green hills have city walls, or what's special about those which don't. Am I up against doggerel? ......"And try his works to do"- aaaaargh!
 
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I'm still trying to figure out what sort of green hills have city walls, or what's special about those which don't. Am I up against doggerel? ......"And try his works to do"- aaaaargh!

You know that 'without' in this context means 'outside'? Does that help?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I'm still trying to figure out what sort of green hills have city walls, or what's special about those which don't. Am I up against doggerel? ......"And try his works to do"- aaaaargh!

An old British tradition it is the words to twist, the grammar to wreck so as the metre to fit.

(I say British rather than English because the worst offender is the Scottish Psalter. The great Fathers of Scottish Presbyterianism: Calvin, Knox and Yoda.)
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
An old British tradition it is the words to twist, the grammar to wreck so as the metre to fit.

(I say British rather than English because the worst offender is the Scottish Psalter. The great Fathers of Scottish Presbyterianism: Calvin, Knox and Yoda.)

The writer of the psalter Scots
His words canna be beaten
Nae Caledonian he, in stead
A Maister was at Eton.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Mudfrog, I agree with you that it's a misunderstanding of PSA to cast it in terms of the appeasement of an angry God - but unfortunately, it's often understood and presented that way by many evangelicals ... particularly those of a more Calvinistic or neo-Calvinistic persuasion.

That said, I'm not entirely sure it's absent across the rest of evangelicalism either ... at least in its more 'populist' form if I can put it that way without sounding elitist.

There are grotesque court-room images and all manner of wierd and wonderful presentations and analogies in popular evangelicalism ... just as there are wierd and wonderful presentations of Catholic doctrine in popular Catholicism ...

It strikes me that we're all walking a tight-rope and trying to express the inexpressible to some extent - and it's very easy with ANY of the atonement models to overstep the mark.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Can't imagine where anybody could have gotten that idea.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well yes, that was one of the examples I had in mind, Mousethief.
 
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I'm still trying to figure out what sort of green hills have city walls, or what's special about those which don't. Am I up against doggerel? ......"And try his works to do"- aaaaargh!

You know that 'without' in this context means 'outside'? Does that help?
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
An old British tradition it is the words to twist, the grammar to wreck so as the metre to fit.

(I say British rather than English because the worst offender is the Scottish Psalter. The great Fathers of Scottish Presbyterianism: Calvin, Knox and Yoda.)

Perhaps if the hymn had been written by someone Scottish, they would have used the word 'outwith' and saved all the confusion.
Angus
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
2 of my sons were born on that hill that is 'without' a city wall [Smile]

Let me explain.
In Northern Ireland, the city of Londonderry has walls. Across the River Foyle is a hill called Altnagelvin, the hill of sparrows, and Mrs Alexander could see this hill from the Bishop's house inside the city walls. It was her inspiration for the hymn about a green hill without a city wall.

My boys were born there because there is a large hospital built upon it.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You should read some Moltmann then - both |father and Son suffer, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. it is a parody of PSA to say that Jesus appeases an angry God. If that were so, then we would have to be adoptionists.

If one follows Moltmann, one becomes patripassionist.
I don't believe so, because the Father didn't die on the cross. Only the Son died, but the Father also suffered the loss of his son.

Moltmann suggests "When the crucified Jesus is called 'the image of the invisible God' the meaning is that this is God, and God is like this." (The Crucified God, p205)
For Moltmann, this is not a case of a vengeful Father punishing his innocent Son for, "the Christ event on the cross is a God event...the father suffers the death of his Son...He also suffers the death of his Fatherhood." He also says that the "community" of Father and Son is "expressed precisely at the point of their deepest separation."

This idea of the suffering Father could be set alongside Barth's view that the Judge is himself judged.

This gets rid of the false idea that a wrathful, vengeful Father is smiting his innocent Son.
An idea that NT Wright further overturns with the comment that God didn't condemn his Son, he "condemned sin in the flesh."
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
While I understand the desire out of Christian charity to be inclusive and accommodating of different theories of the atonement, I must confess to being sceptical of that position because critical elements in them appear to be mutually exclusive. As far as Mrs Alexander is concerned ISTM that the words under discussion, "pay the price of sin", could be supportive of ransom theories, or, if understood as paying a fine or penalty, as PSA.

I would want to question: "He died that we might be forgiven". After all, Jesus forgave sinners in the course of his ministry prior to the cross. I would also want to suggest that atonement is about "reconciliation", which requires an act by more than one party, whereas forgiveness does not, as demonstrated by Christ's forgiveness of those who crucified him.

Regarding TIAGHFA as a whole I think it's pretty low level stuff in which "suitable for children" has become confused with "infantile"; and we might more profitably concern ourselves with the grown-up theology of hymns like: "Sing, my tongue, the glorious battle.." (Venantius Fortunatus) and "When I survey the wondrous cross..." (Isaac Watts).

On the offending stanza in "All things bright and beautiful" the question is not whether it's included in modern hymnbooks, but whether it was ever included in some hymnbooks and not others. My guess is that the Anglicans would have been less likely to exclude it than Nonconformists, but I stand to be corrected.
 
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
...
I would want to question: "He died that we might be forgiven". After all, Jesus forgave sinners in the course of his ministry prior to the cross.
...

Jesus’s atoning self-sacrifice on the cross, acting as both High Priest and victim (and the event of the crucifixion was the moment of curse substitution: “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” (Gal.3:13b ESV)) was the key event for redemption, justification, forgiveness, reconciliation, and salvation in the whole of human history. It was an event within time which had (and has) extra-temporal effect.

It acted prospectively to allow forgiveness for the rest of time until the establishment of the New Creation at the Second Coming, and it acted retrospectively for all time back to the first Creation (or, perhaps more accurately, the Fall). The temple sacrifices of animals prefigured this event, and to answer specifically the point raised by Kwesi, the forgiveness expressed by Jesus during his ministry was done in anticipation of the atonement which he would make on the cross. As the writer to the Hebrews puts it: “...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Heb.9:22) (And the rest of Hebrews 9 and 10 is relevant here as well, especially 9:26 & 28.)

Angus
 
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to expand slightly the text of my second paragraph to give a clearer explanation. Please substitute the following:

...the forgiveness expressed by Jesus during his ministry was done in anticipation of the atonement which he would make on the cross – the atonement retrospectively enabled and validated the forgiveness that Jesus had pronounced. This is to fulfil the requirements of the Sinai Covenant law, as noted by the writer to the Hebrews: “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Heb.9:22, referring back to Lev.17:11)

Angus
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
That's one view. One might say "Under the law there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, but under grace?"
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's one view. One might say "Under the law there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, but under grace?"

but Jesus died 'under the law.'
His was the final Mosaic sacrifice - he was the Lamb of (provided by) God.

He was born under the law in order to redeem those under the law.

Grace started after the resurrection - although many would say that grace is actually seen in the provision of the Lamb.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
...the forgiveness expressed by Jesus during his ministry was done in anticipation of the atonement which he would make on the cross – the atonement retrospectively enabled and validated the forgiveness that Jesus had pronounced.

I'm not so sure about this - we seem to be telling God what He can and cannot do.

I think it's much more simple - Jesus could forgive sins, because He was God, and had the Authority to do so. This is what all the controversy with the Pharisees was all about - to them, Jesus saying, "Your sins are forgiven you" was the same as Jesus saying He was God.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
...the forgiveness expressed by Jesus during his ministry was done in anticipation of the atonement which he would make on the cross – the atonement retrospectively enabled and validated the forgiveness that Jesus had pronounced.

I'm not so sure about this - we seem to be telling God what He can and cannot do.

I think it's much more simple - Jesus could forgive sins, because He was God, and had the Authority to do so. This is what all the controversy with the Pharisees was all about - to them, Jesus saying, "Your sins are forgiven you" was the same as Jesus saying He was God.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
His was the final Mosaic sacrifice - he was the Lamb of (provided by) God.

Was it Mosaic? Who was the priest who offered this sacrifice? Because Jesus, our Great High Priest who offered himself, is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, not after the order of Aaron.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If one follows Moltmann, one becomes patripassionist.

I don't believe so, because the Father didn't die on the cross. Only the Son died, but the Father also suffered the loss of his son.
I think it depends what one means by 'suffer'.

AIUI, in theo-speak 'suffer' is usually translating the Latin patior (pati, passus sum) which is the root of the word 'passive', and which has the sense of undergoing a change as a result of being acted upon by external influences. In this sense of the word, God cannot suffer because there is no external influence powerful enough to act on Him (the contrary belief being, as leo says, the heresy of Patripassionism or Theopaschitism).

However, that is a rather specialist sense of the word 'suffer'.

I think if we are allowed to use human analogies, we could say that God the Father suffered like Jan Palach (who chose to set himself on fire without external compulsion) while God the Son suffered like Maximilian Kolbe (who did not prevent other people from killing him when he had the opportunity).
 
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's one view. One might say "Under the law there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, but under grace?"

At the risk of re-working what Mudfrog has posted, the grace of God was shown in the process whereby Jesus placed himself under the curse of the law so that those who had been under the curse of the Law no longer were – they were redeemed from the curse of the Law. (Gal.3:13) (And as Mudfrog said, grace was shown in the provision of the redeeming sacrifice.)

To expand the reference I made to Hebrews 9&10, once the redeeming sacrifice had been made as a single once-for all atonement, this grace could then be apprehended by all those who are faithful to Jesus:

(Starting at Heb.9:24, quoting ESV, and with my explanation in sq. brackets) “For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands”,[i.e. the tabernacle, as the high priest did, see context of the preceding verses of Heb.9] “which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself... Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own” [the blood was of bulls and goats] “for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once and after that comes judgment, so Christ having been offered once to bear the sins of many will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”

Jumping to 10:11: “And every priest stands daily at his service offering repeatedly the same sacrifices which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God... For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”

And thanks to the grace of God in providing this sacrifice for sins, the position of the Christian believer is explained in 10:19ff:
“Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain” [i.e. the curtain that separated the holy of holies from the rest of the tabernacle or temple] “that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience” [an allusion to the sprinkling with blood by the high priest for cleansing and demonstration of the covenant – see Heb.9:19-21, Lev.14:4 and Ex.24:8] “and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful”

That’s the best I can do, and I don’t really have the time for an in-depth exposition of the first four chapters of Galatians and most of the book of Hebrews. And this is a subject which proves the truth of the saying that you’ll never understand the New Testament if you don’t know the Old Testament.

Incidentally, there are still two questions unanswered in my own mind: firstly is it only Jews that were under the curse of the Law, and if so, where does that leave gentiles? And secondly, on the day of atonement, there were two goats, one sacrificed as a sin-offering, and the other a live goat which bore the iniquities of the people of Israel into the wilderness, so how does that pre-figure the atonement which Jesus accomplished? I’m still working on those...

To respond to Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
His was the final Mosaic sacrifice - he was the Lamb of (provided by) God.

Was it Mosaic? Who was the priest who offered this sacrifice? Because Jesus, our Great High Priest who offered himself, is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, not after the order of Aaron.
The whole of Hebrews chapters 7-10 is a discussion of the Mosaic covenant and sacrificial system, and how it relates to and prefigures the atoning sacrifice of Christ. But you are quite right that Jesus was not a Levitical priest (he could not be, since he was from the tribe of Judah). The requirement for a priest not of the order of Aaron is explained in Hebrews 7, notably v.11: “Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?”(ESV)

To respond to Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
...the forgiveness expressed by Jesus during his ministry was done in anticipation of the atonement which he would make on the cross – the atonement retrospectively enabled and validated the forgiveness that Jesus had pronounced.

I'm not so sure about this - we seem to be telling God what He can and cannot do.
...

I don’t think it’s a case of telling God what he can and cannot do, but rather explaining how God goes about doing what he does. I agree with you that Jesus in claiming to forgive sins was claiming to be God (and representing God the Father), but if on those occasions the sins were forgiven just by Jesus saying so, with no connection at all to any atonement, then why was his atoning sacrifice necessary at all? If God could forgive the sins of the people Jesus spoke to, without any atonement, then why was that not available for everyone else as well? Why did Jesus need to offer himself as an atoning sacrifice, as the book of Hebrews explains, if forgiveness could be granted merely by an authoritative pronouncement? It seems entirely inconsistent for Jesus to forgive the sins of some people merely on an authoritative word, while the sins of others require atonement. My formulation, namely that Jesus’s pronouncement of forgiveness was done in anticipation of the atonement that he would make on the cross, in order to provide the mechanism for that forgiveness, eliminates that inconsistency.

The question comes down to: Why did God the Father require an atoning sacrifice in order to forgive sins? That’s the heart of the point about what God “can and cannot do.” The answer? I haven’t a clue. It’s a mystery. It just seems to be that way from the information that we have at the moment, where we see dimly... When we see God face to face, we may well understand.

It’s a good job that God did provide the sacrifice that would provide the mechanism for forgiveness. Without it we’d all be screwed.

Angus
 
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
But neither the hymn nor scripture actually say that the price was set by God. Just that God announced it.

Somebody else set a price that God was forced to pay? Then that somebody else is more powerful than God.
But that "somebody else" isn't a person - it's the fact that God is incapable of acting contrary to his nature. I don't think that omnipotence in the Christian sense means that God can perform any string of words we conjure up - it only means that God is capable of doing anything free of contradiction. So God was forced to pay the price only in the same sense that he was "forced" to love us, because an unloving God and an unjust God are equally impossible.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
The whole of Hebrews chapters 7-10 is a discussion of the Mosaic covenant and sacrificial system, and how it relates to and prefigures the atoning sacrifice of Christ. But you are quite right that Jesus was not a Levitical priest (he could not be, since he was from the tribe of Judah). The requirement for a priest not of the order of Aaron is explained in Hebrews 7, notably v.11: “Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?”(ESV)

How can a non-Levitical priest offer a Mosaic sacrifice? Melchizedek didn't offer Mosaic sacrifices because Moses hadn't been born yet. Jesus' sacrifice can't possibly be Mosaic. The quote you quote seems to prove that, not disprove it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
But neither the hymn nor scripture actually say that the price was set by God. Just that God announced it.

Somebody else set a price that God was forced to pay? Then that somebody else is more powerful than God.
But that "somebody else" isn't a person - it's the fact that God is incapable of acting contrary to his nature.
Now you're trying to have it both ways. The price wasn't set by God, it was set by the way God is? Huh?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
It's stranger than that. It means that God, in the Lord's Prayer and the parable of the unforgiving servant, and reinforced throughout the NT, requires us to do something he cannot by his very nature do - forgive unilaterally out of our own forbearance.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
It's stranger even than that, I think. It means that both God and the nature of sin are not easily reflected in analogies about 'ordinary' human transactions.

The grace of God (of God's own motion) comes when God (the Son) is made incarnate and lives, suffers and dies for the redemption of humankind, and when God (the Father) sends him, and allows that to happen to him.

The significance of the cross is not just that it is God declaring his will to forgive, but also that God in his own person takes upon himself the cost of delivering humankind from the consequences of sin.

The implication of that is that there is something in the way that sin separates us from God, some 'logical impossibility', which means that the separation cannot simply be removed by God's will to forgive, but also needs God's act of atonement.

In other words there is some way, which isn't totally accessible to human reason, in which it is no more possible for God to remove the consequences of sin by simply saying "I forgive you" than it is possible for God to make something so heavy that he cannot lift it.
 
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
BroJames - That seems to me to be an excellent summary - thank you. I think that's the nearest we're going to get.

Mousethief - I think I'm starting to follow your point. Allow me some thinking time to review the evidence. My mind grinds exceeding slow. [Smile]

Karl - I have a hunch, and this is pretty much a guess on my part, that the difference between God forgiving us and the command (expressed also in the parable you refer) for us to forgive others, is that when God is sinned against it is an offence against his ultimate holiness, which is perhaps why the atoning sacrifice is required.

This is not the case when one person sins against another. The personal injury done to the one sinned against, who then needs to forgive, is not going to be to their holiness.

Angus

[Edited for typo]

[ 13. March 2013, 21:13: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Mousethief - I think I'm starting to follow your point. Allow me some thinking time to review the evidence. My mind grinds exceeding slow. [Smile]

As long as the bits of bone left in the sausage aren't detectible, speed of grinding matters not.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:

The significance of the cross is not just that it is God declaring his will to forgive, but also that God in his own person takes upon himself the cost of delivering humankind from the consequences of sin.

God got ripped off.

We still sin.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
He counted the cost. We're worth it.
 
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But, Mudfrog, the penalty for sin is death - it is a price, though not in monetary terms.

"The wages of sin is death" - so who is the wage owed to?

You previously said
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...the resurrection shows that Jesus having paid the price to ransom many, took the money back at the resurrection.


Mark - a very interesting question on which the Fathers (as you probably are aware) reflected. Since Scripture never answers that question, I'm inclined to think we should read this as an analogy not to be pressed too far. The point of the analogy is to describe the effect of Christ's death and resurrection rather than the process.

We can have some delightful speculations as to whom the ransom was paid (sin - which Paul personifies perhaps?) but perhaps better to focus, as the NT does, on the outcome.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
"The wages of sin is death" - so who is the wage owed to?

The sinner of course. That's how the sentence is set up.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
God removes the consequences of sin, not in some weird, ineffable, inaccessible scale of justice, but in the resurrection and the judgement to come.

The time of the restitution of all things.

Everything else is Babylonian-Judeo-Persian-Roman metaphor.
 
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
The whole of Hebrews chapters 7-10 is a discussion of the Mosaic covenant and sacrificial system, and how it relates to and prefigures the atoning sacrifice of Christ. But you are quite right that Jesus was not a Levitical priest (he could not be, since he was from the tribe of Judah). The requirement for a priest not of the order of Aaron is explained in Hebrews 7, notably v.11: “Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?”(ESV)

How can a non-Levitical priest offer a Mosaic sacrifice? Melchizedek didn't offer Mosaic sacrifices because Moses hadn't been born yet. Jesus' sacrifice can't possibly be Mosaic. The quote you quote seems to prove that, not disprove it.
@Mousethief OK, the understanding that I’ve come to so far is that the requirement for an atoning self-sacrifice performed by Jesus was under the Sinai Covenant (aka Mosaic) Law, while the process by which it was offered did not conform fully to the rituals specified in the Law, for example for it to be performed by a Levitical priest. Some of the consequences of the sacrifice are specified by the Law, such as the cursed status of anyone hanged on a tree Deut.21:22-23 referenced by Gal.3:13.

I guess that a possible challenge to the validity of such a sacrifice is countered by what the author of the book of Hebrews wrote in Heb.7:1-10, pointing out that Melchizedek was superior to all the Levitical priesthood, thus the sacrificial offering made by a priest of the order of Melchizedek will be equally effective (or even more so).

How does that fit with your understanding, MT?

Angus
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
A.Pilgrim, thanks for answering my post. I'm not trying to be difficult for the sake of being difficult, and indeed this is a difficult passage embodying a difficult concept. So thanks for bearing with me. My overall take on it, is that it is a Melchizidekian thing, and the Mosaic sacrificial system is being brought in as an analogy but not meant to describe what was actually happening, which was a Melchizidekian priest offering a Melchizidekian sacrifice, the inner nature of which is ultimately a mystery (unlike the Aaronic sacrifices which are pretty well spelled out).

The Aaronic system does require the high priest to make an atonement for himself, but of course not OF himself. There is no human sacrifice in the Mosaic Law, and the prophets fought tooth and nail against the cult of Moloch. So I don't understand it when you say that the Sinai Covenant called for a self-sacrifice.

Nor am I quite sure the applicability of the verse "cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree" to the sacrificial system, occurring as it does not in the section of the Law laying out the sacrificial system, but in a section having to do with the well-ordering of the house of Israel.

The Melchizidekian priesthood being superior to the Levitical priesthood I quite agree with. It is anterior in time, and Melchizidek himself was clearly superior to Abraham, seeing as Abraham, quite capable of making his own sacrifices, defers to him and accepts his blessing.

I wonder if maybe we aren't closer to each other than we seem, and are seeing it through different lenses and thus seem farther away.
 
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
... indeed this is a difficult passage embodying a difficult concept....

You're not wrong there! [Big Grin]

quote:

...
I wonder if maybe we aren't closer to each other than we seem, and are seeing it through different lenses and thus seem farther away.

Yes, I think that in the great scheme of things we're pretty close, with some details yet to resolve. There is more that unites us than divides us, not least the desire to understand God's revelation to the best of our abilities. I guess we come from very different theological and ecclesial backgrounds, but I am happy to engage thoughtfully here. Thank you.

On the substance of the unquoted parts of your post, I need some thinking time to consider your points carefully. [Smile]

Angus

[ 23. March 2013, 22:48: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]
 
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
To pick up the points in Mousethief’s last post.
quote:
The Aaronic system does require the high priest to make an atonement for himself, but of course not OF himself. There is no human sacrifice in the Mosaic Law, and the prophets fought tooth and nail against the cult of Moloch. So I don't understand it when you say that the Sinai Covenant called for a self-sacrifice.
I hope that we can start from the common ground that Jesus did offer himself as a sacrifice. Heb.7:26-27
and Heb.9:25-26 provide evidence for that. But was it a requirement of the Mosaic Law?

On one hand, an argument could be constructed as follows.* Jesus was Jewish (an Israelite) and therefore subject to the Mosaic Law himself. Unlike the Israelites, who failed to comply with it, he followed it perfectly. One of the requirements of the Mosaic Law was that there was no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood. (Heb.9:22 referring to Lev.17:11, and atonement was a pre-requisite for forgiveness, as can be found, for example, in Lev.5:13 or Lev.6:7). So in order to make a sacrificial offering to atone for the sins of the world, (acclaimed as such by John the Baptist) and provide forgiveness of sins to anyone who appropriates to themselves this atonement, Jesus complied with this requirement of the Mosaic Law.

(As an aside, notice the word ‘world’ in that last sentence. The more that I think about it, the more I wonder whether Jews and gentiles are in different situations. I suggest that because only Jews are under the Mosaic/Sinai Covenant Law, it was for their forgiveness that Jesus offered himself as an atoning sacrifice under that Law. Where that leaves the gentiles, I will drop for the time being.)

The Apostle Paul gives another element (or consequence) of this atoning process when in Gal.3
:13
he refers to the curses (aka ‘punishments’ [Biased] ) which the Israelites were subjected to as a result of their failure to keep the Covenant Law – warned of in Deut.28:15-68 – being transferred to Jesus, so that those who had been under the curse no longer were. So to your objection:
quote:
Nor am I quite sure the applicability of the verse "cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree" to the sacrificial system, occurring as it does not in the section of the Law laying out the sacrificial system, but in a section having to do with the well-ordering of the house of Israel.
I can only reply by saying that it was Paul wot dun it – he made the application and I’m simply representing it.

As regards human sacrifice, I agree that the OT law and prophets spoke against it being done by humans but I wonder if this is something prohibited because God reserves it to himself. Perhaps it is like vengeance, which God only is allowed to perform. Or like worship, which is evil if it is done to anyone or anything other than God (since it becomes idolatry). So maybe Jesus, in his divine nature, made an entirely valid and acceptable human sacrifice of his own human nature. There’s an interesting application of the hypostatic union.

And if we’re looking at the subject of human sacrifice, we do need to remember God’s testing of Abraham in commanding him to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. Admittedly, Abraham in the end doesn’t actually perform the sacrifice, but it would seem a bit inconsistent for God to command something that was universally evil.

On the other hand I can see that an argument could be made that the sacrificial offering that Jesus made was not as a requirement of the Mosaic Law, but under a different sacrificial system, of which the Mosaic sacrificial system and covenant was an inferior foreshadowing of and parallel to the superior covenant instituted by Jesus. (See most of Hebrews 7&8, theme carries on into chapters 9 and 10). This is a view with which I am very unfamiliar, and for the moment I cannot explain how this different sacrificial system would also have a requirement for the shedding of blood in order for forgiveness to be available. Can you help here, Mousethief, with an elucidation of this alternative view? AFAIK sacrifices made before the Mosaic Law were simply offerings to God, not as atonement which would provide forgiveness, but I am open to any information which would clarify this.

Angus

*You might be able to tell that I’m trying to work this out as I write. A very good way of testing one’s own understanding of a subject is to try to explain it to someone else – at which point one discovers the inadequacies within that understanding.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I hope that we can start from the common ground that Jesus did offer himself as a sacrifice.

Yes.

quote:
But was it a requirement of the Mosaic Law?
The Mosaic Law, considered from its own internal logic, could have plodded along indefinitely without Jesus' sacrifice.

As you say, Jesus was without sin, so he didn't need blood to atone for his sins. But the author of Hebrews most explicitly says the Mosaic Law makes nothing perfect. So yet another sacrifice under the Mosaic Law wouldn't have done a darned thing. What was needed was a sacrifice under some other system, and thus the Melchizidekian priest (namely Jesus) was required to make a sacrifice. This seems all laid out in Hebrews 7.

Oh, I see you address this later. To answer your question from there: the atonements from before the law that we have are atonements in the Adam-to-Aaron line, so to speak -- the main thread of salvation history. Melchizidek comes from outside that line -- a parallel line perhaps, or maybe he was sui generis -- and thus is an animal of a different stripe. What applies to Cain's sacrifice or Abraham's needn't apply to Mel's.

And of course in Genesis 14, Melchizedek doesn't make a sacrifice at all; he merely blesses Abraham and feeds him. So the Melchizedekian sacrifice is something we can only infer from Hebrews.

Hebrews 9, I think, shows that Jesus' sacrifice is not an Aaronic one, but that rather the Aaronic system is a shadow of the real one Jesus used (one is tempted to say "Platonic", thinking of the Forms and their representations on earth; if it's not too distasteful an analogy I think it can be enlightening here (no pun intended)). Christ's tabernacle is not the earthly tabernacle; it's "not made by hands." From which it follows that his "holy places" aren't the Aaronic ones, but of a higher order.

Oh hell, I see in verses 23-24 it makes it quite explicit -- the earthly temple/tabernacle is in fact a copy of the heavenly ("true") one:

quote:
Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Moving on...

The "whole world" thing makes my point, I think, quite plain. Only Jews can be atoned for by the Jewish atonement system. To atone for everybody, Jesus had to step outside that system, to a universal priesthood, viz, that of Melchizidek.

Regarding the "hang on a tree" thing, I don't understand your point; if you could elucidate or restate I would be grateful.

Regarding Abraham and the not-sacrifice of Isaac,
quote:
Admittedly, Abraham in the end doesn’t actually perform the sacrifice, but it would seem a bit inconsistent for God to command something that was universally evil.
I think perhaps God never intended for him to carry it out, and was using this as a teaching lesson about the non-permissibility of human sacrifice and the sufficiency (or at least the desired-of-God-ity) of animal sacrifice in its stead.

quote:
A very good way of testing one’s own understanding of a subject is to try to explain it to someone else – at which point one discovers the inadequacies within that understanding.
Absolutely! And I'll be perfectly honest, I'm doing a good bit of that here myself.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Mudfrog
quote:
There is not one theory of atonement I cannot accept - I thank God for them all, facets of the 'diamond of salvation' that they are. I cannot afford to ignore or discard any one of them.

Mudfrog, isn't this a cop-out, given that they are mostly incompatible? Would it not be better to suggest they are all unacceptable? Why not discard them all and accept the mystery?
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Yes. Bit like the goodwill and charitable approach which says that all faiths/religions are equally true and valid.

Except that Mudfrog wouldnt go with that.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Oh I think he would. Equally true and valid covers a multitude of sins. Although some are more true and valid at that [Snigger] level than others.

NOTHING is a 'good' as Christianity after all ...
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0