Thread: Christus Victor, redux 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=027809
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Christus Victor describes the understanding of the purpose of Christ's Resurrection, as seen by many in the early church. Later this understanding received competition from the concept of penal substitutionary atonement, particularly popular among the evangelicals AIUI.
I tend to find PSA to be an abhorrent doctrine myself, since it implies a totally non-loving God, but that is a tangent. Back this thread.
In Spiritual bondage to the powers of death , Slacktivist argues that quote:
[Progreesive Chritianity] articulates a powerful, liberating understanding of “spiritual bondage to the powers of death, Satan and sin.” The explanation and exploration of such spiritual bondage is far more serious and substantial than any corresponding effort I have seen in mainstream white evangelicalism.
and goes on to discuss how Progressive Christianity offers the view that Christus Victor is the necessary view of Christ's Resurrection's purpose. In particular, he moves beyond simple personal sin to the more complex view that includes quote:
More importantly, should we imagine it’s possible to have anything like an accurate appreciation for the meaning of “enslavement to dark spiritual powers” without understanding the role of powers and principalities like racism, patriarchy, class, privilege, violence, nationalism, colonialism, etc.? Does anyone really believe that conservative white, male, American evangelical theology offers an adequate understanding of any of those things?
in realising what sin is in the first place.
Comments, please, but please try to comment, not just to say "What tosh", which illustrates a problem you may have, not a problem with the thesis.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
An underlying problem is that Fred Clark doesn't get into the metaphysical grit, and look at what "atonement" even means. Is it some spiritual payment, or a metaphor? If it's a metaphor, then for what?
Personally, I like Christus Victor as a metaphor for people overcoming their evolutionary weaknesses via Christian experience and reflection. It goes beyond moral influence in its transformative effect: people aren't merely inspired by crucifixion and resurrection, but feel a personal awakening, that drives them to change themselves and the world around them.
My main problem with Clark's piece (beyond its hyper-focus on ethnicity, to the point where he condemns progressive Christianity itself for being "a tool of white privilege"!) it's that he presents a false choice between personal and structural change. People change institutions after they've first changed themselves.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I like Christus victor. I think it corrects some of the problems in PSA, especially the way it pictures the nature of God as angry and vengeful.
It seems to me that all five of the primary metaphors for the atonement have a strong biblical witness behind them. To me that suggests precisely that-- that they are all images or metaphors that tell us something different about the nature of the atonement, just as all the different metaphors for God in the Bible tell us something different about God. And just like all the metaphors about God fall short in some way, so the metaphors for the atonement will all fall short in some way. The problem is not in any one image/metaphor, but rather in stressing one to the exclusion of the others, giving you a lop-sided view of the atonement.
It is interesting to me as well that the 5 images of the atonement all imagine the direction or force of the atonement (who it is directed at) in different ways:
• substitutionary and satisfaction directed Godward (i.e. in satisfying God's wrath)
• moral influence directed towards humanity (i.e. in helping us see God's love)
• ransom and Christus victor directed Satanward (i.e. in releasing us from the bondage to sin & death).
That last direction-- the "Satanward" direction of ransom and Christus victor-- fits nicely with Open Theism and it's emphasis on taking Satan & evil seriously as an explanation for suffering and injustice. It also fits well with Walter Wink's theology and "the myth of redemptive violence". For that reason I tend to emphasize those two images more than the other three, but recognize really we need all 5 to adequately explain/ imagine the profound cosmic shift that has happened in the atonement.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
Identifying what sin is certainly does have a massive influence. I was at a seminar recently on "nonviolent atonement" from an American anabaptist who. A friend of mine did a write-up of it here (it's worth noting that our evangelical church does emphasise Christus Victor). In this talk, sin was defined as an example of mimetic desire, following the line of thinking of Rene Girard and where Substitutionary Atonement is seen as a scapegoating exercise.
For my own part, I take a both/and approach. Substitutionary Atonement without Christus Victor gives a loveless God. But at the same time Christus Victor without Substitutionary Atonement gives a God who is unjust and who issues cheap grace. Two different sides of the same coin.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
But at the same time Christus Victor without Substitutionary Atonement gives a God who is unjust and who issues cheap grace.
I have a problem with Bonhoeffer's disparagement of "cheap" grace. It's not only cheap, it's free. I readily grant that we have a problem properly valuing what has been offered so extravagantly, but that is part of the beauty of moral influence -- the mechanism of moving us to value the gift is a real part of God's moving our stiff necks toward salvation. Most of the "theories" of atonement fail for me because they seem so wildly artificial, be they CV or any of the flavors of substitutionary atonement. Moral influence and Girardian thought have at least the virtue of ringing true to me. Most of the rest strike me as constructs to explain the inexplicable in terms of the unknowable. As always, YMMV.
--Tom Clune
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
tclune: I have a problem with Bonhoeffer's disparagement of "cheap" grace. It's not only cheap, it's free.
Interestingly, in the Portuguese language the words 'grace' and 'for free' (something you don't have to pay for) are the same.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Jesus believed in both.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
My main problem with Clark's piece (beyond its hyper-focus on ethnicity, to the point where he condemns progressive Christianity itself for being "a tool of white privilege"!) it's that he presents a false choice between personal and structural change. People change institutions after they've first changed themselves.
But this implies that you haven't got around to the idea that passively accepting "things as they are" means accepting the sinful parts of "things as they are". Accepting slavery as "normal" doesn't allow for one to call out the sin of mistreating slaves, let alone the sin of actually owning another person made in the image of God.
The worship of violence, such as is promoted by the NRA in the US, or the mindless acceptance of "whatever the forces do must be alright because ... the soldiers/marines/pilots/whoever must be right. This does not allow for questioning the government/the other citizens on what they cause the forces to do. #Ferguson is a prime example of this: "kill a black man" just because, and then set up a huge overload of violence-oriented people with stupid amounts of weapons, rather than trying to work out what the problem is.
And whole churches are set up on the basis of keeping the poor, the blacks, the "other" out of the safe surroundings of white hierarchy. How can this not be sinful?
How can denying the simple humanity of women not be sinful? Women are not simply there to be raped and then blamed; women are not the possessions of men (even in the NT, this is so).
Sins can be sins of "not-realising". Sins aren't just something you decided to do wrong. As Jesus said about lust, the mere thought of subjugating other people is sinful.
BUT if people don't realise the sinfulness of, say, whites in #Ferguson, they won't act to do anything about it. What you suggest is simply a demand to ignore the sinfulness of many parts of society.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I have a problem with Bonhoeffer's disparagement of "cheap" grace. It's not only cheap, it's free.
That strikes me as a misreading of Bonhoeffer, who seems very much aware of the point you're making:
quote:
“Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner…
.. .Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son… Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us.”
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Substitutionary Atonement without Christus Victor gives a loveless God. But at the same time Christus Victor without Substitutionary Atonement gives a God who is unjust and who issues cheap grace.
I would agree that no single model works, and it's only when we take them together that we approach a full picture. I like cliffdwellers summary grouping the various models (I would say there are more than 5, depending on whether you consider related models as separate models or variations on a single model). To the quote above I would add things like, a moral influence providing an example of love is only of benefit if we're enabled to follow that example having shed the burden of guilt over past sins and defeated the current grasp of sin on our lives.
Although takign the models together does require us to understand the models (which, of course, includes their shortcomings). And, it does seem that PSA gets a particularly bad press and is prone to massive misunderstanding. We've already had it described as depicting an angry and vengeful God and in the quote above a loveless one. All of which I'd disagree with. PSA depicts a righteous God, a judge handing out right and fair penalties for the hurt our sins have caused to others. It depicts a holy God, in whose presence sin cannot exist. It also depicts a loving God providing a means by which the just penalty for our sins is paid, and by which we can be cleansed of sin and enter the presence of God.
But, just as receiving a fine for criminal activity (especially if someone else pays that fine!) does not change behaviour, PSA by itself is not enough. We also need a rehabilitation programme to teach us to live better (the moral influence of cliffdwellers post), and we need to have the influences that lead us astray defeated (which is where CV is very strong).
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I'm sorry, but PSA does posit a vengeful and wrathful God, where else does "the wrath of God was satisfied" come from? And no, infinite punishment for finite offences is not "just" in any meaningful schema.
[ 16. October 2014, 10:09: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I go for a mixture of Christus Victor and moral influence. The first covers the non personal, the second aids and abets the first but also includes the personal.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It seems to me that all five of the primary metaphors for the atonement have a strong biblical witness behind them.
Substitutionary atonement has a wide biblical witness, penal atonement has almost none.
Which is why it's so laughable that those that consider themselves the "most scripturally based" are often advocates of PSA but have very few biblical legs to stand on.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
There is another atonement theory that I quite like.
God sacrificed himself to apologise for all the suffering in the world.
Doesn't work for Jesus the man, but it does for Jesus the second person of the trinity.
That's the other thing about atonement theories and scripture: there are two competing threads in scripture that have to be held in tension : Jesus the man and Jesus the second person of the trinity. They are both there but difficult if not impossible to reconcile. Same as the doctrine of Chalcedon.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm sorry, but PSA does posit a vengeful and wrathful God, where else does "the wrath of God was satisfied" come from? And no, infinite punishment for finite offences is not "just" in any meaningful schema.
It comes from Anselm and his satisfaction theory.
I would posit that it is biblically sound to refer to God has having character qualities of being vengeful and wrathful, but only as part of many other characteristics including loving a just. See for example Psalm 103:8 "The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love."
As for vengeance, see Deuteronomy 32:35 "It is mine to avenge; I will repay."
To abandon those qualities is to strip God of part of It's character. It's akin to looking at a die and deciding you don't want the 1, so trying to remove that side. You won't be left with a fair, even and trustworthy die.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[qb] I'm sorry, but PSA does posit a vengeful and wrathful God, where else does "the wrath of God was satisfied" come from? And no, infinite punishment for finite offences is not "just" in any meaningful schema.
It comes from Anselm and his satisfaction theory./QB]
No it doesn't. Anselm was writing in a feudal society where landlords wanted debts paid. He thought that Jesus paid our debt - but the debt was a life of obedience. Nothing to do with punishment.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
Horseman Bree, I've no issue with raising ethnicity in the context of sin, but Clark did it to excess, and did it simplistically, bracketing the word "white" to the word "evangelical," and sticking the track on repeat.
What about the African-American churches that nearly blocked equal marriage in Illinois? Or the evangelicals in Nigeria and Uganda who persecute the LGBT fellow citizens with murderous rigor? In the Anglican Communion, Africa is very much the center of power, and uses that power to attack gay rights across the globe.
It came over as a simplistic white man's burden spin on a complex issue. When expressing, say, vicarious guilt for slavery, progressives rarely mention that it was a trade driven by Africans selling their fellow Africans. At root, far too many progressives believe that racism is a white person's problem, rather than a human problem.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
But, in his context, the refusal of white evangelicals to admit to the (disguised) racism that is practised all around them is a consciously-sinful act.
Do you live in an area where the police would automatically shoot 20-something black person, and then respond to the unhappy crowd by hauling out roughly a full battalion's worth of weaponry? Are you saying there is no racism inherent in that situation? Are you saying that many of the whites did not support this act against the "uppity" blacks? Are you saying that it is entirely the fault of the blacks that they have been ghettoized, under-represented and generally marginalised by the conscious decisions of the whites?
And I note that the white evangelical presence during that storm was conspicuously unnoticeable, except when they asked for a return to "normal" (which implies continuing the sinful state of things).
And this story is repeated across the US, for blacks, for gays, for women.
Not to mention the conspicuous desire of largely-white parties to ensure that poor children are disadvantaged.
It may not be so obvious in your place, but ISTM that the riots in London last year might indicate that the situation there is not good. Try being gay when dealing with the hierarchy of the church, for instance, or try being even remotely favorable to gays in the evangelical group (Do I need to mention Steven Chalke?)
If you refuse to see the problem, you are part of the negation of Jesus' explicit statements.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
It may not be so obvious in your place, but ISTM that the riots in London last year might indicate that the situation there is not good.
Small point of fact: the riots were in 2011, not last year.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
Horseman Bree, the 2011 England riots were a criminal flashmob who used a police shooting as an excuse. I doubt white gangbangers in Manchester and Newcastle were inflamed by solidarity with an Afro-British man from London.
As for Ferguson, I won't comment on a shooting that's still under investigation, although there are definitely questions that need answering. Given the arson, looting and violence, I won't condemn the St. Louis cops out-of-hand for donning protective gear.
The evil doctrine of white supremacy has undoubtedly poisoned sections of American society, aided and abetted by southern baptists and other protestant groups (and fought, of course, by their fellow Christians). It's essential to consider it when considering sin, but it's something that needs to be slotted into a wider human picture.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm sorry, but PSA does posit a vengeful and wrathful God, where else does "the wrath of God was satisfied" come from?
Wrath is not the same as anger or vengeance. Certainly not as we experience those emotions. God doesn't lose it and lash out at those who have hurt him. At the same time He can't abide sin, he hates the effects of sin with a passion we cannot fathom. Wrath is that burning passion to eradicate sin.
quote:
And no, infinite punishment for finite offences is not "just" in any meaningful schema.
Infinite punishment is not a feature of PSA. Yes, some evangelicals believe in eternal punishment. But, PSA only requires the penalty to be beyond our ability to pay. If the prize is eternal life in the presence of God, the penalty is to not receive that - which could easily be non-existence.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I meant to say from the beginning 'aitch Bee, spot on, absolutely, amen.
We are blind to our privilege and the way it perverts Christ in us. We haven't the faintest idea how sinful we are. We thank God that we are not as IS. And we created them. WE. Christendom. CHRISTIANITY.
In my men's group Tuesday it was said that WE have a personal relationship with God through Christ and Muslims don't. Muslims who are doing 'what we were 500 years ago'.
How blind and naked and poor we are. How amnesic. In our helpless, ignorant, oblivious privilege.
Rwanda was 4% of that ago. One hundred thousand Christians slaughtered another million Christians in one hundred days.
Syrian and Iraqi Muslims have YEARS to go to achieve that.
And we're looking for a way to justify more war?
WE.
Christians.
God help us.
God FORGIVE us.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Byron: I'm sure you mean well with your attempts to avoid the issue. Having a black man killed by police in the US nearly every day is obviously not a problem to you. Plus I'm assuming that there is then no resentment built up in the affected community, because you have said that this could not be. There are only people who want to burn and loot, there are no other people who would just like to be treated as if they were human.
OK, OK, I get it. All girls who go out for the evening are demanding to be raped, and also want to be blamed by the police and "good" society. All blacks are muggers and looters, and there is no cause for that because you have said so. All immigrants are scum who should be sent "home", even if there is no "home" for many of them. All women are property and must suffer the curse of Eve. Good Christian thinking there.
Martin has managed to actually read some of what I (and Fred) have written. Please enjoy your wilfull ignorance.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Took a deep breath and moved away from this, and, Lo and behold! Here is the next chapter: Ta-Nehisi Coates on "The Old Jim Crow" and, of course, the present one. read it and weep. Blacks are automatically criminals because they are alive, and are treated as such by many in the US (and by fewer, but still many, in the UK)
Does this not hint at some version of a sinful attitude on the part of the oppressors? Do we have to sort out all the minor stuff like having once coveted a neighbour's ass, so that one can deal with the next trivial thing about actively hating at least 10% of all your neighbours, just because?
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
Horseman Bree, if we can discuss this without your posts putting words in my mouth, no problemo. If not, we're done here. Your call. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It seems to me that all five of the primary metaphors for the atonement have a strong biblical witness behind them.
Substitutionary atonement has a wide biblical witness, penal atonement has almost none.
Yes, I meant the five metaphors I was referencing in my post.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
There is another atonement theory that I quite like.
God sacrificed himself to apologise for all the suffering in the world.
Doesn't work for Jesus the man, but it does for Jesus the second person of the trinity.
Isn't that already a component of Christus Victor to some degree?
"Apologizing" isn't a word I would use because in my Open Theist pov God is not responsible for suffering. But certainly in a more Augustinian or Calvinist theology God has a lot to answer for.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Well, try discussing instead of avoiding.
Breaking news: Outside agitators are the problem in #Ferguson.
The "real" political world sees blacks as criminals and moves in larger over-gunned forces.
How about seeing that the police are the "outside agitators" coming in from outside? Why are we fighting the whole civil rights thing 50 years later? How is it that the only church presence is on the black side? Where are the mediators coming from those oh-so-sin-free churches that everyone admires so much? Are they too busy hiding from the sins they commit?
As you can probably tell, I have a somewhat different view from the normal "don't rock the boat. We're so NICE that we can't help the sun shining out of our bottoms".
So long as all these groups - immigrants (in a country built on invasion and immigration and genocide!); women seen as the property of men; LGBTs being the target of violence; poverty-stricken children being forced to give up school lunches; etc. - continue to be oppressed by benign indifference or active hate-mongering, then the "Christian" presence in that country is a sham, just as it is under David Cameron's Tories and Steven Harper's Tories and Tony Abbott's wannabe Tories.
Just by the way, Harper is a member of one of those evangelical churches that preaches that the poor are that way because it is their own fault. This is certainly true in some cases, just as there are some Tories who actually realise what is happening. But at present more people are poor because we have worshipped the out-of-control money people and gotten rid of the jobs that used to keep people fed and housed, while attacking the support network that was put in place after WW2. And now even the churches are saying that the working poor caused this disaster.
And you say there is no social sin? No sin that matches simple personal ones like lying? Look up Gandhi's Seven Social Sins. He would have liked to be a Christian - except that the Christians he met were absolutely opposed to his colour. (which is my point exactly)
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Well, try discussing instead of avoiding.
Breaking news: Outside agitators are the problem in #Ferguson.
The "real" political world sees blacks as criminals and moves in larger over-gunned forces. [...]
A grand jury is still investigating the shooting. As I'm sure you know, grand jury proceedings are secret. To date, all we have are conflicting witness statements.
You seem to want me to ditch awkward things like evidence and the presumption of innocence, and jump to the conclusion that Michael Brown was murdered because he was African-American. Because ... well, why, exactly?
Given that he was a strong guy, caught on camera robbing a store minutes before he was shot, is it not at least possible that the shooting was justified? It may not have been, he may have been murdered because of his race, but I'll reserve judgment until the investigation's done.
If you want to talk sin, doesn't presuming a police officer's guilt qualify? Giving in to a peer pressure and condemning a man, well, there's certainly gospel precedent for being wary of that.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It seems to me that all five of the primary metaphors for the atonement have a strong biblical witness behind them.
Substitutionary atonement has a wide biblical witness, penal atonement has almost none.
Yes, I meant the five metaphors I was referencing in my post.
Sorry. Missed that.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[qb] I'm sorry, but PSA does posit a vengeful and wrathful God, where else does "the wrath of God was satisfied" come from? And no, infinite punishment for finite offences is not "just" in any meaningful schema.
It comes from Anselm and his satisfaction theory./QB]
No it doesn't. Anselm was writing in a feudal society where landlords wanted debts paid. He thought that Jesus paid our debt - but the debt was a life of obedience. Nothing to do with punishment.
Uh... Anselm arguably says that it's not to do with punishing Jesus, but it's certainly, in his eyes, about releasing us from our just punishment. The repayment takes the form of Jesus's obedient life - and most especially death.
Now you could argue that that isn't PSA, exactly. But it probably preserves most of the things that people don't like about PSA.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
God is fully responsible for suffering, cliffdweller, it is contingent on creation.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
God is fully responsible for suffering, cliffdweller, it is contingent on creation.
You are begging the question. As I said, yes, in a Calvinist/Augustinian theological paradigm (which you seem to be assuming), God is responsible for suffering. But that is not the case in an Open or Process paradigm-- which was my point. I understand, of course, that many/most Christians do not assume that paradigm.
[ 17. October 2014, 14:27: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
God is fully responsible for suffering, cliffdweller, it is contingent on creation.
I'm sure that this can be seen as an inescapable fact. God obviously created the world in such a way that suffering was always a possibility.
I don't think that this makes God responsible for suffering. It presupposes that there was another way that God could have created the universe that would both remove the possibility of suffering and also be on the whole a "better" system.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
God is fully responsible for suffering, cliffdweller, it is contingent on creation.
I'm sure that this can be seen as an inescapable fact. God obviously created the world in such a way that suffering was always a possibility.
I don't think that this makes God responsible for suffering. It presupposes that there was another way that God could have created the universe that would both remove the possibility of suffering and also be on the whole a "better" system.
I would agree with Martin that if God created the world in which suffering is inevitable-- the world as we see it today-- that makes God responsible for suffering. My point was that that presupposes a Aristolian/Calvinist paradigm. In an Open paradigm the world as we see it today-- with the inevitability of suffering-- is not the world as God intended it to be, or the world as it will one day be in the New Creation.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
What do mean by "Aristolian/Calvinist paradigm" cliffdweller?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It presupposes the opposite. How do you read that in to it Freddy?
Creation and suffering are a perichoresis.
[ 18. October 2014, 08:08: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What do mean by "Aristolian/Calvinist paradigm" cliffdweller?
Ach-- typo-- for "Aristolian" I meant Augustinian (although it might have been a freudian slip, since Open Theism accuses Augustinian theology of being overly influenced by Greek philosophy).
Basically I mean the most common Christian conceptions of the God's Sovereignty as equating absolute control, particularly when it comes to creation. Whereas Open and Process theologies create a paradigm where other contingent forces have more of an influence over what happens in the world, including the actual "natural order".
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It presupposes the opposite. How do you read that in to it Freddy?
I assume this was directed to me, not to Freddy, since it follows my statement about what you are assuming?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Creation and suffering are a perichoresis.
OK, probably not an Augustinian or Calvinist paradigm per se. But still a paradigm that suggests that creation as we see it today (including suffering obviously) is the world as it was intended to be (thus still problematic from a theodicy pov). Whereas the (minority view) paradigm I'm suggesting does not.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
A grand jury is still investigating the shooting. As I'm sure you know, grand jury proceedings are secret. To date, all we have are conflicting witness statements.
You seem to want me to ditch awkward things like evidence and the presumption of innocence, and jump to the conclusion that Michael Brown was murdered because he was African-American. Because ... well, why, exactly?
There's a presumption of innocence when it comes to the State sending people to prison. For that matter, there ought to be a presumption of innocence when it comes to shooting a man in the street. When it comes to expressing opinions on the internet, the evidential requirements are weaker and one can go with the balance of probabilities.
Young black men get shot by the police a lot more often than young white men. It seems reasonable to suppose that it's not entirely the fault of the young black men.
As I said, presuming the innocence of the police here requires casting aspersions on the innocence of the young black men who've been shot. The reason we presume innocence is to protect citizens from the coercive arm of the state; and that includes the police.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[...] Young black men get shot by the police a lot more often than young white men. It seems reasonable to suppose that it's not entirely the fault of the young black men. [...]
Each use of deadly force is unique, and can't be slotted neatly into a narrative of racism. I have no doubt that racial bias influences some officers, but I don't know its extent.
We do know that young African-American men are disproportionately reflected in the homicide stats, as both perpetrators and victims, so it's far from impossible that the majority of police shootings are justifiable.
Centuries of brutalisation from white supremacy, segregation and, yes, slavery are clearly behind this legacy of crime and deprivation, but it's a hideously complex injustice to heal, something not helped by assuming that most white cops are racist.
You're right about burdens of proof not applying, but as the underlying reasons for having it in court apply across the board, I try to do the same.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Starting again cliffdweller: God is responsible for all suffering while causing none of it directly or immediately. It's contingent on creation. You cannot have creation without suffering.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Starting again cliffdweller: God is responsible for all suffering while causing none of it directly or immediately. It's contingent on creation. You cannot have creation without suffering.
And again, that is true in many/most paradigms. It is not true in an Open or Process paradigm. Suffering is inherent to this world as we now know it to be. Open theists do not believe it to be inherent to the world as God intended it to be or as it will be in the new heaven & earth. Arguably, I believe that to be consistent with what we see in the biblical worldview as well.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
God has no intent but to lift us up. Transcend us. It's non-sense to suggest that creation turned out other to God's intent. There was, is no other way. Obviously. Anything else is dualism.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
God has no intent but to lift us up. Transcend us. It's non-sense to suggest that creation turned out other to God's intent. There was, is no other way. Obviously. Anything else is dualism.
Not dualism but Open Theism which is different than the classical view you're espousing (Boyd calls the particular understanding of reality as corrupted by forces other than God "warfare theology", I forget what Walter Wink calls it). fwiw, the classical view with it's inherent problems w/ theodicy and the nature of time seem like "nonsense" to us (Open Theists). And, again, I would argue that the Bible demonstrates precisely this "dualism".
I don't have any problem with you advocating a classical paradigm-- again, it's the predominant form of Christianity. I just have a problem with the "just so" way you are presenting it. There is a significant, scholarly, dissenting pov-- albeit a minority pov.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Then we are separated by a common language. By disposition. As usual on SOF. Invoking anything that can immediately or even gradually derail God's 'original intent', whatever that was, is pure dualism. When did this happen in your story of the universe and how?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[...] Young black men get shot by the police a lot more often than young white men. It seems reasonable to suppose that it's not entirely the fault of the young black men. [...]
Each use of deadly force is unique, and can't be slotted neatly into a narrative of racism. I have no doubt that racial bias influences some officers, but I don't know its extent.
We do know that young African-American men are disproportionately reflected in the homicide stats, as both perpetrators and victims, so it's far from impossible that the majority of police shootings are justifiable.
Centuries of brutalisation from white supremacy, segregation and, yes, slavery are clearly behind this legacy of crime and deprivation, but it's a hideously complex injustice to heal, something not helped by assuming that most white cops are racist.
You're right about burdens of proof not applying, but as the underlying reasons for having it in court apply across the board, I try to do the same.
Interesting discussion perhaps, but what on earth has this got to do with Christus Victor and understandings of atonement?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
A grand jury is still investigating the shooting. As I'm sure you know, grand jury proceedings are secret. To date, all we have are conflicting witness statements.
You seem to want me to ditch awkward things like evidence and the presumption of innocence, and jump to the conclusion that Michael Brown was murdered because he was African-American. Because ... well, why, exactly?
Given that he was a strong guy, caught on camera robbing a store minutes before he was shot, is it not at least possible that the shooting was justified? It may not have been, he may have been murdered because of his race, but I'll reserve judgment until the investigation's done.
If you want to talk sin, doesn't presuming a police officer's guilt qualify? Giving in to a peer pressure and condemning a man, well, there's certainly gospel precedent for being wary of that. [/QB]
I think you're missing my point. The shooting of Michael Brown is an isolated event, in which "he said, she said" is about all that is available, given the death of one side of the argument.
BUT the general population seems to expect that the police should be armed with all sorts of (inappropriate) army gear, made available cheaply in a militarized nation, and that those police should come in to a community and terrorise it with those weapons until the "uppity" folk get back in their cages. The police (just about all white) certainly believe that containment and "shock and awe" are useful tools and that no communication with the community is to be allowed.
In most First World countries, police are expected to answer for problems that arise. In this case, the shooter wasn't even identified publicly until after the publicity s**t hit the fan. And it was often remarked that the police did NOT wear identifying badges while committing this suppression, another "no-no" in civilized countries.
Do you not see a problem with this?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Then we are separated by a common language. By disposition. As usual on SOF. Invoking anything that can immediately or even gradually derail God's 'original intent', whatever that was, is pure dualism. When did this happen in your story of the universe and how?
Dualism posits both forces (evil/good; God/Satan) as equal. independent and eternal. and therefore the battle is eternal and w/o hope. Open does not (process might-- I'll let others more knowledgable speak for their position). Open theism IMHO and arguably reflects the biblical worldview of an world that is significantly impacted by evil forces opposed to God; but also of a future hope for the ultimate defeat of those purposes and a world "set right."
Boyd places the "corruption of nature" at the second nanosecond of creation (Big Bang/ evolution). ymmv.
Circling round to the OP, for obvious reasons, then, Open and Process theologians tend to favor the "Satanward" images of the atonement-- ransom and Christus victor.
[ 19. October 2014, 14:01: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
My milage is zero. I'm not even walking to the car.
Boyd is wrong. Which is a shame.
Like Progressive Christians homeopathically diluting Jesus.
Even as metaphor it doesn't work. It's heterodox even to the bronze age narrative.
The only way I can make it work, which I'm used to doing now with all pious expressions, no matter how 'distinctive', is that in the instant of creation the inexorable countdown to suffering began.
No evil agent necessary.
If there is a real spirit world inhabited with sapient spirits some of whom went to the bad, as the pre-resurrection Jesus recalled, even the bronze age narrative doesn't retrospectively apply their fall to the beginning. On the contrary they sang for joy.
What am I missing? What was God's intent for creation that was thwarted? What would creation have been like if it hadn't been?
Where did the evil come from 'pre' creation? Infinite regress anyone? What am I missing?
Boyd CANNOT mean evil in any but a strongly figurative sense therefore. He is a clever chap after all.
No?
Even so, how did creation thwart God?
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I think you're missing my point. The shooting of Michael Brown is an isolated event, in which "he said, she said" is about all that is available, given the death of one side of the argument.
BUT the general population seems to expect that the police should be armed with all sorts of (inappropriate) army gear, made available cheaply in a militarized nation, and that those police should come in to a community and terrorise it with those weapons until the "uppity" folk get back in their cages. The police (just about all white) certainly believe that containment and "shock and awe" are useful tools and that no communication with the community is to be allowed.
In most First World countries, police are expected to answer for problems that arise. In this case, the shooter wasn't even identified publicly until after the publicity s**t hit the fan. And it was often remarked that the police did NOT wear identifying badges while committing this suppression, another "no-no" in civilized countries.
Do you not see a problem with this?
All this inflammatory talk of police oppressing "uppity" African-American citizens is so vague that it's impossible to counter, which I suspect is the purpose behind the generalizations. If my suspicion's wrong, please consider the problem.
You raise valid issues like ID and representation, but your assumption of racist motive casts far more heat than light. Are qualified African-Americans in Ferguson even applying to the PD, for example. Is the protective gear justified by the threat posed by rioting? And so on.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Interesting discussion perhaps, but what on earth has this got to do with Christus Victor and understandings of atonement?
Exactly my point! A question for Clark, who focused so much on ethnicity.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Even as metaphor it doesn't work. It's heterodox even to the bronze age narrative.
The only way I can make it work, which I'm used to doing now with all pious expressions, no matter how 'distinctive', is that in the instant of creation the inexorable countdown to suffering began.
No evil agent necessary.
Which, as noted above, makes God the author of evil. Now THAT'S heterodox. Open theism offers an orthodox alternative, one consistent with the biblical witness.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What am I missing? What was God's intent for creation that was thwarted? What would creation have been like if it hadn't been?
None of us living have ever seen an "unfallen" creation so it's impossible to know what it looks like. But we can get a glimpse of it in Rev. 22.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Boyd CANNOT mean evil in any but a strongly figurative sense therefore. He is a clever chap after all.
He is quite clever-- and not at all figurative here. He does indeed mean not just literal evil but a literal and personified evil-- i.e. a literal Satan and literal demons. Quite definitely. See his systematic thesis detailing this, God at War or the shorter version, Satan and the Problem of Evil.. It is quite brilliant, but also makes sense both of the biblical text as well as our experience of the world.
(fyi: I happened to be at the SBL/AAR meeting years ago where Boyd first presented the paper that would later become I]Satan and the Problem of Evil.[/I]. And yes, every objection you've raised here was raised then. Boyd met those challenges with humility and brilliance. I walked away with a whole new paradigm for understanding the world and the biblical narrative, for the first time one that did not involve having to force huge inconsistencies to fit into misshapen pieces or ignore half of Scripture or chalk up huge, important significant questions as "divine mystery". Having a theological paradigm that actually fits with our experience and knowledge of the world has a tremendously freeing and empowering impact on our devotional and spiritual life).
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Even so, how did creation thwart God?
"Creation" didn't thwart God. God's intention for creation was (temporarily) thwarted.
[ 19. October 2014, 22:01: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Having a theological paradigm that actually fits with our experience and knowledge of the world has a tremendously freeing and empowering impact on our devotional and spiritual life).
Amen to this - from a fellow advocate of open theism and the warfare worldview.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
God didn't create evil. He created. All creation goes to the bad. It can't not. It's a phase it has to go through. God couldn't not know that.
Satan did NOT deprave the cosmos 13.7 gigayears ago.
Whether there is a spirit realm or not, and Jesus as a man remembered that there was, which has to be good enough for me when push comes to shove, is irrelevant.
I am speaking a language plainly that I cannot understand for you.
Does Satan shave?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
God didn't create evil. He created. All creation goes to the bad. It can't not. It's a phase it has to go through. God couldn't not know that.
Satan did NOT deprave the cosmos 13.7 gigayears ago.
Whether there is a spirit realm or not, and Jesus as a man remembered that there was, which has to be good enough for me when push comes to shove, is irrelevant.
I am speaking a language plainly that I cannot understand for you.
Does Satan shave?
You really do not need to parse it out like you are speaking to a dim-witted child.... are you under the impression that I am not aware of the classical view you are advocating here? Or that I am unaware that there are large numbers of Christians who ascribe to it? Or is it that you are unaware that there are significant numbers of Christians-- some of them even brilliant thinkers like Boyd-- who depart from that default classical view?
Rest assured, I am quite familiar with the classical perspective you are advocating here and the sway it has held for lo these many centuries. I just happen to disagree with it.
It's nice (I suppose) that you are able to summon up such a rigidly emphatic and dogmatic confidence in this view in the face of the myriad internal and external inconsistencies. I wish you luck with that (only slightly sarcastic there).
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. It is dispositionally impossible for you. As it was for me for decades. And yes, I find it all axiomatic without any inconsistency whatsoever.
I like Boyd. On this he is irrationally wrong. That cannot be helped. This is what happens when you cling on to an old wineskin stretched way past its limit. Find a new one quick. At the foot of the cross.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. It is dispositionally impossible for you.
What is "dispositionally impossible" for me??? What in the world are you talking about???
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And yes, I find it all axiomatic without any inconsistency whatsoever.
"it all" meaning the classical paradigm of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving God who created a world of evil and suffering? And you find no inconsistency there? Hey, if you've found a consistent answer to the question of theodicy that fits into that paradigm, don't hold back-- several millenia of faithful believers want to know.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I like Boyd. On this he is irrationally wrong. .
He may or may not be wrong, but he is anything but "irrational". It is by far the most rational explanation of reality I have every heard.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That cannot be helped. This is what happens when you cling on to an old wineskin stretched way past its limit.
That's an odd parable to pull out-- given that the classical paradigm you so emphatically trumpet is the obvious "old wineskin", which, arguably, has become stretched to cover the inconsistent patches. Indeed, the primary and most valid objection to the open view is of course not it's "oldness" but rather it's "newness"-- the way it challenges traditional understandings.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Find a new one quick. At the foot of the cross.
Circling back again to the OP, I would say that is precisely what the Open view does, and why the "Satanward" atonement theories (ransom and Christus victor) fit so well in an open paradigm.
But again, ymmv.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I like Boyd. On this he is irrationally wrong.
Just out of curiosity, what is it you like about Boyd? This is a pretty central thesis of his entire theology, so if you dismiss this, I'm not sure what you're left with. Unless you just mean he has a friendly, engaging demeanor (which he does) making him a likeable guy?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Everything apart from that weird premiss from which everything else does not follow in the slightest.
The premiss is the umbilical necessary to keep attached to the old wineskin-placenta.
It's post hoc. Get rid of it and nothing changes. Except one is no longer bound by a caul of dead narratives.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
You see, Martin, this is what I don't understand here. I had assumed, from most of your posts, that you would, at the very least, be sympathetic to Open Theology. It seems to fit rather neatly with what I perceive as your world view on a variety of issues. Indeed, the whole idea of perichoresis is not a bad summary of the relationship between the creator and His creation, as understood in OT terms.
It's almost as if you have prejudged Boyd, and from that position have worked back to a situation where you reject open theism despite its consistency with your general belief system. I really can't see what the argument is that you have with cliffdweller's actual posting. Your comment on "meeting Jesus at the foot of the cross" suggests, to me, that you have misunderstood her, that in some way you perceive her to be minimising the importance and uniqueness of the whole salvific Christ event. If so, I think the Open Theism you are rejecting is a straw man version of Boyd's thinking.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
Back to Christus Victor. Dialoguing with people on the Ship about this really drove me back to the Bible on this, and I think I did begin to learn that it's a significant and important aspect of the atonement.
I'm always surprised when people reject PSA on the ostensible lack of textual evidence for it, but then adopt CV. There's one passage (Colossians 2) in the NT that actually exposits CV AFAICT, and even then Paul's description of "nailing the written code" to the cross never seems to be feature much in descriptions of CV.
I think John Stott's view in his magnum opus is right - PSA is the central "exchange" happening at the cross, and the CV is a result that follows. I don't expect that to be a popular view here. (Hello JJ - let's talk about this again. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
)
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think John Stott's view in his magnum opus is right - PSA is the central "exchange" happening at the cross, and the CV is a result that follows. I don't expect that to be a popular view here. (Hello JJ - let's talk about this again. )
I'd largely go with that. Though I was wondering which work you meant by Stott's magnum opus? There are several contenders: - Basic Christianity
- The Cross of Christ
- Evangelical Truth
- The Radical Disciple
Was it one of these?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm always surprised when people reject PSA on the ostensible lack of textual evidence for it, but then adopt CV.
The resurrection is all the scriptural warrant CV needs and there's tons of that.
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think John Stott's view in his magnum opus is right - PSA is the central "exchange" happening at the cross, and the CV is a result that follows.
CV doesn't need PSA for "what happened on the cross". Sounds like Stott was fishing for "how should we fit the resurrection in?".
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In an Open paradigm the world as we see it today-- with the inevitability of suffering-- is not the world as God intended it to be, or the world as it will one day be in the New Creation.
I'm not up to scratch on what Open theism is cliff dweller, but in Christian orthodoxy, this is not the world God intended, nor will it be the same in the New Creation. Sounds similar there.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.
Interesting. I've not heard that posited before. It always seems that with PSA, the atoning for sin is done in the crucifixion while the completion of victory over sin and death is done at the resurrection. i.e. the resurrection is necessary part of PSA.
For CV-only advocates, the resurrection seems superfluous.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.
It's one of my biggest problems with evangelical Christianity: that you can go to a church for months and months and months and hear endless sermons on the death but barely a mention of the resurrection.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.
Interesting. I've not heard that posited before. It always seems that with PSA, the atoning for sin is done in the crucifixion while the completion of victory over sin and death is done at the resurrection. i.e. the resurrection is necessary part of PSA.
You would think so (and I think any understanding of it that doesn't paint God as a monster requires it), but I remember leading a Bible study on the Atonement with my old church, and looking at all the different models, and watching friends express the opinion that you don't need to talk about the resurrection, it's the death that matters.
I don't think that's a problem necessarily with the position, more with how it is commonly preached in churches.
Posted by Philip Charles (# 618) on
:
I find Thomas Robert Malthus an interesting place to start reflecting on the creation. To understand Salvation we must understand the nature of the creation and humankind.
quote:
The idea that the impressions and excitements of this world are the instruments with which the Supreme Being forms matter into mind, and that the necessity of constant exertion to avoid evil and to pursue good is the principal spring of these impressions and excitements, seems to smooth many of the difficulties that occur in a contemplation of human life, and appears to me to give a satisfactory reason for the existence of natural and moral evil, and, consequently, for that part of both, and it certainly is not a very small part, which arises from the principle of population. - T.R. Malthus
Humankind and the creation cannot be made perfect by human effort. Malthus' theory of population was his example of how utopia could collapse, climate change is a modern example. Humankind is imperfect and part of this is sin. The creation is not the way we would like it, but I argue that it is the best universe for us given our imperfections.
Jesus' life, death and resurrection need to be seen against this background.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.
Interesting. I've not heard that posited before. It always seems that with PSA, the atoning for sin is done in the crucifixion while the completion of victory over sin and death is done at the resurrection. i.e. the resurrection is necessary part of PSA.
For CV-only advocates, the resurrection seems superfluous.
How bizarre.
The "victory over sin and death" is the heart of CV and is evidenced by the resurrection of Christ contra sin and death.
What do you think CV is?
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.
Interesting. I've not heard that posited before. It always seems that with PSA, the atoning for sin is done in the crucifixion while the completion of victory over sin and death is done at the resurrection. i.e. the resurrection is necessary part of PSA.
For CV-only advocates, the resurrection seems superfluous.
How bizarre.
The "victory over sin and death" is the heart of CV and is evidenced by the resurrection of Christ contra sin and death.
What do you think CV is?
That's what I understand it to be, but CV-only (as opposed to CV+PSA - which is my view) sees the victory in the crucifixion. i.e. if the victory is achieved there then there is no need for the resurrection. It's merely decorative icing on the cake.
My contention is that both are needed. In the crucifixion Christ was "made sin" so that sin was crucified, atonement made and that the resurrection was where the victory was completed.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
If we were to produce straw men stereotypes then PSA and CV would be at opposite ends of the relative importance of the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
Strawman stereotypical PSA-er - Jesus dies on the Cross to pay the penalty for our sin. The Resurrection, hmm, well it could be something about the Father accepting the payment, but, well the payment would have been paid and we'd be saved even if Christ wasn't raised from the dead.
Strawman stereotypical CV-er - Jesus defeated death and sin by rising from the dead, breaking open the gates of Hades to lead the faithful to new life. The Cross, well, I suppose He had to die to be in Hades to break out and rise as victor over death.
Of course, that's deliberately unfair on both sides. But that does tend to be the direction that holding just one model will take one.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If we were to produce straw men stereotypes then PSA and CV would be at opposite ends of the relative importance of the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
Strawman stereotypical PSA-er - Jesus dies on the Cross to pay the penalty for our sin. The Resurrection, hmm, well it could be something about the Father accepting the payment, but, well the payment would have been paid and we'd be saved even if Christ wasn't raised from the dead.
Strawman stereotypical CV-er - Jesus defeated death and sin by rising from the dead, breaking open the gates of Hades to lead the faithful to new life. The Cross, well, I suppose He had to die to be in Hades to break out and rise as victor over death.
Of course, that's deliberately unfair on both sides. But that does tend to be the direction that holding just one model will take one.
Alan, that simple and eloquent summary gets a ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If we were to produce straw men stereotypes then PSA and CV would be at opposite ends of the relative importance of the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
Strawman stereotypical PSA-er - Jesus dies on the Cross to pay the penalty for our sin. The Resurrection, hmm, well it could be something about the Father accepting the payment, but, well the payment would have been paid and we'd be saved even if Christ wasn't raised from the dead.
Strawman stereotypical CV-er - Jesus defeated death and sin by rising from the dead, breaking open the gates of Hades to lead the faithful to new life. The Cross, well, I suppose He had to die to be in Hades to break out and rise as victor over death.
Of course, that's deliberately unfair on both sides. But that does tend to be the direction that holding just one model will take one.
You're redefining the meaning of the word straw man here to mean "holding only one model".
Otherwise I think your definitions are quite accurate. Sipech seems to be confusing the definitions of CV and PSA.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Even as metaphor it doesn't work. It's heterodox even to the bronze age narrative.
The only way I can make it work, which I'm used to doing now with all pious expressions, no matter how 'distinctive', is that in the instant of creation the inexorable countdown to suffering began.
No evil agent necessary.
Which, as noted above, makes God the author of evil. Now THAT'S heterodox.
So how come Isaiah says I create evil ?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You're redefining the meaning of the word straw man here to mean "holding only one model".
No, I was using "straw man" as a description of a view that is inaccurate as a tactic to try to win an argument. The inaccuracy in my straw men (well, one of several inaccuracies) is that no one actually holds a single model, even those who would claim they do.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Everything apart from that weird premiss from which everything else does not follow in the slightest.
...It's post hoc. Get rid of it and nothing changes. Except one is no longer bound by a caul of dead narratives.
Actually, again, it is entirely central to his entire systematic theology. Have you actually read any of Boyd's work? Which books? Cuz honestly nothing you're writing seems to even make sense in the context of his work, unless what you've read is the books that aren't really about Open Theism-- The Myth of a Christian Nation, perhaps, or Letters to a Skeptic. Both great books but not detailing his systematic theology.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Back to Christus Victor. Dialoguing with people on the Ship about this really drove me back to the Bible on this, and I think I did begin to learn that it's a significant and important aspect of the atonement.
I'm always surprised when people reject PSA on the ostensible lack of textual evidence for it, but then adopt CV. There's one passage (Colossians 2) in the NT that actually exposits CV AFAICT, and even then Paul's description of "nailing the written code" to the cross never seems to be feature much in descriptions of CV.
As mentioned above, I would agree that there is ample biblical witness to PSA, but would argue that there's far more than just Col. 2 in biblical evidence for Christus victor. I would add 2 Cor. 5:19, Heb. 2:14-15, 18; and 2 Tim. 1:9-10.
If you broaden the question to the whole subset of "Satanward" atonement theories, we find that ransom has a massive amount of Scripture behind it Matt. 20:28, John 8:34, and Heb. 9:15 to name just a few.
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think John Stott's view in his magnum opus is right - PSA is the central "exchange" happening at the cross, and the CV is a result that follows. I don't expect that to be a popular view here. (Hello JJ - let's talk about this again. )
As I mentioned upthread, I believe all five primary theories have biblical witness and show us something that is true about the atonement, but I don't quite agree with the way Stott is breaking it down. Making PSA the correct transaction, ignores the whole "directional" piece-- i.e. who is being "moved" or altered by the atonement. Substitution and satisfaction make God the one who is moved, and to me that is the primary drawback of those theories, and why they need to be balanced with the other three. The two "Satanward" atonement images really define the central problem of sin differently and in a way more consistent with what we believe to be true of God.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In an Open paradigm the world as we see it today-- with the inevitability of suffering-- is not the world as God intended it to be, or the world as it will one day be in the New Creation.
I'm not up to scratch on what Open theism is cliff dweller, but in Christian orthodoxy, this is not the world God intended, nor will it be the same in the New Creation. Sounds similar there.
Exactly. There is much in Open Theism that is a radical rethink and could give one pause, but the element that Martin60 finds so objectionable isn't it. It's very much a biblical view, as well as one that we see in the creeds and historic Christianity.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
I take your point, Alan, but to say that something objective happened at the crucifixion does not mean that th particular "something" is PSA. I think that the idea of separating the cross and the resurrection is quite foreign to CV. They are integral parts of the same atonening event. The cross was the battle, the resurrection the victory.
From a CV appoint of view, the important thing about the crucifixion is that it is God at His most powerful, yet inherent in that is that it is also God at His most vulnerable. When Paul wrote about his weakness being God's atrength, he was (unwittingly, maybe) putting his finger on something fundamental to the nature of the redeemed cosmos. Yes, Jesus buys our freedom, but by His obedient sacrifice, not by being punished.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm more enamoured with the ideas of Jürgen Moltmann (The Crucified God). I'm not sure if they fall under CV.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
As Gamaliel would probably say, LeRoc, both and. CV and Moltmann are far from incompatible.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Just reviewing some of the "Quotes" file, and came across this post by LeRoc which seems to be appropriate here
I hope that readers here also read Fred C's follow-up post "You have to keep scooping out the boat" which deals with some of the objections also seen here.
If nothing else, you will get the links to Richard Beck, whose blog is excellent for many reasons.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Just reviewing some of the "Quotes" file, and came across this post by LeRoc which seems to be appropriate here
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Even so, how did creation thwart God?
Great question to ponder - thanks!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Even so, how did creation thwart God?
Great question to ponder - thanks!
Really? Seems like a bit of a strawman-- since no one is suggesting that creation could or would or did thwart God.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
It very well could be a straw man, but I'm not pondering it as part of a debate. I like coming across novel ways to approach things, and the question gives me just that.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
how so?
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
It's like the first time I came across the artistic suggestion to try drawing background spaces instead of foreground figures. Or like the first time I learned that it's possible to prove a proposition by assuming its negation. With regard to theodicy, the question prompts me to think about what evil isn't rather than about what it is.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.
It's one of my biggest problems with evangelical Christianity: that you can go to a church for months and months and months and hear endless sermons on the death but barely a mention of the resurrection.
Of course, Jesus did give us a regular sacrament for the death but not the resurrection - which does skew the focus somewhat.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.
It's one of my biggest problems with evangelical Christianity: that you can go to a church for months and months and months and hear endless sermons on the death but barely a mention of the resurrection.
Of course, Jesus did give us a regular sacrament for the death but not the resurrection - which does skew the focus somewhat.
Good point, Lep.
Great to interact with you again about this, btw. I've always thought the CV thread, for all its gargantuan proportions, showed debate on the Ship at its finest; honest, thoughtful, respectful and, you know, somehow Christian!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
cliffdweller. Again, Evil doesn't explain evil. Creation does. There is NO problem of evil.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.
It's one of my biggest problems with evangelical Christianity: that you can go to a church for months and months and months and hear endless sermons on the death but barely a mention of the resurrection.
Of course, Jesus did give us a regular sacrament for the death but not the resurrection - which does skew the focus somewhat.
Not so. The death is meaningless without the resurrection. Just as the passover meal ( the last supper's original incarnation) is meaningless without the salvation of the Jews from Egypt.
There would be no remembrance if there was no victory. Jesus would simply be another martyr or prophet among many that died for the cause.
If Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith would be in vain ( St Paul's New Revised Evensong Version)
[ 21. October 2014, 10:24: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.
It's one of my biggest problems with evangelical Christianity: that you can go to a church for months and months and months and hear endless sermons on the death but barely a mention of the resurrection.
Of course, Jesus did give us a regular sacrament for the death but not the resurrection - which does skew the focus somewhat.
Not so.
Riiight. So which is the sacrament that is about the resurrection?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
When I celebrate Communion (being a member of one of those heretical sects that authorise lay presidency) my prayers always include a phrase like "in eating and drinking we remember the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ". But, that's because I'm very conscious that it can easily become an ordinance where we eat bread in memory of His body broken for us, drink wine in memory of His blood shed for us and totally forget that it's an ordinance given that we may eat and drink in remembrance of Christ - and that includes all that He did and was, not just the Cross. It's also an ordinance observed in anticipation of the Second Coming.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The resurrection is something of a post thought for PSA (hmmmnnn... how should we fit all the resurrection gig in?). Which is ridiculous.
It's one of my biggest problems with evangelical Christianity: that you can go to a church for months and months and months and hear endless sermons on the death but barely a mention of the resurrection.
Of course, Jesus did give us a regular sacrament for the death but not the resurrection - which does skew the focus somewhat.
Not so.
Riiight. So which is the sacrament that is about the resurrection?
I don't know what your tradition is for the sacrament of the Eucharist Leprachaun but mine is based on the BCP and as such is based on the resurrection and as Alan Creswell has pointed out, includes the entire scope of salvation history in its saying.
Without the resurrection however, it is meaningless.
Perhaps that is not the case with other liturgies but if you're calling the Last Supper a sacrament I would assume you have some sense of the catholic faith as handed down from the earliest times.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
The most obvious image (or sacrament, if you will) of the resurrection is baptism. The immersion under the water is symbolic of death and burial, but then we rise up out of the water.
Of course, if you don't have access to a river or large pool and have to resort to sprinkling, then the image is somewhat lost.
In my baptist days, the two parts of the communion were sort of split by the two parts of Easter. So in the breaking of bread we would remember Jesus' death, but in the taking of the grape juice (no wine due to the presence of ex-alcoholics and the desire to not have a divided communion) we took this as a symbol not only of the blood shed, but also of the new life given, which was only possible as a result of the completed victory at the resurrection. So the breaking of the bread was quite memorial in nature but the grape juice was much more celebratory.
Of course, other churches may well do things differently which are no more right or wrong than this. I just found it quite helpful.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
The most obvious image (or sacrament, if you will) of the resurrection is baptism. The immersion under the water is symbolic of death and burial, but then we rise up out of the water.
Well yes, but baptisms tend to be much less regular than communion in my shack at least - praying for more!
Of course Communion liturgies do and should mention the resurrection and return of Christ. But I think the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ. If you are so brilliant at leading the liturgy that you find ways of body and blood recalling the resurrection too - bully for you. I think that's unusual, and the symbolism actually makes it quite difficult.
Anyhoo, the point is that church praxis tends to make us think more about the death than the resurrection in all traditions. Nearly all churches I know have a cross on the wall - very few have an empty tomb. (And when they do, they tend to be rather kitsch.)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Though there is a symbolism of an empty cross, that Christ isn't on the Cross but Raised.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Anyhoo, the point is that church praxis tends to make us think more about the death than the resurrection in all traditions.
Simply Bullshit.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Riiight. So which is the sacrament that is about the resurrection?
All seven of them, surely.
In the specific case of the Eucharist I suppose it depends on one's theology thereof. If one holds that the Eucharist is purely a memorial then it is possible, I suppose, to hold that it is primarily a memorial of Christ's passion. A bit like the Stations of the Cross, the Stabat Mater and the Crucifix.
If one holds, however, that the Eucharist, in some meaningful sense, brings one into contact with the efficacious work of Christ then I think that it is impossible to separate out the incarnation, passion, resurrection, ascension and, for that matter, his coming again in glory. Soteriologically, the acts of Christ are a unity. Like the Roman soldiers on Calvary, either we can have the lot or we can have nothing at all but we cannot divide them. The garment is seamless. The reason that there is no blessing between the liturgy of Maundy Thursday and the first Eucharist of Easter, in some traditions, is to stress this seamlessness in the work of God in Christ.
More generally dying is fairly commonplace. As Avon observes to Vila in Blake's 7, "it's the one thing we all can do". On the other hand Resurrection from the dead is pretty darn unique. I know that in Mark's Gospel John Wayne responds to the death of Christ with the words: "Truly, this man was the Son of God" but by and large the proclamation of the Early Church was "Christ is Risen". We know that during the period of the Acts of the Apostles there were people baptising in the name of John the Baptist and, indeed, the Mandeans of Iraq continue to do so to this day, assuming they have not all by now been slaughtered by embittered Sunni Muslims. I think that the reason that this is treated as a simple good-hearted misunderstanding in the New Testament is that the Christians knew that both John the Baptist and Jesus had died but only one had risen from the dead...
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Riiight. So which is the sacrament that is about the resurrection?
All seven of them, surely.
Seven? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:
Westminster Catechism:
Q. 164. How many sacraments hath Christ instituted in his church under the New Testament?
A. Under the New Testament Christ hath instituted in his church only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Anyhoo, the point is that church praxis tends to make us think more about the death than the resurrection in all traditions.
Simply Bullshit.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Riiight. So which is the sacrament that is about the resurrection?
All seven of them, surely.
Seven? quote:
Westminster Catechism:
Q. 164. How many sacraments hath Christ instituted in his church under the New Testament?
A. Under the New Testament Christ hath instituted in his church only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper.
Brace yourself, Bridget, but not everyone in Christendom regards the Westminster Catechism as definitive.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Some would consider two sacraments as two too many.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Brace yourself, Bridget, but not everyone in Christendom regards the Westminster Catechism as definitive.
I wouldn't. I have issues with Q1's disparity from Ecclesiastes 12:13,14. And as for its advocacy of infant baptism.... ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
cliffdweller. Again, Evil doesn't explain evil. Creation does. There is NO problem of evil.
You have a parent in your office whose 2 year old is suffering from a horrific debilitating disease, in enormous pain. He will probably die before his 5th birthday. How does the creation of a world where this sort of thing is "natural" explain God's goodness?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Horseman Bree: Just reviewing some of the "Quotes" file, and came across this post by LeRoc which seems to be appropriate here
(Thanks for this. I was a bit busy yesterday so I only just saw this.)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ.
Goods heavens, that is so wrong. Liturgies from the earliest to the present day are about resurrection and we have the eucharist on Sundays as a bare minimum. Friday is optional.
It is the risen Christ who is president in the elements, not the dead ones.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ.
Goods heavens, that is so wrong. Liturgies from the earliest to the present day are about resurrection and we have the eucharist on Sundays as a bare minimum. Friday is optional.
It is the risen Christ who is president in the elements, not the dead ones.
That may well be what's in the liturgy. Ask the average Christian what part of Jesus' ministry communion is remembering/uniting us to (depending on your theology).
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Ask the average Christian what part of Jesus' ministry communion is remembering/uniting us to (depending on your theology).
Please define "average Christian".
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ.
Goods heavens, that is so wrong. Liturgies from the earliest to the present day are about resurrection and we have the eucharist on Sundays as a bare minimum. Friday is optional.
It is the risen Christ who is president in the elements, not the dead ones.
That may well be what's in the liturgy.
It's in most liturgies, most of us will have said some variation on "Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again" during the Communion service. The biggest problem is that last words before the distribution of the elements, and therefore the ones most easily associated with the act of eating and drinking the bread and wine/juice, do tend towards the death of Christ only. In the more commonly used liturgies, at any rate. A variation on
quote:
Draw near with faith.
Receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which he gave for you,
and his blood which he shed for you.
Eat and drink in remembrance that he died for you,
and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.
only mentions his death.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ.
Goods heavens, that is so wrong. Liturgies from the earliest to the present day are about resurrection and we have the eucharist on Sundays as a bare minimum. Friday is optional.
It is the risen Christ who is president in the elements, not the dead ones.
That may well be what's in the liturgy. Ask the average Christian what part of Jesus' ministry communion is remembering/uniting us to (depending on your theology).
Out of interest, Leprechaun, does your church celebrate Holy Communion on Good Friday?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Jolly Jape - missed you! - I love Open Theism without the irrational, unnecessary predicate that the Demiurge ruined creation.
It's psychologically, indeed SPIRITUALLY fascinating that Boyd clings to this utterly heterodox idea. That his identity is tied up with it, not realising that it's a zero-sum game that he should confess his PRIDE in and slough off. Be pruned of. He's just digging a hole deeper.
The straw man is entirely his: Open Theism IS NOT predicated on the Demiurge.
The problem of evil is that Jesus recalled Satan. Is that despite being unnecessary, he is. That the dice are loaded even more against us than just contingently. It is not necessary to invent Satan to explain anything, yet he exists. And once he exists, by Jesus' memory, he does in the other NT accounts, first of Jesus' exorcisms.
They go beyond Walter Wink's excellent synthesis.
I seek a theology that embraces that openly, progressively and until then I lay it at the foot of the cross. Because there isn't one.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Anyhoo, the point is that church praxis tends to make us think more about the death than the resurrection in all traditions.
True, but this isn't a good thing.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ.
Goods heavens, that is so wrong. Liturgies from the earliest to the present day are about resurrection and we have the eucharist on Sundays as a bare minimum. Friday is optional.
It is the risen Christ who is president in the elements, not the dead ones.
That may well be what's in the liturgy.
It's in most liturgies, most of us will have said some variation on "Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again" during the Communion service. The biggest problem is that last words before the distribution of the elements, and therefore the ones most easily associated with the act of eating and drinking the bread and wine/juice, do tend towards the death of Christ only. In the more commonly used liturgies, at any rate. A variation on
quote:
Draw near with faith.
Receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which he gave for you,
and his blood which he shed for you.
Eat and drink in remembrance that he died for you,
and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.
only mentions his death.
Which is Cranmer, writing at the the height of the C. of E's protestant phase and at his most Zwinglian. I has survived up to the present day because the evangelicals on Synod won't let it go but it is only one of several options and is never used by many of us who prefer 'Jesus is the lamb of God....'
The majority of Christians are RC or Orthodox and never use this 'died for you' language.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ.
Goods heavens, that is so wrong. Liturgies from the earliest to the present day are about resurrection and we have the eucharist on Sundays as a bare minimum. Friday is optional.
It is the risen Christ who is president in the elements, not the dead ones.
That may well be what's in the liturgy. Ask the average Christian what part of Jesus' ministry communion is remembering/uniting us to (depending on your theology).
Out of interest, Leprechaun, does your church celebrate Holy Communion on Good Friday?
This question isn't addressed to me but I can't help commenting that the Eucharist was never celebrated on Good Friday for the first 15 centuries of the Church. They just used the synaxis, which survives in the current Good Friday Liturgy, albeit with communion from the reserved sacrament tacked on.
Cranmer provided a collect, epistle and gospel for Good Friday (and Holy Saturday) but there is little evidence that he expected anything more than 'table prayers' on these days as he required everyone to present themselves for communion on Easter Sunday.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ.
Goods heavens, that is so wrong. Liturgies from the earliest to the present day are about resurrection and we have the eucharist on Sundays as a bare minimum. Friday is optional.
It is the risen Christ who is president in the elements, not the dead ones.
That may well be what's in the liturgy. Ask the average Christian what part of Jesus' ministry communion is remembering/uniting us to (depending on your theology).
Out of interest, Leprechaun, does your church celebrate Holy Communion on Good Friday?
Yes. Is that bad?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Jolly Jape - missed you! - I love Open Theism without the irrational, unnecessary predicate that the Demiurge ruined creation.
It's psychologically, indeed SPIRITUALLY fascinating that Boyd clings to this utterly heterodox idea. That his identity is tied up with it, not realising that it's a zero-sum game that he should confess his PRIDE in and slough off. Be pruned of. He's just digging a hole deeper.
.
Um... could you possibly be projecting just a wee bit here???
Seriously, what the heck is going on with you? Simple disagreement is to be expected. As I mentioned, I happened to be at the SBL/AAR meeting when Boyd first presented his paper, and there were LOTS of questions about positing a real and personified evil and I'm certain many walked away unconvinced. But I don't recall anyone finding the need to question Boyd's psychological and/or spiritual health. I find your need to do so... well, let's say, psychologically and spiritually interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The straw man is entirely his: Open Theism IS NOT predicated on the Demiurge...
They go beyond Walter Wink's excellent synthesis.
Boyd is certainly going beyond Wink, as is Open Theism in general. Boyd in particular, though, is heavily influenced by Wink.
Wink declares himself to be agnostic on the question of whether or not evil is personified. But the existence of a real force that is evil, that is opposed to the work of God, is very much central to Wink's work. There is a force for evil that is very much behind "the myth of redemptive violence" and is working-- corrupting-- the world as we now see it.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the average Christian and church historically has seen it as a sacrament dwelling on the death of Christ.
Goods heavens, that is so wrong. Liturgies from the earliest to the present day are about resurrection and we have the eucharist on Sundays as a bare minimum. Friday is optional.
It is the risen Christ who is president in the elements, not the dead ones.
That may well be what's in the liturgy. Ask the average Christian what part of Jesus' ministry communion is remembering/uniting us to (depending on your theology).
Out of interest, Leprechaun, does your church celebrate Holy Communion on Good Friday?
Yes. Is that bad?
If you see Holy Communion as purely a memorial of the Passion it makes perfect sense.
The thing is, however, that most Christians world wide and, I suspect, the majority of churches don't celebrate on Good Friday which indicates that something else is going on.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Because it's whack, as they say round these parts cliffdweller. Wink isn't. Boyd is. Why does he cling on to the old Marcionite - Zoroastrian - gnostic - Scientologist - dualist heresy as if it were new and explanatory in any way? It isn't. Marcion is forgivable as that was part of the necessary evolution of ideas.
I beg his pardon for imputing (Satanic) pride for believing his own bad sci-fi fantasy, because it isn't his; clinging on to stuff that's way past its sell-by date is understandable if you've invested in it. Until you realise it's worthless and need to move ahead without it. Been there. With Anglo-Israelism for one.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Because it's whack, as they say round these parts cliffdweller. Wink isn't. Boyd is. Why does he cling on to the old Marcionite - Zoroastrian - gnostic - Scientologist - dualist heresy as if it were new and explanatory in any way? It isn't. Marcion is forgivable as that was part of the necessary evolution of ideas.
I beg his pardon for imputing (Satanic) pride for believing his own bad sci-fi fantasy, because it isn't his; clinging on to stuff that's way past its sell-by date is understandable if you've invested in it. Until you realise it's worthless and need to move ahead without it. Been there. With Anglo-Israelism for one.
I suggest you read his work before you make such snap decisions. If his systematic theology God at War is too much of a bite, try Satan and the Problem of Evil.
The reason Boyd is so well regarded among Open Theists is because he is willing to take on the hard questions no one else is. Boyd is the only Open Theist-- indeed, pretty much the only theist period-- willing to take on the question of natural evil (or suffering, if you will). It's fine to poke holes at his theory but you gotta appreciate his willingness to wade into the question.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
All he's got to do is dump the pagan NONSENSE. I don't need to read tomes predicated on that. There's nothing that can't be said in SIMPLE theology like his - he isn't Kant - on the back of a fag packet.
As the excellent Roger Olson does.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
All he's got to do is dump the pagan NONSENSE. I don't need to read tomes predicated on that. There's nothing that can't be said in SIMPLE theology like his - he isn't Kant - on the back of a fag packet.
As the excellent Roger Olson does.
Surprisingly, Olson doesn't seem to share your view.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What view?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What view?
The one I quoted in my post, obviously. Did you read your link?
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
I was thinking that was odd to, the linked article seemed very appreciative of Boyd's viewpoints.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Oh, the pagan nonsense. He does.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Oh, the pagan nonsense. He does.
Citation needed - like cliffdweller and Green Mario, I didn't get what you got from that Roger Olson article.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So you all think that someone with the balance of Olson would go for the demiurge of Boyd-Zoroaster?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So you all think that someone with the balance of Olson would go for the demiurge of Boyd-Zoroaster?
It's up to you to make your case, Martin60. Three people have said they don't share your take on the Olson article you linked to, so you have a case to prove. You can't just make bald assertions and expect people to suddenly understand what you're getting at...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Yes I can. It's obvious Olson, like Wink, doesn't believe in the Demiurge and Boyd does.
If three people won't see that, I can't make them.
[ 23. October 2014, 21:01: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yes I can. It's obvious Olson, like Wink, doesn't believe in the Demiurge and Boyd does.
If three people won't see that, I can't make them.
hmmmm... might I suggest that maybe, just maybe, it's possible that it is you (gasp!) that could be wrong re: your take on Olson-- and Boyd. Wink as well is far less negative re: Boyd's view than what you seem to be suggesting. In fact, the only real difference between Boyd & Wink is that Boyd is more likely to see evil as personified, while Wink simply declares himself to be agnostic on that point. Similarly, Olson's only concern w/ a personified evil is that we avoid the excesses of the spiritual warfare movement (a concern I-- and Boyd-- would very much share). Which is quite a far cry from declaring that personifying evil is "unbiblical" (I'm still quite curious how you get there) and pagan to the point of pathological.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You say that Boyd says (in the thousands of pages of his work - no ads please) that the universe went to Hell in the first Planck tick:
You: "Boyd places the "corruption of nature" at the second nanosecond of creation (Big Bang/ evolution). ymmv."
Sorry that makes it at 0.1855 x 10^35 Planck ticks.
Am I wrong?
No.
He is.
Furthermore this was done by Satan, no? Sapient evil. Part of ... creation.
According to Boyd?
Am I wrong?
Answers on a fag packet please.
(Yeah, yeah, creation was perfect for the first arbitrary nanosecond (a very long time in the story of the universe), so there is no infinite regress, but then sapiently corrupted itself at t+10^-9. So God is panentheistic but Satan is pantheistic. Nature is (malevolent, personal, evil, cooperative, sapient, social) supernature. Riiiiiigggghhhhht.)
If I'm not, that is dualism, that is the Demiurge.
That is WRONG. False. Untrue and absolutely unnecessary regardless.
Clinging on to it for no rational reason is also WRONG. Now I'm an understanding sort, I'd rather judge as I would be judged, so I put it down to ... nature (if things can go wrong, they will, and they can). Not moral choice.
And it will be transcended by grace as it was from the beginning in Christ crucified.
[ 24. October 2014, 10:04: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Hmmmm. I'm wrong. It's 1.855094832e+34 Planck ticks. It's de rigueur to use the units.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Nature is (malevolent, personal, evil, cooperative, sapient, social) supernature.
No. Nature is fallen-- as we are.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
From where?
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
Martin, what do you make of passages like this one?
'For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.' Ephesians 6:12
The Bible often deals in metaphor - well, duh. But what it often presents as metaphor it often also takes seriously as some kind of objective reality. Satan, or ‘the satan’, is portrayed in the Bible as a personal entity with a particular animus against God and against God's people – he is never portrayed as an equal opponent to God, but definitely as a spiritual entity who wants to corrupt and muck things up.
Here's an example of the Boethian view of evil: “The Shadow that bred [the orcs] can only mock, it cannot make: not real things of its own. I don't think it gave life to the orcs, it only ruined them and twisted them.” Frodo, in ‘The Lord of the Rings’.
Evil doesn't create anything, it can only twist what's already there. (Tolkien found his sometimes-friend CS Lewis too ‘dualist’. Which is not to say that Lewis couldn't also portray evil in a compelling way ...)
[ 24. October 2014, 16:03: Message edited by: Laurelin ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Martin, what do you make of passages like this one?
'For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.' Ephesians 6:12
The Bible often deals in metaphor - well, duh. But what it often presents as metaphor it often also takes seriously as some kind of objective reality. Satan, or ‘the satan’, is portrayed in the Bible as a personal entity with a particular animus against God and against God's people – he is never portrayed as an equal opponent to God, but definitely as a spiritual entity who wants to corrupt and muck things up.
Which should, at the very least, put to rest all this nattering about Boyd's view being "unbiblical". One might very well disagree with Boyd's interpretation of these biblical texts, but clearly his starting point is biblical, not pagan as Martin would suggest.
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Evil doesn't create anything, it can only twist what's already there.
Yes, this would be the view that Boyd (and I) are suggesting.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The starting point of the Biblical is pagan.
As for what I make of Ephesians 6:12, see above. I like what Walter Wink makes of it that's for sure. It's at LEAST a suprahuman synergy of us, of memes, of society.
The problem of evil for me is that on the authority of the 100% human Jesus, there IS a Devil. And the New Testament accounts are IMMENSELY credible of supernatural, sapient, evil persons that corrupted themselves in heaven, possessing and afflicting and influencing.
As are the scant Old Testament references, to the Prince of Persia for one.
But as it is impossible to point to God so it is impossible to point to the Devil, to blame him for anything we do. He may well say that the Holocaust and Rwanda were nothing to do with him. If he were behind Hitler then why did he make so many stupid mistakes?
I have no idea what to make of there actually being a Devil. Apart from the creation goes wrong and it is ALL redeemed in Christ.
If there is a Devil what difference would it make if there weren't?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0