Thread: Satisfied? 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=026102
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
'til on the cross as Jesus died,
the wrath of God was satisfied...
or should this be:
'til on the cross as Jesus died
the love of God was satisfied?
The latter is so much nicer, much warmer, much more in keeping with a loving God who expresses love only and never wrath either against us or his Son....
... and yet; I can see the theological point, the Biblical verses and the atonement theory espoused in the first version, the original.
We talk of the wrath that is revealed, we speak of the Son becoming sin for us, we speak of penalty, judgment and the justice of god being aimed at Jesus who took upon himself the sin of the world in judgment, thus satisfying the wrath of God and removing its effects on us.
You don't have to believe that interpretation in order to understand its logic - it is pure satisfaction theory.
But when I turn to the less 'Old Testament' version of ICA and let my eyes rest on this phrase for a moment longer than I would if I were merely singing it at an ecumenical gathering where no one wants to be evangelical(!) I detect an illogical premise:
The love of God was satisfied?
Can anyone tell me how the love of God was ever dissatisfied?
How until the cross a satisfaction was required?
How exactly the cross satisfied the love of God in such a way that led to our atonement?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Yes, I'm not a great fan of "the love of God was satisfied", I much prefer "God's arms of love were open wide". It takes us away from arguments about the mechanisms or metaphors for the atonement and puts the focus where it belongs on the atoning love of God. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" - which helps to avoid the mistake which so often creeps into discussions about atonement in which the will and substance (in theological terms) of the Second Person of the Trinity are divided form the will and substance of the First.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Yes, I'm not a great fan of "the love of God was satisfied", I much prefer "God's arms of love were open wide". It takes us away from arguments about the mechanisms or metaphors for the atonement and puts the focus where it belongs on the atoning love of God. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" - which helps to avoid the mistake which so often creeps into discussions about atonement in which the will and substance (in theological terms) of the Second Person of the Trinity are divided form the will and substance of the First.
Yes, I can see the attraction of that line - which I've not heard before).
I would say however that reading that for the first time it doesn't actually do what you say it does - i.e. prevent the Trinity from being divided. Instead it implies that as Jesus died it was not his sacrificial action but God's (the Father's) love that was being displayed. It's as if the means was incidental and that what is important was the love of God.
Of course, the love of God is overarching but it was the sacrificial love of Jesus that showed the entirety of God's Triune love by, some would say, taking away the wrath of God in the first place.
I am a fan of Moltmann on this issue.
[ 02. October 2013, 09:29: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I may be misreading you, but you seem to me to be doing what I was suggesting tends to happen. Jesus is God, so if Jesus' arms are open wide then God's arms are open wide. Jesus' sacrificial love is God's sacrificial love. The danger is that in our discussion about this we easily slip into a mode of speaking which makes it seem somehow that the Father=God in a way which is not true of the Son.
Jesus isn't separable from God. It is God who is crucified in the death of Jesus on the cross.
(I'm a fan of Moltmann on this too ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
[ 02. October 2013, 09:44: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I may be misreading you, but you seem to me to be doing what I was suggesting tends to happen. Jesus is God, so if Jesus' arms are open wide then God's arms are open wide. Jesus' sacrificial love is God's sacrificial love. The danger is that in our discussion about this we easily slip into a mode of speaking which makes it seem somehow that the Father=God in a way which is not true of the Son.
Jesus isn't separable from God. It is God who is crucified in the death of Jesus on the cross.
(I'm a fan of Moltmann on this too )
Yes, that's what I believe. What I can't see is the scornful 'cosmic child abuse' comment from the person that Chalke plagiarised his ideas from. If God is suffering in the death of his Son then he is both judge and judged. He suffers his own wrath.
Any criticism of this view, in my opinion, reveals a belief in adoptionism.
What I cannot see is the 'satisfaction' of love - as if love was somehow in need of satisfaction by the cross.
[ 02. October 2013, 09:49: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog
The latter is so much nicer, much warmer, much more in keeping with a loving God who expresses love only and never wrath either against us or his Son....
Which implies that you think that God is not a God of love when He is angry.
The Scripture says that "God is love" not: "God is half-love" or "there are two sides to God's character, of which 'love' is only one".
I don't think that God's wrath was satisfied on the cross, unless 'wrath' is used in a highly technical theological sense divorced from its normal everyday use of personal feeling. I cannot imagine how God could personally feel anger towards a new born baby or someone with severe learning difficulties, but theologically He is supposed to, because such people are tainted with this mysterious entity called 'original sin'. A God who feels the same everlasting wrath towards a young child, on the one hand, and the worst serial killer, on the other, is a God divorced from reality.
What was satisfied on the cross were the demands of the law. It was an objective transaction for all people, and therefore not dependent on anyone subjectively believing it. Jesus was nailed to the cross two thousand years ago as an objectively real historical event. I didn't nail him to the cross when I started believing it. It's about time evangelical theology started to recognise the implications of this truth.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What I cannot see is the 'satisfaction' of love - as if love was somehow in need of satisfaction by the cross.
How about this - God's love is such that he gave his son that whoever will believe in him will not perish but will have eternal life in all its fulness. So God's love is satisfied through the death and resurrection of Jesus, which conquered death and opened up the possibility (or certainty, if one is universalist) of eternal life for people.
So it's not that love was in need of satisfaction by the cross, rather that God's intention was made possible by the cross. (Noting that the very concept of something being made possible for God will strike some people as heretical...)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog
The latter is so much nicer, much warmer, much more in keeping with a loving God who expresses love only and never wrath either against us or his Son....
Which implies that you think that God is not a God of love when He is angry.
The Scripture says that "God is love" not: "God is half-love" or "there are two sides to God's character, of which 'love' is only one".
I don't think that God's wrath was satisfied on the cross, unless 'wrath' is used in a highly technical theological sense divorced from its normal everyday use of personal feeling.
That's exactly what we are talking about. Wrath does not = angry; it's not a feeling, it's an attitude. It's God's attitude towards sin; if you don't believe God exercises wrath than you have to accept that the opposite of wrath is not love but apathy.
According to McGrath, commenting on Karl Barth, the cross is where the "righteous judge makes known his judgment of sinful humanity and simultaneously takes that judgment upon himself." That's the wrath of God - 'making known his judgment'.
NT Wright commented that ‘to deny God’s wrath is, at bottom, to deny God’s love.’ In the context of the world’s evils, injustices and violence, to suggest that God might say ‘never mind, I love you anyway’, would show ‘he is neither good nor loving’. Wright affirms the classic view that God has taken upon himself, in the person of Jesus, ‘the condemnation which, precisely because he loves us to the uttermost, he must pronounce over that deadly disease we call sin.’
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If God is suffering in the death of his Son then he is both judge and judged. He suffers his own wrath.
But God did not sentence Jesus to death. That was the Romans, at the behest of the Jews. All humanity, in other words, wanted Jesus/God dead.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
So it's not that love was in need of satisfaction by the cross, rather that God's intention was made possible by the cross. (Noting that the very concept of something being made possible for God will strike some people as heretical...)
I can see that but that's not what the revised lyric of the song is saying. It's saying that it
is satisfied; and I'm asking how.
John 3 v 16 gives the motivation for why God sent his Son - love for the world. I believe that the 'why' of the cross was to save from condemnation - "wrath" as verse 17 and 18 explicity say.
Because he loves us he satisfies his own wrath so that we are saved from it.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Dare I say that it seems an awful lot of attention is being paid to 2 lines from a worship song of dubious theological and zero musical worth... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Dare I say that it seems an awful lot of attention is being paid to 2 lines from a worship song of dubious theological and zero musical worth...
Then ignore the thread and leave it to those who think there is something worth discussing - which is actually not the song itself but whether 'the love of god was satisfied' is a valid theological statement.
FWIW I think the song is actually quite an excellent addition to the church's hymnody. The music is stirring and exciting.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
{Saves a good deal of argument and heartache, by passing out comforting pamphlets on universalism and also first aid kits to heal the damage from atonement theory.}
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Dare I say that it seems an awful lot of attention is being paid to 2 lines from a worship song of dubious theological and zero musical worth...
But this points up that a lot of people get a lot of their theology from hymns, which is arguably a reason hymnody needs to have some sort of official nihil obstat from Church authority. However, the problem is also that some of these texts with dubious notions are so much a part of either the shared corpus of ecumenical Christian hymnody, or the beloved legacy of a particular tradition. Let's take Hark the Herald Angels Sing, for example. "Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; hail the incarnate Deity"? Yes, that's one way of expressing the Incarnation, but it doesn't exactly comport with the Chalcedonian Definition; indeed it arguably expresses a form of monophysiticsm and is thus heretical. So, the content of hymn texts is worthy of attention, because much gets in that isn't good stuff.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Dare I say that it seems an awful lot of attention is being paid to 2 lines from a worship song of dubious theological and zero musical worth...
But this points up that a lot of people get a lot of their theology from hymns, which is arguably a reason hymnody needs to have some sort of official nihil obstat from Church authority. However, the problem is also that some of these texts with dubious notions are so much a part of either the shared corpus of ecumenical Christian hymnody, or the beloved legacy of a particular tradition. Let's take Hark the Herald Angels Sing, for example. "Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; hail the incarnate Deity"? Yes, that's one way of expressing the Incarnation, but it doesn't exactly comport with the Chalcedonian Definition; indeed it arguably expresses a form of monophysiticsm and is thus heretical. So, the content of hymn texts is worthy of attention, because much gets in that isn't good stuff.
well, it certainly reveals that the average comgregation member needs to be instructed int the theology behind some very well-chosen words.
In the HTHAS instance, we are not singing 'Veiled by flesh' - as if the divine person was enveloped in a human body of skin and bones, but 'veiled in flesh' - as in human nature - which I take to fit perfectly with Paul's hymn in Philippians where he took on the real, essential nature of a servant, being found in appearance as a man. This is dual nature but the glory was veiled.
That is indeed quite different to any idea that Jesus was a human being somehow possessed by divinity or that his was a blend of human/divine into one nature.
[ 02. October 2013, 12:01: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Bang on the money, L.Sv.K. ISTM that for most people words set to music are so much more memorable than plain prose, therefore it's vital that churches think about the songs / hymns they use.
So I think it's completely reasonable to have an in-depth discussion about the words of such a well-used song as 'In Christ Alone' and if any church decides not to use it because they don't like the theological viewpoint it teaches, then that's fine with me.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
So it's not that love was in need of satisfaction by the cross, rather that God's intention was made possible by the cross. (Noting that the very concept of something being made possible for God will strike some people as heretical...)
I can see that but that's not what the revised lyric of the song is saying. It's saying that it is satisfied; and I'm asking how.
Hmm... [thinks, types, deletes, types again] God's love is satisfied because the cross and resurrection made possible ('achieved' would perhaps be a better word) what God, motivated by his love, wanted to do; namely to open up the possibility / certainty of people having eternal life. Without Jesus' death and resurrection, God's character (his fairness, I suppose) would not permit him to ignore or override the devil's claim on humanity.
Do excuse the fumbling words but I'm still quite new to the Christus Victor theory of the atonement...
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The love of God was satisfied?
Can anyone tell me how the love of God was ever dissatisfied?
How until the cross a satisfaction was required?
How exactly the cross satisfied the love of God in such a way that led to our atonement?
I think part of the problem here is that you appear to be wedded to the idea of the cross being some kind of transaction, so you're parsing the idea of love being satisfied as describing two states: pre-cross = unsatisfied, post-cross = satisfied. That understanding might work for PSA, but I'd suggest that it's alien to Christus Victor. It's not about a transaction, but a triumph. It satisfaction in the sense of "this is right", not "the payment has been made".
That said, despite it being in my sig, I don't think that satisfied is the best word - I liked the suggestion of 'magnified' better from the other Christ Alone thread. But that doesn't mean that satisfied is totally unsuitable, just that it should be understood the right way (and in a very different way to the idea of the Wrath of God being satisfied).
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If God is suffering in the death of his Son then he is both judge and judged. He suffers his own wrath.
But God did not sentence Jesus to death. That was the Romans, at the behest of the Jews. All humanity, in other words, wanted Jesus/God dead.
If the death of Jesus was simply and only the result of human action, then that death is ultimately meaningless.
If, however, you take the words of Jesus as true - "No one takes my life from me, I lay it down of my own accord,' and "The Son of Man came...to give his life a ransom for many...", then his death, physically caused by execution, has much more eternal and providential significance.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Mudfrog, I think you are simply justifying the wording and grammar of the line cited in HTHAS based on your understanding of orthodox theology, rather than on the simple sense of the words themselves. Prepositions are notoriously unreliable and interchangeable in English (and many other languages). In certain constructions, the prepositions, than, to, from, can be used interchangeably ("different from/to/than"). I don't think the average poorly catechised Christian is going to be grammatically analysing what "in", as opposed to "with" might mean in the well-known Christmas carol. The wording suggests something more like a Graeco-Roman deity who merely takes on the guise of a mortal. Christology itself is extremely difficult for people to get their heads round, and you run onto many semi-churched Christians espousing confused ideas that are either essentially adoptionist on the one end of the continuum or quasi-gnostic and monophysite on the other.
I don't subscribe to the PSA theory that seems to be expressed in the hymn text example of your OP, so I find it pretty dreadful. I wouldn't try changing the word "wrath" to "love" either; better just to more thoroughly re-write or suppress the text.
Hymns can be quite theologically significant things overall (otherwise, surely there'd be no reason for your OP on this thread). Many of them, for example, teach strong Eucharistic theologies or understandings of Real Presence in the Eucharist, e.g., the hymn typically sung to the tune Hyfrydol, with the line, "...thou on earth both Priest and Victim in the eucharistic feast".
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The love of God was satisfied?
Can anyone tell me how the love of God was ever dissatisfied?
How until the cross a satisfaction was required?
How exactly the cross satisfied the love of God in such a way that led to our atonement?
I think part of the problem here is that you appear to be wedded to the idea of the cross being some kind of transaction, so you're parsing the idea of love being satisfied as describing two states: pre-cross = unsatisfied, post-cross = satisfied. That understanding might work for PSA, but I'd suggest that it's alien to Christus Victor. It's not about a transaction, but a triumph. It satisfaction in the sense of "this is right", not "the payment has been made".
That said, despite it being in my sig, I don't think that satisfied is the best word - I liked the suggestion of 'magnified' better from the other Christ Alone thread. But that doesn't mean that satisfied is totally unsuitable, just that it should be understood the right way (and in a very different way to the idea of the Wrath of God being satisfied).
In my tradition we accept and use all the different 'theories' (better called metaphors) of the atonement; no one model is sufficient.
However, it is very important to see the cross as actually achieving something, changing something; a transaction, if that's what you want to call it.
The example I would use is that of a drowning man. - there is no point my rescuer just shouting love and support from the river bank.
- there is no point my rescuer jumping in, managing to swim back to the bank and shouting, 'Now that I've done it, so can you!"
- there is no point my rescuer jumping in, getting wet, and shouting from the shallows, 'see, I know what you're going through, now we're on the same side.'
The whole point of a rescuer is that he actually grabs me by the arm and pulls me out, even if that means he tragically drowns in the process.
This illustration doesn't cover the wrath of God thing - unless I've been pushed in as a punishment(!) but there is no point in Christ showing love and victory on the cross if he doesn't actually do something there that takes away the power and penalty of my sin - rescuing me/saving me in the process.
[ 02. October 2013, 12:37: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I have come to a simple solution - I don't use the hymn.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
However, it is very important to see the cross as actually achieving something, changing something; a transaction, if that's what you want to call it.
Ok.
My problem with PSA is that it suggests that there was a change within the Godhead. I have a big problem with that.
I don't think we need rescuing from an angry God. We need rescuing from ourselves. God always had the power to save us from drowning in the lake. The cross just tells us to reach out and take his hand. The same with forgiveness - it's plain in the OT that God could quite easily forgive people at will, and did. Yet I've heard people assert that without the cross, we could not be forgiven.
So, I don't think that the change that happened at the cross was something that enabled salvation for us. That salvation had always been there, was already offered. The problem in the human-divine relationship was always with the former, not the latter. God did not need anything to be satisfied or put right within him before he could offer salvation and relationship to us.
I do agree that there was a huge change that happened at the cross, though. But that change wasn't within God, it is in creation: Death is defeated. From a human point of view, that's a huge deal. Death hounds us and curses us. Yet Jesus faced death and triumphed over it. That's what gives me hope. The big deal is the resurrection. That's what made the difference.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
PSA gets unfairly maligned these days, but I suppose this is a response to some people taking it too far.
Yes, it is true, it doesn't really make sense for God to sacrifice an innocent person to slake his rage against another group of people. But. Pretty much every atonement theory has problems if it is taken too far, because ultimately it is a mystery why Jesus' death should bring about the redemption of humankind.
But I think there are some aspects of the redemption of humankind that PSA gets right. First, God is rightfully wrathful at us. He would be a lesser God if he wasn't filled with wrath at the crap humans get up to.
Two, there is a price to pay for sin, and all too often this price is paid by the innocent. We can't just forget this injustice. That's not how justice works, because...
Three, even if we can stop all this injustice, nothing but the grace of God can make injustice OK for its victims. We can put a stop to crimes, put the criminals in prison, maybe even give the victims restitution, but nothing can give back the life of the murdered, or take away the trauma of being raped.
Finally, these three taken together give PSA a powerful personal appeal to those who are feeling weighed down by guilt. We feel that our sins our horrible before God, that there is a price to pay for them, and then tremble when we realize that the price is far more than we could ever pay. But we can have faith at this point, be free to repent and sin no more, because Jesus has paid our debt. PSA isn't a very good legal argument, but it's a powerful argument from the experience of salvation.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I do agree that there was a huge change that happened at the cross, though. But that change wasn't within God, it is in creation: Death is defeated. From a human point of view, that's a huge deal. Death hounds us and curses us. Yet Jesus faced death and triumphed over it. That's what gives me hope. The big deal is the resurrection. That's what made the difference.
My italics added at the end - so maybe it's not just the 'wrath of God' bit that needs changing in 'In Christ Alone'!
'And in that tomb
As Jesus rose from the dead
The love of God
Was satisfied'
I know it doesn't rhyme or scan but, hey, it's a first attempt. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
However, it is very important to see the cross as actually achieving something, changing something; a transaction, if that's what you want to call it.
Ok.
My problem with PSA is that it suggests that there was a change within the Godhead. I have a big problem with that.
I don't think we need rescuing from an angry God. We need rescuing from ourselves. God always had the power to save us from drowning in the lake. The cross just tells us to reach out and take his hand. The same with forgiveness - it's plain in the OT that God could quite easily forgive people at will, and did. Yet I've heard people assert that without the cross, we could not be forgiven.
So, I don't think that the change that happened at the cross was something that enabled salvation for us. That salvation had always been there, was already offered. The problem in the human-divine relationship was always with the former, not the latter. God did not need anything to be satisfied or put right within him before he could offer salvation and relationship to us.
I do agree that there was a huge change that happened at the cross, though. But that change wasn't within God, it is in creation: Death is defeated. From a human point of view, that's a huge deal. Death hounds us and curses us. Yet Jesus faced death and triumphed over it. That's what gives me hope. The big deal is the resurrection. That's what made the difference.
But I agree with you entirely and I do accept and terach PSA! God's mind was not changed on a Friday afternoon in AD 33.
What did happen was an actual fact, historical, once and for all demonstration in space and time, of the eternal truth that in the heart of God from before creation, was the experience of death and sacrifice that is efficacious to remedy sin and turn us from death to life, condemnation to redemption.
Jesus is the lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world. The cross is a perfect sacrament of the sacrifial heart of God and Calvary and its demonstration of love and judgment reaches back through, encompasses and validates the sacrificial system; it also reaches forward to include every person even to beyond the present day who repents and 'comes to the cross.'
The cross does not change God's mind, it demonstrates his mind.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
PSA gets unfairly maligned these days, but I suppose this is a response to some people taking it too far.
Yes, it is true, it doesn't really make sense for God to sacrifice an innocent person to slake his rage against another group of people.
Yes but please don't fall into the trap of suggesting that Jesus was an innocent victim chosen out of the rest of us for our benefit; he was truly and properly God and truly and properly man - he was not an adopted son; he is incarnate God and therefore God is on the cross, not an innocent man.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I do agree that there was a huge change that happened at the cross, though. But that change wasn't within God, it is in creation: Death is defeated. From a human point of view, that's a huge deal. Death hounds us and curses us. Yet Jesus faced death and triumphed over it. That's what gives me hope. The big deal is the resurrection. That's what made the difference.
My italics added at the end - so maybe it's not just the 'wrath of God' bit that needs changing in 'In Christ Alone'!
'And in that tomb
As Jesus rose from the dead
The love of God
Was satisfied'
I know it doesn't rhyme or scan but, hey, it's a first attempt.
Which is why it says:
quote:
Then bursting forth in glorious day
up from the grave he rose again.
and as he stands in victory
sin's curse has lost its grip on me.
and then, in a line that echoes the love poetry of the Song of Solomon:
quote:
For I am his and he is mine,
Bought with the precious blood of Christ.
Love it - such rich thinking.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
PSA gets unfairly maligned these days, but I suppose this is a response to some people taking it too far.
Yes, it is true, it doesn't really make sense for God to sacrifice an innocent person to slake his rage against another group of people.
Yes but please don't fall into the trap of suggesting that Jesus was an innocent victim chosen out of the rest of us for our benefit; he was truly and properly God and truly and properly man - he was not an adopted son; he is incarnate God and therefore God is on the cross, not an innocent man.
I am not falling into that trap.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
PSA gets unfairly maligned these days, but I suppose this is a response to some people taking it too far.
Yes, it is true, it doesn't really make sense for God to sacrifice an innocent person to slake his rage against another group of people.
Yes but please don't fall into the trap of suggesting that Jesus was an innocent victim chosen out of the rest of us for our benefit; he was truly and properly God and truly and properly man - he was not an adopted son; he is incarnate God and therefore God is on the cross, not an innocent man.
I am not falling into that trap.
But God din't sacrifice an innocent person. God was that innocent person. Had God chosen a man to be his son and then killed him, then I would hate the cross and the PSA theory; but that isn't what happened - except in the minds of those who misrepresent it as 'cosmic child abuse' (which was coined by a feminist theologian long before Chalke popularised it).
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog
...it also reaches forward to include every person even to beyond the present day who repents and 'comes to the cross.'
Actually "it also reaches forward to include every person". PERIOD.
The redemptive work of Christ is objective. Either it is or it is not. If it is not objective, then the "once for all" event did not happen within human history. We do not make Christ die on the cross by repenting and believing in it. It is not a benefit that is held in limbo - a state of potentiality - until we apply for it.
The subjective side, namely, faith and repentance, is what makes salvation a blessing, because that salvation is willingly and joyfully and humbly received. The very same salvation given objectively and legally to the unrepentant will not be a blessing, but a torment, because it is an affront to their pride. But, from a legal point of view, they are still covered by the atoning work of Christ.
If I commit a crime for which the just punishment is a large fine, and I turn up to court to discover that someone has actually paid my fine, then do I need to pay it? I may hate the fact that someone has paid it. I may resent this and curse that person. My bad attitude will not alter the objective fact that it has been paid. But the idea that someone has paid the fine, but somehow has not really done so until I believe it, seems bizarre. Either the price has been paid or it has not. There is no half-way position.
It seems many subscribers to PSA want to have their cake and eat it. They want Jesus to have died for all, but can't handle the logical implications of that, namely, legal universalism. That would mean relinquishing our precious controlling practice of assessing who is saved and who is not. It means letting go and letting God get on with His business of dealing with other people in His way, which, as Jesus said to Nicodemus, is like the wind blowing where it wishes, and we don't know where it has come from and where it is going...
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
That is, of course, an opinion; it is not one that I share. The price has been paid but it must be believed - repent, believe, be born again. Atonement is indeed unlimited but it must be appropriated.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog
That is, of course, an opinion
As is every view that has been stated on this thread.
I am simply being logical to what the atoning work of Christ actually involves. Did He pay the penalty for the sin of each person, yes or no?
If 'yes', then from a legal point of view all are saved.
If 'no', then no one is saved, or only some are saved, as the predestinarians would say.
But what some people seem to be saying is that Christ only paid the price for each person potentially, and it only becomes actual when they believe it. But this means that if Christ actually suffered 2000 years ago, then for many people He suffered in vain. This makes no sense from a legal point of view, because the law is objective. If I owe something and someone else pays the amount, then it is paid irrespective of what I believe or even whether I want that person to pay. The idea that the money is paid only potentially, but is floating around somewhere in limbo ready for me to believe it and then my belief causes the payment to be made, is tantamount to my becoming a co-redeemer with the One who went to the trouble of paying the debt on my behalf. It's human hubris.
You will perhaps notice that I am not advocating universalism, but legal universalism, which is not the same thing. From a legal point of view all are saved, because legally and objectively the price has been paid. But salvation is not merely legal! Salvation is a spiritual reality. For some people the reality of God is a blessing and for others it is a torment, also known as 'hell'. That is why belief and repentance is important and necessary, because we need to willingly receive and embrace what God has already done for us.
But what legal universalism says is that we cannot sit in judgment on other people. We cannot sit as legal authority over others and declare that "you are not saved", based on certain religious criteria that we have laid down (usually gleaned from proof texts of the Bible). God is not overseeing a huge bureaucracy in which the Church is His minion, in which some people are on the right side of the "small print" and others not. The small print has been dealt with. It's no longer an issue. But reducing salvation to a legal transaction that only comes to fruition when we die, is one huge cop-out. It means that salvation does not need to be real now. We can just demand conformity to certain legal provisions with the promise of something in the completely untestable and unobservable realm of the Beyond.
If you want to talk about belief and repentance, then why not say: "If you believe and repent you will not just go to heaven when you die, but your life will be transformed now - in this life. God will become real to you. You will be healed from the inside out. You will walk in the blessings of salvation while on this earth." Yeah. A big promise. But anything less is just atheism.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Pfft, you're all wrong - 'His Blessed mother at His side' is clearly the ideal version
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...we speak of the Son becoming sin for us, we speak of penalty, judgment and the justice of god being aimed at Jesus who took upon himself the sin of the world in judgment, thus satisfying the wrath of God and removing its effects on us...
How about Jesus was made sin for our benefit - to benefit us by demonstrating the spiritual concrete truth that sin's natural result is death, but God resurrects!
If you jump out of an airplane you fall to the ground - no one is punishing you, that's just the natural consequence of how reality is - gravity and all that. If you sin, you die, natural consequence, not punishment.
So Jesus was made sin, the natural consequence of which was death - and through his death we got to see what the prophets had more or less clearly been trying to tell us all along - God loves you anyway and wants you back. As demonstrated by God resurrecting Jesus, the man made sin was loved and wanted back anyway.
Jesus wasn't killed *for us* in the sense of as a substitute payer of a debt God demanded or else he would refuse to love - how many of you refuse to love your child who has done wrong? Besides, God is love, God doesn't know how to not love. Jesus died *for us* in the sense of for our benefit, Jesus death was the way God could demonstrate to us in our purely physical narrow focus that nothing we do or did or will do can separate us from God's love - not heights nor depths nor being made of sin, not persecuting rejecting torturing and killing the one who loves, nothing! So might as well give up thinking "God can't love me" because of [whatever], it just isn't true. The resurrection of Jesus proved it.
I think we sometimes talk as if Jesus was resurrect because he was sinless. Nope. He was resurrected after dying in a state of being cursed (hanging on a tree), dying in a state of being considered pure sin. Resurrected anyway by God's love. Which ought to offer a little hope for you and me. (Hope, jaw dropping astonishment, however you want to express it.)
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
How about "The love of God was realised"?
The cross brings into actual, objective reality that which has been true since the foundation of the world, the breaking of the power of death. It isn't about satisfaction at all. God doesn't change His mind (Before the cross="dis-satisfied", after the cross="satified"). He is just as angry about the effects of sin (death, in its broadest sense) as He ever was. The cross is how that victory over sin/death, planned for eternity, was realised.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Dare I say that it seems an awful lot of attention is being paid to 2 lines from a worship song of dubious theological and zero musical worth...
But it's difficult when you find yourself having to sing it, eg. for a wedding when you are in the choir. It would be wrong to not sing the hymn at all in such circumstances (although you could more easily get around it if in a large congregation) - so I sing 'The love of God is magnified' when I really have to sing something.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
... It would be wrong to not sing the hymn at all in such circumstances (although you could more easily get around it if in a large congregation) - so I sing 'The love of God is magnified' when I really have to sing something.
Curious, do you sing those words while others sing the original words?
I'm struggling with how to survive singing sings I strongly disagree with the theology of.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Yes I do, but I sing those alternate words very quietly. I understand all too well what it can do to you, long term, singing - and listening - to theology you don't agree with, if it is most of the time it grinds you down and eventually you have to leave. But by comparison, this is only a few lines of one song, it's possible to find ways round.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Thank you Chorister for a very helpful suggestion
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on
:
Belle Ringer said: quote:
I think we sometimes talk as if Jesus was resurrect because he was sinless. Nope. He was resurrected after dying in a state of being cursed (hanging on a tree), dying in a state of being considered pure sin. Resurrected anyway by God's love. Which ought to offer a little hope for you and me. (Hope, jaw dropping astonishment, however you want to express it.)
Yes! Yes, yes, yes! When Jesus cried out from the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" he had lost that inner sense of God's presence. Why? Because he was identifying completely with the rest of humanity when we can't "feel" God's love in us... okay, I know what I'm writing here is clunky... I'm trying to describe something that is a bit esoteric. Anyway, to my way of thinking, Jesus was a MAN dying on a cross and not thinking about being God, just experiencing the entire wretched alienation and feeling of being utterly alone that most of us feel at one time or another and I'm guessing during the "dark night of the soul". He was resurrected by God as an act of love. I mean, otherwise, Jesus's crying, "My God, my God..." becomes playacting and a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" between him and God the Father/Mother.
Or, I don't know what I'm talking about and others will be along shortly to tell me to leave the deep thinking to the adults on board.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0