 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
 |
Posted Jan 5, 2010; 1:13 pm |
|
Thanks for your responses Roadrunning. I've found your comments very helpful, and has caused me to pause to think through the possible implications of the righteous martyr. (I'm not certain this is the right context, but it seems plausible).
In your opinion, is this belief about a righteous martyr satisfying the wrath of God a rational belief (or one that God would agree with)? It doesn't seem rational to me. Having said that, it may be that God is communicating the New Covenant with this imagery in mind. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| Resources |
Posted Jan 5, 2010; 8:23 pm |
|
This is certainly a spirited discussion, with strong views and questions! The discussion has pushed me to pick up Barker/Green’s book and set other reading aside for awhile.
For me there are several issues involved in the debate: i) was God’s wrath (anger) poured out upon Jesus on the Cross ii) what do the proponents of PSA really mean when they argue that the theory/model is foundational to the atonement / Cross? iii) and for me a deeper question revolves around whether ‘making models’ is the best way to do biblical theology.
For those interested in articles (less lengthy than a book) I found the following resources helpful: Here is the Link to Doug Heidebrecht’s fine Study Conference paper titled: We Preach Christ Crucified. I appreciated his overview of the NT texts and the way he organized them. I could see some of the atonement themes emerging. He doesn’t deal with the issue about God’s wrath being poured out on Jesus.
Theopedia has a good overview Penal substitutionary atonement Link. The article has sections of both the strengths/weaknesses of PSA. It also has many links for further study. For example we are linked to a Theopedia article on propitiation (Romans 3.25) which appears to be a key text to the matter of God’s wrath poured out on Jesus .
I found it interesting that the Theopedia article has Regent College professor Dr. JI Packer a proponent of PSA offering a mild critique the model. It also had a link to a 1973 paper of Dr. Packer called What did the Cross achieve: The Logic of Penal Substitution Link. I think he will make a good case for PSA
I hope Forum members will find some of these links helpful. |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| |
Posted Jan 5, 2010; 9:15 pm |
|
Thanks, Ken, for your posts. I have also still been thinking of the word “atone”, and its origin, its etymological meaning, and its commonly accepted meaning, or usage today. Word etymology can be very misleading, and words commonly shift in meaning over time. A prime example of this in my personal experience (when I was first beginning to seriously read the scripture as a child) was trying to understand why Paul (in the KJV) stated that (as referring to the return of the Christ for his people) “those who are living will not prevent the dead in Christ.” I could not imagine why they would want to. We all know (now) that the word prevent had shifted in meaning over the centuries since the KJV was published for the first time – that the meaning was at that time identical to our word ‘precede’. I recall a discussion with another linguistics student about the NIV’s choice of “atoning sacrifice” in place of “propitiation”. (The full NIV had just come out a year or 2 previous to this.) He said that “atoning sacrifice” just did not mean the same as “propitiation”, and I said that, for most people, “propitiation” had little or no meaning at all.
In the language of the people among whom we lived, there is the concept of ‘retribution’. The same word is used for ‘price’, and ‘revenge’. The core meaning, I believe, is reciprocity. God gave his Son. Why? That the peoples of the earth might be saved. The Christ experienced the pain of the retribution – payment – for our evil deeds. Substitution. Could God have forgiven us without this sacrifice? That is not a question with which the Scriptures deal. If not, it is a limit he placed on himself. (If I were to give an answer based on human ‘wisdom’ or philosophy, I would say that He could have, but chose not to. The plan of salvation, and the requirements of its fulfillment, were of his own making. The free will of man, I would suppose, is in the same sense a self-limitation of his own sovereignty.)
So in regards to the word “atone”, I wonder what was in Tyndale‘s mind when he invented the word. As a Bible translator myself, I always shrank from creating a new word in the receptor language. I believe that every “religious word” should have a common usage in the concrete world – an automatic illustration of its meaning in the spiritual realm. New constructions based on etymology generally failed to communicate what seemed so clear to me, as the outside “analyst” of the language.
The discussion has moved on in some sense since I started these comments early this morning, but I think I’ll still post. As I said earlier, I need to think this whole issue through by means of a dedicated through-the-scripture read, and this topic will be long dead by the time I can manage this. These are only my thoughts at this time. I am not intending that my response be seen as an argument for ‘PSA’ or any other theological-construct viewpoint – I just do not approach faith in that manner. (I know that I still need to respond to some questions posed for me in the What is Theology thread regarding this general topic, and I do still hope to get to it.) |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 315 posts |
| |
Posted Jan 5, 2010; 11:21 pm |
|
Thank you for the links you provided, Westcoast. I have another one that might be of some value to forum participants. http://www.themennonite.org/issues/12-9/articles/Once_for_all
The article emphasizes some of the issues I tried to raise - i.e. sacrificial atonement as distinct from retributive justice.
The author states: At odds are the divine grace of forgiveness and the Greco-Roman logic of retribution, upon which is based the penal substitution theory of atonement. The “conundrum of forgiveness” results from inappropriately explaining divine grace in terms of retributive justice—grace means that God forgives us because Jesus pays our penalty for sin. What we need, then, is a properly biblical understanding of sacrificial atonement... Indeed, that God is no prisoner to the logic of retribution is precisely the good news Paul proclaims (Romans 3:21-26). The justice of God is disclosed through the faithfulness of Jesus, not by satisfaction of retribution but “apart from law.” We are thus justified—forgiven and righted—through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, not by payment of penalty but “by [God’s] grace as a gift.” Thanks be to God.
Following the article there are two comments. One is written by a supporter of Penal Substitution and the other is a response of the author of the article. Both of these comments are worth reading since they highlight the current tension on this forum.
Thanks Todd for your comments and the question you asked of me. I will try to answer the question tomorrow when I have more time to formulate a thoughtful response. |
|
|
|
| Kenneth Affleck Member Joined Oct 7, 2008 33 posts Location: New Westminster, BC |
| Response to Roadrunning and Todd |
Posted Jan 6, 2010; 6:06 am |
|
| Roadrunning wrote: | | Could you please explain why you think that penal substitution describes what really happened on the cross? |
If it is acceptable to unilaterally assert that a biblical statement is a metaphor, then we can re-interpret the Bible to say anything we want; the Bible is then no longer authoritative. That is what some theologians have done with penal substitution. The burden of proof rests with those who claim that a biblical statement is a metaphor. Therefore, I need not go any further than to say this.
Given the following:
• Sin and objective guilt are real, not an image.
• The consequences of sin (physical and spiritual, death and hell) are real, not images.
• God’s retributive justice is real. The New Testament confirms this Old Testament theme. It presents various Old Testament instances as historical events (2 Peter 2:4-9, 3:3-7, Jude 1:5-7), and adds its own (Revelation 20:11-15).
• The Old Testament sacrificial system taught that the blood of an animal was required to make atonement for sin (Leviticus 17:11). While there were exceptions, it was clearly a general principle.
• The New Testament applies this to Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:22).
Therefore there is no biblical reason not to take penal substitution as real and not just a metaphor.
| Quote: | | On a personal level, why do you think that God demanded the death of Christ as a punishment for sin? |
Because of the nature of God’s righteousness, that was the only way to save mankind.
| Quote: | | If, as you say, reconciliation requires "confrontation", then why would God be confronting Christ on the cross? Is God confronting sin on the cross by demanding Christ's death: |
I said that, despite Christ’s call to a ministry of reconciliation, God’s calling to the truth of Scripture requires us to confront bad doctrine and severely confront heresy.
| Quote: | | Do you think reconciliation with God continues to require both punishment and forgiveness? Or does the punishment inflicted on Christ cancel out all other punishment by God? Or is punishment alleviated by the work of forgiveness offered in Christ? Does one get to choose punishment OR forgiveness? Or does one suffer BOTH punishment AND forgiveness? |
If a person is not a Christian, he does not benefit from Christ’s atonement and he will bear God’s retributive justice in hell. If a person is a Christian, Christ’s work on the cross frees him from the penalty of sin; God still disciplines us (Hebrews 12:5-11) because discipline is a necessary part of spiritual growth; but we need no longer fear God’s retributive justice, except possibly in the case of apostasy (Hebrews 10:26-31).
| Quote: | | What do make of the verses in the OT that speak of God not requiring blood sacrifices but rather the sacrifice of a willing, humble and repentant heart? |
Just performing the ritual of animal sacrifice was useless if the heart wasn’t right. It is the same today: Christ’s sacrifice doesn’t justify us without repentance and faith, and Christ’s sacrifice doesn’t continue to sanctify us without repentance and faith.
| Todd wrote: | Kenneth, I think you are confusing a couple of issues. I don't see any tension between Isaiah and my own view. Perhaps it would be helpful to point out what is not in disagreement.
We agree:
- That Jesus died for our sins
- That he suffered a violent death.
- That it was the will of God that Jesus would die
- That Jesus can be thought of us a guilt offering
- Jesus would bear our iniquities.
No where in the Isaiah passage do I sense the theme of substitutionary retributive justice. I don't think it's there. |
If I may summarize part your statement: “Christ died for our sins, He bore our iniquities, but He didn’t bare the penalty for our iniquities.” This is splitting hairs! It ignores the statement in verse 5: "the punishment that brought us peace was upon him". Implicit in this reasoning is a rejection of God’s retributive justice.
| Quote: | | I disagree strongly that God required any object to fulfill his wrathful vengeance. |
The words “wrathful vengeance” are designed to make retributive justice look bad. But those very words are used in the Old Testament to describe God's response to sin (Vengeance: Lev 26:25, Num 31:2-3, Deu 32:41-43, Isaiah 63:3-4) |
|
|
|
| Kenneth Affleck Member Joined Oct 7, 2008 33 posts Location: New Westminster, BC |
| Response to Roadrunner |
Posted Jan 6, 2010; 6:59 am |
|
Oops! I just realized that my previous post was actually to Roadrunner. My apologies.
[Fixed - Todd]
[Edited again: I made it more clear which quotes were mine, and which ones were Roadrunning's - Todd] |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 315 posts |
| |
Posted Jan 6, 2010; 11:13 am |
|
Hello Kenneth, Thank you for your response to some of my questions. The quote you included at the end of your post, and to which you responded belongs to Todd and not to me, however. | Quote: | Quote:
Kenneth, I think you are confusing a couple of issues. I don't see any tension between Isaiah and my own view. Perhaps it would be helpful to point out what is not in disagreement.
We agree:
- That Jesus died for our sins
- That he suffered a violent death.
- That it was the will of God that Jesus would die
- That Jesus can be thought of us a guilt offering
- Jesus would bear our iniquities.
No where in the Isaiah passage do I sense the theme of substitutionary retributive justice. I don't think it's there.
If I may summarize part your statement: “Christ died for our sins, He bore our iniquities, but He didn’t bare the penalty for our iniquities.” This is splitting hairs! It ignores the statement in verse 5: "the punishment that brought us peace was upon him". Implicit in this reasoning is a rejection of God’s retributive justice.
Quote:
I disagree strongly that God required any object to fulfill his wrathful vengeance.
The words “wrathful vengeance” are designed to make retributive justice look bad. But those very words are used in the Old Testament to describe God's response to sin (Vengeance: Lev 26:25, Num 31:2-3, Deu 32:41-43, Isaiah 63:3-4) |
|
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 315 posts |
| |
Posted Jan 6, 2010; 11:36 am |
|
Again, hello Kenneth. I thought I would respond to some of what you included in your latest post.
I agree with you that what happened on the cross was real and not a metaphor. The reality of Christ's work on the cross is true. However, this reality does not necessarily make what Christ did a "penal" work. Scripture is clear that Christ's death was substitutionary but the idea that this substitution was "penal" is questionable. Scriptures indicate that lust (temptation) leads to sin which leads to death. All sin and all die. Christ offers eternal life - the ultimate opposition to death. Eternal life is a gift provided through the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This work is comprehensive and reversed the consequences of sin which is death. Through his death Christ entered the God proclaimed consequences of sin. Even though Christ had not sinned, Christ died "for our sins". Through the resurrection Christ freed humankind from sin and death. This is a work only a sinless Divine/human could accomplish, hence the necessity of the incarnation.
I agree with you that sin and death are real. We experience these on a daily basis. People sin (do evil) and people die. This is true for everyone. Regardless of how we define evil, generally people agree that there is real evil and people commit real evil. This is a present reality.
As Christians we believe in the reality of hell based on the words of Christ in the New Testament. Since we haven't experienced hell and then been able to return to describe what it is like, we take the reality of hell to be true based on "hearsay" - a record of what Jesus taught. Hell is often discussed in the biblical texts with the use of images that point out the terrible significance of hell. Hell is a future reality if one is still alive today.
I agree with you that God's righteouseness alone can save humankind. This is why I dispute the idea of 'retributive justice'. Some of our sinful offenses cannot be fixed, remedied or redeemed with an appropriate offering to make things right. Nor can some of our sins be purified through an act of proportionate retribution.
Christ was the appropriate sacrifice because Christ acted on God's behalf to redeem us from our sins. We can respond to God's salvation but we don't accomplish it. The burden of proof still remains with those who favor the "penal" substitution aspect to demonstrate that God was demanding retribution on the cross. I believe that scripture supports the reality that Christ was offering himself as a guilt offering - a worshipful sacrifice that provides both cleansing and forgiveness.
I agree with you that bad doctrine and heresy should be confronted. I think that some bad doctrine was being confronted on the cross. The New Testament addresses this bad doctrine. The basic idea of the cross is laid out in the gospel of John as "the love of God for the world". Again, I think the burden of proof remains for those who favor a penal aspect to demonstrate that the cross was the result of God's wrath and punishment rather than God's love and willingness to forgive his enemies.
I agree with you that final and ultimate retributive justice is real and belongs to God alone . This retributive judgment is an end-time judgment according to scripture (Matthew 25) Again, I think the burden of proof remains with those who favor the "penal" or 'retributive" understanding of the cross to demonstrate that Christ's death on the cross was similar to the end-time judgment to come. Did Christ not come to save the world from the final judgment for sins through forgiveness of these sins?
Again I ask, did God require vengence on Christ in order to forgive people for their sins? Scripture supports the idea that God's righteousness and love were the source of the ultimate guilt offering for our sins.
I think the burden of proof remains to demonstrate that God required wrath to accomplish our salvation. Scripture supports the idea that the love and faithfulness of God were revealed in the reality of the gift of His Son Jesus Christ . Christ '"died for us so that we might have eternal life". Does this sound like "punishment" or does this sound like God's deliverance from the powers of sin and the reality of death?
I repeat a question I asked previously - Did the forgiveness God offers to us in Christ require wrath and vengence? While the wrath and vengence of God will be wielded against the powers of evil and death at the end of time, perhaps love motivated the '"interruption of time" when Christ appeared to offer salvation.
Last edited by roadrunning on Jan 6, 2010; 2:48 pm; edited 2 times in total. |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 315 posts |
| |
Posted Jan 6, 2010; 1:19 pm |
|
Hello Todd, In an earlier post you asked: | Quote: | | In your opinion, is this belief about a righteous martyr satisfying the wrath of God a rational belief (or one that God would agree with)? It doesn't seem rational to me. Having said that, it may be that God is communicating the New Covenant with this imagery in mind. |
A rational belief is one that is consistent with or based on or using reason; of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind. The Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga makes the argument that beliefs are warranted by the basis on which they are formed. There was the ancient understanding that certain human deaths served as vicarious substitutes. In particular, the martyrdom of those considered righteous held this place. I think this was a rational understanding.
Contemporary examples of this form of thinking could be the murder of Jim Elliott and his missionary friends at the hands of some Auca Indians which led to continued missionary work among these tribes by their family members.
Or the Amber Alert where the kidnapping and murder of Amber Hagerman led her family to establish a new system to help find missing children. In both these cases, something evil - deserving of God's wrath - is turned vicariously into something good. Suffering evil did not destroy the missionary families or the Hagerman family but rather was able to lead them to bring about something positive and good.
I do think that the death of Christ was the death of a righteous 'suffering servant' of God that has led to many others following in Christ's footsteps - the "Way, Truth and Life" revealed in Christ. This way is marked by a life of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. As the apostle Paul wrote: There is no law against such things and those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucifed the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another. Galatians 5:22ff
In response to those who confront others within the community of Christian faith harshly or with contempt, the apostle continues in chapter 6 with these words of advice: My friends, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.
So, could God be communicating through Christ that the way of humility and love of one's enemies is vital and of the Spirit, even when others try to destroy what is good? Yes, I do. In a very real way, the matter of God's wrath against evil is "dissolved" or overcome through these sacrificial acts that include standing alongside the oppressed, being humbly steadfast in the face of evil, forgiving those who seek to destroy rather than to save, and working with the help of God's Spirit to transform what was meant for evil into good. (See the story of Joseph)
God does hate evil but we are called to work with God to transform the evil in our world into good. We do so as we follow the pattern left by Christ, and through the power of God's Spirit at work with us. God encourages us to "overcome evil with good". Christ did this on the cross. We leave all matters of vengence and revenge to God's final judgment where evil will be completely eradicated by God and undergo eternal destruction. |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 315 posts |
| Some further thoughts on temporal retributive justice |
Posted Jan 6, 2010; 2:01 pm |
|
The following ideas can be traced more completely through Wikipedia entries, etc. but I thought I would lay out some of the basic principles related to temporal retributive justice. I think that God's eternal judgments are just and uniquely of God. Our temporal systems and understandings of retribution and punishment are limited to historically situated human mindsets.
Criminal justice is a system of practice and institutions of government directed at upholding social control. The courts of law include a judge, prosecutor and defense attorney. The judge is to objectively administer the legal proceedings and offers a final decision to dispose of the case against the offender.
Punishments rendered throughout history are varied. These include exile, execution, corporeal punishment of mutilation, branding and flogging, shame (which includes embarrassment, dishonor, humiliation and chagrin), imprisonment, probation and house arrest. In the modern era, the prison system has been seen as form of revenge, retribution and/or the reform of the criminals.
Retribution is considered to be a justly deserved penalty, and/or vengence. Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers punishment, if proportinate to the offense, as a morally acceptable response to crime, with an eye to the satisfaction and psychological benefits it can bestow to the aggrieved party, its intimates and society.
The biblical OT exemplifies the ancient law "lex talonis" - the law of "measure for measure" - "an eye for an eye". There is a proportional amount of punishment to the amount of harm caused by the offense. Recent arguments include punishment that is proportional to the amount of unfair advantage gained by the wrongdoer.
I think a problem can occur when we take our temporal understandings of penal and retributive systems and apply these to the mind and work of God. Sometimes God is made out to be the aggrieved party, other times God is set up as the judge and prosecutor with Christ standing in as the defense attorney and/or the criminal condemned to punishment. Often we have a temporal penal system in place in our mind and then read scripture with an eye to defending this worldview, rather than letting scripture take apart our temporal presuppositions.
A simple critical question might be: If you watched Mel Gibson's presentation of the crucifxion of Christ, could you imagine God doing these kinds of things to your next door neighbor who is not a Christian? I am not talking about hell which is horrific and God's final and absolute eternal destruction of evil. I am talking about God imposing this kind of corporeal punishment - including mutiliation (crushing), flogging, hanging on a cross - along with the mocking, humiliation, name-calling as well as the public ridicule of stripping off their clothing and denigrating their human dignity - as a form a retributive justice that is proportionate to the evil committed.
Some will answer "yes" to this question and others will answer "no". This may not be a matter of how we read scripture but rather of how we personally see and speak of God. We may be reading scripture to support our temporal views of justice, rather than letting God blast into our mindset with the liberating and redemptive power of the Holy Spirit.
Last edited by roadrunning on Jan 6, 2010; 2:38 pm; edited 2 times in total. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Jan 6, 2010; 2:08 pm |
|
| Kenneth Affleck wrote: |
| Todd wrote: | Kenneth, I think you are confusing a couple of issues. I don't see any tension between Isaiah and my own view. Perhaps it would be helpful to point out what is not in disagreement.
We agree:
- That Jesus died for our sins
- That he suffered a violent death.
- That it was the will of God that Jesus would die
- That Jesus can be thought of us a guilt offering
- Jesus would bear our iniquities.
No where in the Isaiah passage do I sense the theme of substitutionary retributive justice. I don't think it's there. |
If I may summarize part your statement: “Christ died for our sins, He bore our iniquities, but He didn’t bare the penalty for our iniquities.” This is splitting hairs! It ignores the statement in verse 5: "the punishment that brought us peace was upon him". Implicit in this reasoning is a rejection of God’s retributive justice.
|
Clearly Jesus was punished. No one denies that. I'm not sure how you can argue this is connected with penal substitution without assuming a penal substitutionary framework. One issue for me is who crucified Jesus? Explicitly, it was the Roman authorities. A good case can be made against those who shouted "crucify Jesus". Another case can be made against those who denied Jesus, or didn't stand up for him during his greatest trial. More implicitly, Jesus took all of our sins upon him. It was our sins that nailed him to the cross. In a different way, we can also say that God is responsible. God sent Jesus to Earth knowing he would die, and he did not intervene. The interpretation that "punishment" means "retributive justice" is not obvious to me. It is more clear that the punishment that Jesus incurred (regardless of the source or reason) did bring upon peace.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I disagree strongly that God required any object to fulfill his wrathful vengeance. |
The words “wrathful vengeance” are designed to make retributive justice look bad. But those very words are used in the Old Testament to describe God's response to sin (Vengeance: Lev 26:25, Num 31:2-3, Deu 32:41-43, Isaiah 63:3-4) |
If you agree with the choice of words, why do you say I make them sound bad? I'm not trying to spin. Retributive justice is unpleasant. I agree that your Biblical references do contain retributive justice themes. They are, however, not substitutionary, and even in the OT, there are numerous exceptions to the use of retributive justice. God didn't give the Jews the Promised Land because they were a holy people. He didn't save them from anihiliation because they were so much better than the other tribes that were anihilated.
On several occassions, God overlooked the sins, and did not carry out wrathful vengeance. And therefore, I think you will have a difficult time arguing that our sins our forgiven because God must satisfy his own wrath. When Moses appealed to God, God honoured Moses' requests.
That being said, I admit I don't feel wholly comfortable with some of the things that God says in the passages you referenced. Though, I'm sure these words would have comforted people at the time. They do seem to contrast with the some of the NT ethics where we are commanded to love our enemies. Jesus often said "you have heard... but now I say". What Jesus says makes more sense to me than what they have heard. Some of the things in your OT references seems more like what they have heard, then what Jesus now says. Maybe I will ask an OT professor at my church about some of these themes, and how to make sense of them. I have some thoughts that a Biblical inerrantist would have trouble accepting, but I also don't claim to have certain understanding. (My OT professor has a tendency to stretch the role of the narrator to the content of things that are attributed to God, without necessarily taking away from the narrator's contribution being inspired. But I haven't asked specifically about retributive justice).
I would take seriously what Roadrunning suggests, that God is no prisoner to the logic of retribution. Neto asked the question "Could God have forgiven us without this sacrifice"? and then suggests that God may have limited himself to have forgiven us in that fashion. In my opinion, God could of course just forgive, and to me this is rather obvious (though obviously not obvious to everyone else). And I think to some extent this is true, that God did just decide to forgive us. Roadrunning suggests that Christ's crucifxion isn't just a metaphor, but a reality that Christ's work on the cross really is the power that we need to be forgiven. I agree in the sense that I wouldn't call it a metaphor. However, actions speak louder than words, and I think God chose to reveal his plan of atonement with his actions, with someone tangible we could relate to, rather than just his words. God didn't choose this plan because it was necessary to accomplishment salvation, but because it was the superior way to reveal salvation. (I think there is much actual benefit in the life of Christ, just to be clear, that affects our pursuit of holy living).
I don't think there is a systematic theology that can be both complete and consistent with regard to how salvation must be accomplished (with regard to imputed righteousness at least). Now, having said that, I don't see salvation as being merely some kind of transaction that took place. PSA seems to be a bit more transactionary then what I believe. Salvation, to me, isn't just the work that Christ did on the cross so that our sins would be forgiven for those who believe in Jesus. Christ's life gave us a way to relate to God. We can relate to God through the life of Christ. I would stress that while the works of Christ were completed on the cross, it did not begin there. And thus, I see a very practical element within atonement. Salvation isn't just something that appears on the ledger. It has direct consequences to the way we live. (To clarify, I don't mean to say that PSA excludes all of the above). |
|
|
|
| Radames Member Joined Feb 17, 2006 322 posts Location: Surrey |
| Why did God forsake Jesus? |
Posted Jan 7, 2010; 2:13 pm |
|
I have been reading this discussion with interest, and have a question for both sides:
What is the significance of God forsaking Jesus on the cross, when Christians later underwent persecution but were not forsaken (2 Cor 4:9)?
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Mar 15:34 |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Jan 7, 2010; 2:19 pm |
|
excellent ?s Radames
from my vantage point, I would see a difference between forsaken and wrath/anger being poured out upon Jesus.
I'm slowly grinding thru Packer's 34 page paper. Have u read it? it seems like a balanced PSA presentation.
during his 8-page intro - he speaks of mystery. and that no model will every fully explain the Cross. i agree with this.
Way back in the day, i took Packer's systematics course - however, i remain a fully entrenched anabaptist  |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| God did not forsake Christ on the cross |
Posted Jan 7, 2010; 3:18 pm |
|
Radames asked: | Quote: | What is the significance of God forsaking Jesus on the cross, when Christians later underwent persecution but were not forsaken (2 Cor 4:9)?
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Mar 15:34 |
Frequently God is accused of forsaking Christ on the cross. This is a misunderstanding of what Christ was saying as Christ began to quote Psalm 22 while dying on the cross. Christ is directing attention to the purposes of God in the midst of his suffering. By not reading these words of Jesus in context of the whole psalm, speculative theology distorts the scriptural meaning of these words.
Crucifiction causes the lungs to collapse making it very difficult for the person dying in this way to speak audibly. Christ exerted a great deal of energy to speak loudly the words quoted in Mark 15. Similarly to how we might be alerting others to think about the lyrics of a song when we shout out "Amazing Grace", Jesus was shouting out the first few words of Psalm 22.
At that time, psalms were memorized and those huddled in despair at the foot of the cross would have been alerted to the rest of the verses in Psalm 22 that read like a sermon from the cross. I encourage anyone reading this post to take the time to read this psalm carefully. Only then will you really understand what I am saying here.
While the psalm begins with the feelings of despair and overwhelming abandonment - "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" the psalmist goes to say the following "Why are you so far from helping me ... YET you are holy ... in you our ancestors trusted, they trusted and you delivered them..."
"All who see me mock at me YET it was you who took me from the womb ... Do not be far from me for trouble is near and there is no one to help."
"I am poured out like water ... you lay me in the dust of death ... They stare and gloat over me; they divide my clothes among themselves ... BUT you, O LORD do not be far away! O my help, come quickly to my aid.
You who fear the LORD, praise him! All you offspring of Jacob; glorify him: stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel! For HE DID NOT despise or abhor the affliction of the afflicted; HE DID NOT HIDE his face FROM ME, but HEARD when I cried to him."
Jesus is reminding his followers who are in despair at his dying to finish the psalm - for "The poor shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek him shall praise the LORD ... All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD: and all the families of the nations shall worship before him. For dominion belongs to the LORD ... Future generations will be told about the LORD, and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn, saying HE HAS DONE IT!
Do we make a mockery of God's deliverance when we only attribute the first words of the psalm to God's actions rather than reading and understanding what Christ is really trying to say about God's great work accomplished through the cross 
Last edited by gay lynn voth on Jan 7, 2010; 6:30 pm; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| Packer's article |
Posted Jan 7, 2010; 5:29 pm |
|
Like Westcoast, I too am reading Packer's article. I appreciated one paragraph so much, I thought I would share it here. This may clear up some of what Lorne was concerned about regarding metaphors and reality. Packer draws attention to "theology" or "Christian speech" which draws from the Bible but is distinct from it. Packer notes though that non-representational language (parables, analogies, metaphors and images) is in the Bible itself. The doctrine of atonement is a theological work as all doctrine is.
Christian speech verbalizes the apprehended mystery of God by using a distinctive non-representational ‘picture-language’. This consists of parables, analogies, metaphors and images piled up in balance with each other, as in the Bible itself (from which this language is first learned), and all pointing to the reality of God’s presence and action in order to evoke awareness of it and response to it. Analysis of the functioning of this language is currently in full swing,8 and no doubt much remains to be said. Already, however, the discussion has produced one firm result of major importance — the recognition that the verbal units of Christian speech are ‘models’, comparable to the thought-models of modern physics.9 The significance of this appears from John MacIntyre’s judgment ‘that the theory of models succeeds in reinstating the doctrine of analogy in modern theological logic . . . and that analogy is to be interpreted in terms of a theory of models and not vice versa.’10 The doctrine of analogy is the time-harboured account, going back to Aquinas, of how ordinary language is used to speak intelligibly of a God who is partly like us (because we bear his image) and partly unlike us (because he is the infinite Creator while we are finite creatures).11 All theological models, like the non-descriptive models of the physical sciences, have an analogical character; they are, we might say, analogies with a purpose, thought-patterns which function in a particular way, teaching us to focus one area of reality (relationships with God) by conceiving of it in terms of another, better known area of reality (relationships with each other). Thus they actually inform us about our relationship with God and through the Holy Spirit enable us to unify, clarify and intensify our experience in that relationship. |
|
|
|
|
|
