No the blood washes the people’s sins clean. Jesus being sinless his sacrifice washed us clean.
That's not what is meant by PSA. PSA is specifically the idea that God needs to punish somebody for our sins and we are let off because God punishes Jesus instead of us.
More accurately, that the Father fixed our sins on the Son and then punished Him for those. Both elements seem to me to be contrary to the doctrine of equality within the Trinity. PSA is standard Moore College teaching.
I don't have a problem with PSA, oddly enough. As ONE interpretation of atonement.
I have a problem when it is presented as the ONLY interpretation. There are aspects that fit and work. There are aspects that don't. So a range of ways of seeing it are needed. Sometimes contradictory, but then, that is the nature of the divine, surely?
It seems to me that some on here are seeing through 20/21st century glasses. PSA fits in that it carries on the day of atonement and makes it permanent. It is not illogical
I don't think there's anything especially modern about the principle that it is unjust to punish the innocent.
Do you not think that the notion that it is just to punish the sons for the sins of the fathers is less convincing than it used to be ?
No the blood washes the people’s sins clean. Jesus being sinless his sacrifice washed us clean.
That's not what is meant by PSA. PSA is specifically the idea that God needs to punish somebody for our sins and we are let off because God punishes Jesus instead of us.
More accurately, that the Father fixed our sins on the Son and then punished Him for those. Both elements seem to me to be contrary to the doctrine of equality within the Trinity. PSA is standard Moore College teaching.
I struggle to see how anyone who is a parent could be other than revolted by the idea.
No the blood washes the people’s sins clean. Jesus being sinless his sacrifice washed us clean.
That's not what is meant by PSA. PSA is specifically the idea that God needs to punish somebody for our sins and we are let off because God punishes Jesus instead of us.
More accurately, that the Father fixed our sins on the Son and then punished Him for those. Both elements seem to me to be contrary to the doctrine of equality within the Trinity. PSA is standard Moore College teaching.
I struggle to see how anyone who is a parent could be other than revolted by the idea.
Why do you need to be a parent? Do people really lack imagination that much?
More generally, IME people parents or whatever makes very little difference to people's ability to believe morally repugnant things. Some people just seem to be able to lay their sense of morality, shock and horror to one side and say things like "If God said to go and kill all the inhabitants of Jericho then that's right and good" and others can't. What has always amazed me is how angry the first group can get that the second group can't do this. Yes, I know, the second group get angry with the first as well but I can understand that. It seems somehow easier to understand being outraged by mass-murder than to understand not being so outraged. Perhaps because I'm firmly in the second group.
No the blood washes the people’s sins clean. Jesus being sinless his sacrifice washed us clean.
That's not what is meant by PSA. PSA is specifically the idea that God needs to punish somebody for our sins and we are let off because God punishes Jesus instead of us.
More accurately, that the Father fixed our sins on the Son and then punished Him for those. Both elements seem to me to be contrary to the doctrine of equality within the Trinity. PSA is standard Moore College teaching.
I struggle to see how anyone who is a parent could be other than revolted by the idea.
Why do you need to be a parent? Do people really lack imagination that much?
Is it not possible to say that the Father sent His son to earth to show us His love for us ?.
That son took flesh and lived amongst us and voluntarily let Himself be put to death for love of us.
People can believe what are seen as morally repugnant. Just think of the story of Abraham who was ready to sacrifice his son, because he believed that God demanded this. God demands our trust and in the end when He sees our trust things will sort themselves out.
(That is the only way I can make sense of the story of Abraham and Isaac)
Is it not possible to say that the Father sent His son to earth to show us His love for us ?.
That son took flesh and lived amongst us and voluntarily let Himself be put to death for love of us.
People can believe what are seen as morally repugnant. Just think of the story of Abraham who was ready to sacrifice his son, because he believed that God demanded this. God demands our trust and in the end when He sees our trust things will sort themselves out.
(That is the only way I can make sense of the story of Abraham and Isaac)
Our Easter Vigil
Creation story (Really?)
Abraham and Isaac (or how God plays nasty tricks on people)
Crossing the Red Sea (the slaughter of the innocent Egyptians)
I'm the organist so I go. But when my fingers aren't actually busy playing they are wedged firmly in my ears!
If there is no meaning in these stories, whether you take them literally or figuratively, why should we believe anything at all about what later children of Israel tell us about a man called Jesus, whose followers have been given the name of Christians ?
If there is no meaning in these stories, whether you take them literally or figuratively, why should we believe anything at all about what later children of Israel tell us about a man called Jesus, whose followers have been given the name of Christians ?
Im not saying there is no meaning, just that the surface narratives are difficult.
Comments
More accurately, that the Father fixed our sins on the Son and then punished Him for those. Both elements seem to me to be contrary to the doctrine of equality within the Trinity. PSA is standard Moore College teaching.
I have a problem when it is presented as the ONLY interpretation. There are aspects that fit and work. There are aspects that don't. So a range of ways of seeing it are needed. Sometimes contradictory, but then, that is the nature of the divine, surely?
I can't imagine how it ever was convincing.
I struggle to see how anyone who is a parent could be other than revolted by the idea.
Why do you need to be a parent? Do people really lack imagination that much?
That is not what I'm saying.
That son took flesh and lived amongst us and voluntarily let Himself be put to death for love of us.
People can believe what are seen as morally repugnant. Just think of the story of Abraham who was ready to sacrifice his son, because he believed that God demanded this. God demands our trust and in the end when He sees our trust things will sort themselves out.
(That is the only way I can make sense of the story of Abraham and Isaac)
Our Easter Vigil
Creation story (Really?)
Abraham and Isaac (or how God plays nasty tricks on people)
Crossing the Red Sea (the slaughter of the innocent Egyptians)
I'm the organist so I go. But when my fingers aren't actually busy playing they are wedged firmly in my ears!
Im not saying there is no meaning, just that the surface narratives are difficult.