I'll get back to you on creedal Orthodox Christology when I have more time, but it's something we share with traditional RCs and Protestants so you may well have some across it already without it being labelled as such.
As far as reincarnation or the transmigration of souls goes, my understanding that some early 'Gnostic' groups held views like that, but by no means all.
From what I can gather Iranaeus of Lyons commented on these views in 'Against Heresies'.
I think it's a stretch to say that those with views considered heretical were 'exterminated', although I'd certainly see later medieval pogroms and 'crusades' against the Cathars and so on as genocidal.
I am seeing PSA implied throughout the thread. The talk about Judas as necessary to the atonement which assumes a theory where Jesus had to die in a particular way. There are the debates of divine foreknowledge, necessity and culpability, The talk about Jesus having to suffer torture and death. Then there are the arguments about whether God required the crucifixion. These are all classic pressure points in PSA debates. I am just naming the elephant in the room.
I am seeing PSA implied throughout the thread. The talk about Judas as necessary to the atonement which assumes a theory where Jesus had to die in a particular way. There are the debates of divine foreknowledge, necessity and culpability, The talk about Jesus having to suffer torture and death. Then there are the arguments about whether God required the crucifixion. These are all classic pressure points in PSA debates. I am just naming the elephant in the room.
There are a variety of atonement theories or models that see the crucifixion as required but that are not PSA. The necessary, defining characteristic of PSA is that God, and God’s wrath and justice, required punishment for sins in order for atonement to be possible. That’s the P (penal) of PSA.
I don’t think anyone here has either stated or implied that the crucifixion was necessary because God’s wrath and need for justice could not be satisfied except through punishment for sin. And without that necessary trait, whatever the elephant you’re seeing in the room might be, it ain’t PSA.
I don’t think anyone here has either stated or implied that the crucifixion was necessary because God’s wrath and need for justice could not be satisfied except through punishment for sin. And without that necessary trait, whatever the elephant you’re seeing in the room might be, it ain’t PSA.
I have pretty much dismissed PSA altogether as a narrative that is not coherent with the characteristics of God that I recognize as "God-like".
I have my own thoughts about "why this way and no other way"? But I feel like I have shared enough for the moment.
I don’t think anyone here has either stated or implied that the crucifixion was necessary because God’s wrath and need for justice could not be satisfied except through punishment for sin. And without that necessary trait, whatever the elephant you’re seeing in the room might be, it ain’t PSA.
I have pretty much dismissed PSA altogether as a narrative that is not coherent with the characteristics of God that I recognize as "God-like".
Yes, same here. And I feel like I’ve gotten to “know” shipmates chiming in here and their perspectives well enough over the years that I’d be surprised if anyone was bringing a PSA perspective to the table.
IMHO the problem comes from thinking of God as being stuck in time, the way we are--so that he foresees (and therefore fore-ordains) Judas' behavior (or anybody's behavior, for that matter!).
But if God is perceiving all of our timestream "at the same moment," so to speak--all in his own single eternal moment--
well, then, he can see and respond to anything without bearing the responsibility for causing that thing to happen. He simply saw it happen, he didn't force it. And then he can respond (in speech, if he chooses) to that action at any point in our timeline. If he chooses a point that comes BEFORE the action from our point of view, well, we're going to call his speech prophecy. But it isn't prophecy to God outside the timeline, who sees it all at once.
Another way of saying this is, for God, causes in our timeline don't always come before effects. Our freely-chosen actions (or Judas') are logically causes; his response to them is logically a consequence, even if he happens to place it upstream in our timeline, what we would call "before."
If Judas had not betrayed his good friend Jesus, then it is likely someone else would have done so. Instead of all these smarmy, after-the-fact comments about his poor character, we would have similar comments about someone else.
If you have never betrayed anyone, not ever in your life, then good for you. If you have done something of the sort, then we can ask: What did you intend? Did matters turn out better or worse than you expected? And there are more such questions.
Did either @ChastMastr or @A Feminine Force mention Penal Substitutional Atonement?
ChastMastr was challenging AFF's views on reincarnation and saying they were incompatible with the Christian view of the atonement and AFF was defending her Christian credentials.
I didn't see either of them refer to PSA specifically or perhaps I've missed something?
I didn’t mention the atonement, penal substitutionary or otherwise. Huh?
Consider that the mechanics of perpetrator and victim are played out even in a single lifetime. The victim becomes the same type of abuser - the bullied becomes the bully, the molsted becomes the molester.
If Judas had not betrayed his good friend Jesus, then it is likely someone else would have done so. Instead of all these smarmy, after-the-fact comments about his poor character, we would have similar comments about someone else.
I think that's a point too. If not Judas, it'd have to have been somebody, who would have basically done the same thing. And we'd have the same mythological role to fill.
And I do think, as a Christian, there's some virtue in reflecting on tragic figures for our own edification. I think a lot of people have - at the very least - negative impulses even if they choose not to act on them. It's worth examining these. And yes, maybe another thread.
Per previous post, I'm also familiar with the old "hurt people hurt people." I think sometimes reflecting on guys like Judas is one way to try to break that pattern. It's one strong argument for forgiveness.
Okay, I will withdraw the PSA comments only because you deny operating it. But quite a few have said they are substitutionary people.
As I understand it. Subsittionary atonement says Christ acts for us as the true human representative. Christ bears the consequences of sin, but not the punishment for sin. Christ heals, restores, reconciles humanity to God. Christ defeats death, evil, and earthly powers by entering into them. And the cross reveals God's self giving love, not Gods wrath. There is no divine punishment or wrath.
I would argue the Theology of the Cross shifts the emphasis from mechanics to revelation, from how the cross works to who God is in the cross. Instead of Jesus standing in for us as a representative act, God chooses human failure, foresakeness and weakness. There is a shift representation to God's self identification with human suffering.
NPSA says Jesus aborbs what sin has done to the world but not God's wrath. In the Theology of the cross Jesus bears the consequences of sin because that is where God chooses to be found. There is a shift from bearing consequences to God revealing God's nature in the place of consequences.
NPSA says the cross hears the rupture between God and humanity. The theology of the cross says God hears by entering the wound. The shift is from healing as a result to healing through God's self-giving..
NPSA says Jesus enters death to destroy it from within. A Christus Victor motif. The Theology of the Cross says the victory is hidden under defeat. Luther's favorite saying was God wins by losing.
NPSA says the cross is the supreme revelation of God's love. The Theology of the Cross says the cross reveals who God is where God appears absent. The shift is from the cross showing God's love to the cross overturning every human idea of God. The true God is found where humans expect God the least.
How does all this relate to the fear of hell? Fear of hell is based on four assumptions. God's love is conditional. God's justice is retributive. God abandons sinners, and God's presence stops at death. The theology of the cross contradicts all four. God meets us in our weakness, not our strength. God is revealed in suffering, not glory. God is present in foresakenness. God's love goes to the bottom, not the top. God's victory is hidden in defeat, not triumph
I’ve said for over 50 years now that the explanation in 2 Corinthians 5 is the most effective explanation of why I am SA. In English translations, it is subheaded the ministry of reconciliation. And for me, being reconciled to God, (not Him to us) is why it is SA not PSA. But here’s the quotation.
14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come:[a] The old has gone, the new is here! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
I’m not proof texting. I think it is a very good explanation.
I’ve said for over 50 years now that the explanation in 2 Corinthians 5 is the most effective explanation of why I am SA. In English translations, it is subheaded the ministry of reconciliation. And for me, being reconciled to God, (not Him to us) is why it is SA not PSA. But here’s the quotation.
I wouldn't describe that as substitutionary, but as participatory. Substitutionary means I think that Jesus and we swap places. Jesus dies instead of us, so that we don't die. That seems to me almost the opposite of the 2 Corinthians passage, where Jesus dies so that we do.
There are multiple overlapping explanations in the Scriptures. It’s not necessary to hold to only a single model, though no doubt people will have their favorites.
Okay, I will withdraw the PSA comments only because you deny operating it. But quite a few have said they are substitutionary people.
“Substitutionary people”?
PSA isn’t the only theory of substitutionary atonement; there are others. But either way, I think you’re the only one who’s raised any form of substitutionary atonement in this thread.
There are multiple overlapping explanations in the Scriptures. It’s not necessary to hold to only a single model, though no doubt people will have their favorites.
This. I’d even say that it’s holding a single theory that leads to problems and lack of balance.
@Nick Tamen You want me to name all the theories of atonement? I can, you know. I addressed the main one that people said they adhered to. If I had gone through all of them, I could have written a book.
I'm sure you could have written a book @Gramps49 but there's really no need and you could have saved yourself a lot of time and effort by trying to establish what other Shipmates on this thread actually believe and not what you assume they believe.
@Lamb Chopped and @Nick Tamen are right that there are overlapping and complementary 'models' in how we understand the atonement and I'm sure we could list all the various models between us.
Heck, I can't see how any of us here are saying anything that contradicts your lengthy post on the subject. I'd suggest that the defence of 'substitutionary' - or 'participatory' as @Dafyd puts it - atonement made by @Barnabas62 doesn't conflict your exposition of the 'theology of the cross' but rather complements it.
I don't think anyone has posted anything about the atonement here that isn't compatible with a Big O Orthodox/small o orthodox understanding of the atonement.
I certainly don't have any issue with what you've posted on the subject other than it sounding like you want to lecture the rest of us about it - which I'm sure isn't your intention but that's how the tone of it feels to me.
Clearly, though, I am going to find myself at variance with @A Feminine Force on the reincarnation issue but hopefully we can explore that respectfully and without rancour at some point.
I may post something on Christology in relation to that later but meanwhile, I think we are getting sidetracked from the theme of the OP into discussions about the atonement when that's something most of us here will be in broad agreement over.
I’ve said for over 50 years now that the explanation in 2 Corinthians 5 is the most effective explanation of why I am SA. In English translations, it is subheaded the ministry of reconciliation. And for me, being reconciled to God, (not Him to us) is why it is SA not PSA. But here’s the quotation.
I wouldn't describe that as substitutionary, but as participatory. Substitutionary means I think that Jesus and we swap places. Jesus dies instead of us, so that we don't die. That seems to me almost the opposite of the 2 Corinthians passage, where Jesus dies so that we do.
Hmm. On the old Ship we had one of the longest threads ever discussing this and I really don’t want to go over that again. I’ve read loads of commentaries (liberal and conservative) looking at this and the key rests in verse 21, which is seen as the summary of the argument Paul was making.
21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
The general view is that sin was imputed to Christ. Not his own sin, since he remained sinless, but everyone else’s. Why isn’t that a substitution? I don’t see anyone else participating in that imputation. I see all of us benefitting from that imputation.
The difficulty, I think.@Barnabas62 comes if we take the view that this implies some kind of legal 'transference' of guilt.
The Orthodox tend to understand this verse more in terms of Christ expressing solidarity with us in our fallen and sinful state rather than becoming 'guilty' himself on our behalf. Some of the Fathers I think emphasised that Christ remained sinless even when bearing our sins.
We don't see it in those 'transactional' terms - Christ bears our guilt and in exchange we bear his righteousness. Rather, it's a more ontological than juridical thing and yes, there is a 'for us' aspect to it of course - Christ voluntarily offered himself as an atoning sacrifice.
So yes, there is a 'substitutionary' element but not in a crudely legal sense in our understanding of it.
Anyway, we are going off into the territory covered by the lengthy thread you alluded to.
Nor mine. I don’t see it as a legal transaction. Traditional (if I may use that term) Protestantism refers to it as the Great Exchange and can get all legal about it. I never do.
And I’ll leave it there. If anyone wants another 90 page thread on the atonement they can set it up!
Sure. I'm pretty much on the same page as you on this one @Barnabas62 and don't see that in any way contradictory to anything @Gramps49 has posted on the subject here.
So no, I'm not about to start another 90 page thread on the atonement!
What I may start a new thread about is the Christological issues alluded to earlier.
I may do that to avoid derailing this one.
@A Feminine Force asked me to provide something on the Orthodox understanding of Christology. My response was that it pretty much accords with what we might call 'small o' orthodox understandings within Western Christianity per se, which largely takes a 'Chalcedonian' line on this alongside the Orthodox and the RCs.
So my guess would be that AFF has come across this in Baptist and other Protestant circles without hearing it 'labelled' as Orthodox / orthodox in any 'technical' sense.
If I may, I'll try to copy AFF's comments onto a new thread so we can unpack and discuss this definition more and what the implications of 'two natures' in one 'Person' might be.
@Nick Tamen You want me to name all the theories of atonement? I can, you know.
No, I don’t want you to do that. To be honest, I’d rather you’d stop treating the rest of us like college students you’re here to teach, especially when those lessons are prompted by assumptions rather than by what people actually wrote.
@A Feminine Force asked me to provide something on the Orthodox understanding of Christology. My response was that it pretty much accords with what we might call 'small o' orthodox understandings within Western Christianity per se, which largely takes a 'Chalcedonian' line on this alongside the Orthodox and the RCs.
So my guess would be that AFF has come across this in Baptist and other Protestant circles without hearing it 'labelled' as Orthodox / orthodox in any 'technical' sense.
If I may, I'll try to copy AFF's comments onto a new thread so we can unpack and discuss this definition more and what the implications of 'two natures' in one 'Person' might be.
Thank you for this.
TBH in all the years I worshipped with my Baptist congregation there was never really a lot of discussion about the Trinity or about the nature of Jesus that pertained to atonement. It was left very much up to the individual members to make what sense they could of the "fully human/fully divine" doctrine.
Baptists like to do that - in the name of soul competency they can skirt many uncomfortable cognitive dissonances.
Ours was a non-creedal congregation. Some of us got really prickly when it was suggested we might recite the Nicene creed every once in a while.
You can maybe see why I might have hung out with them until my life circumstances took me elsewhere.
@A Feminine Force- sure and I was a member of a Baptist church for 6 years, from 2000 to 2006.
I'd also attended a Baptist church in South Wales during university holidays between 1981 and 1983. I regularly visited other Baptist churches both Baptist Union ones and sometimes a Reformed Baptist church where I had friends.
You can maybe see why I might have hung out with them until my life circumstances took me elsewhere.
From what you describe—why so?
So much was left to the individual. It was a place that engaged with unorthodox ideas, we had Jewish and Buddhist members, and we engaged modern critical Biblical scholarship and analysis. Even so, my ideas were still on the "out there" edge.
Okay this thread is quite far from the possibility of Hell and coping with it. Lots of material for other threads here. Feel free to start those if you guys are still interested them.
Comments
As far as reincarnation or the transmigration of souls goes, my understanding that some early 'Gnostic' groups held views like that, but by no means all.
From what I can gather Iranaeus of Lyons commented on these views in 'Against Heresies'.
I think it's a stretch to say that those with views considered heretical were 'exterminated', although I'd certainly see later medieval pogroms and 'crusades' against the Cathars and so on as genocidal.
More later.
I don’t think anyone here has either stated or implied that the crucifixion was necessary because God’s wrath and need for justice could not be satisfied except through punishment for sin. And without that necessary trait, whatever the elephant you’re seeing in the room might be, it ain’t PSA.
I have pretty much dismissed PSA altogether as a narrative that is not coherent with the characteristics of God that I recognize as "God-like".
I have my own thoughts about "why this way and no other way"? But I feel like I have shared enough for the moment.
AFF
And I appreciate all that you have shared.
The view of Judas as some kind of a puppet bothers me. He made choices which he later regretted. That’s what I see.
Both/and
But no, Judas wasn't a puppet. It doesn't work like that.
But if God is perceiving all of our timestream "at the same moment," so to speak--all in his own single eternal moment--
well, then, he can see and respond to anything without bearing the responsibility for causing that thing to happen. He simply saw it happen, he didn't force it. And then he can respond (in speech, if he chooses) to that action at any point in our timeline. If he chooses a point that comes BEFORE the action from our point of view, well, we're going to call his speech prophecy. But it isn't prophecy to God outside the timeline, who sees it all at once.
Another way of saying this is, for God, causes in our timeline don't always come before effects. Our freely-chosen actions (or Judas') are logically causes; his response to them is logically a consequence, even if he happens to place it upstream in our timeline, what we would call "before."
If you have never betrayed anyone, not ever in your life, then good for you. If you have done something of the sort, then we can ask: What did you intend? Did matters turn out better or worse than you expected? And there are more such questions.
Maybe this should be a separate thread.
I didn’t mention the atonement, penal substitutionary or otherwise. Huh?
Sometimes, but absolutely not always. Yikes.
I think that's a point too. If not Judas, it'd have to have been somebody, who would have basically done the same thing. And we'd have the same mythological role to fill.
And I do think, as a Christian, there's some virtue in reflecting on tragic figures for our own edification. I think a lot of people have - at the very least - negative impulses even if they choose not to act on them. It's worth examining these. And yes, maybe another thread.
Per previous post, I'm also familiar with the old "hurt people hurt people." I think sometimes reflecting on guys like Judas is one way to try to break that pattern. It's one strong argument for forgiveness.
As I understand it. Subsittionary atonement says Christ acts for us as the true human representative. Christ bears the consequences of sin, but not the punishment for sin. Christ heals, restores, reconciles humanity to God. Christ defeats death, evil, and earthly powers by entering into them. And the cross reveals God's self giving love, not Gods wrath. There is no divine punishment or wrath.
I would argue the Theology of the Cross shifts the emphasis from mechanics to revelation, from how the cross works to who God is in the cross. Instead of Jesus standing in for us as a representative act, God chooses human failure, foresakeness and weakness. There is a shift representation to God's self identification with human suffering.
NPSA says Jesus aborbs what sin has done to the world but not God's wrath. In the Theology of the cross Jesus bears the consequences of sin because that is where God chooses to be found. There is a shift from bearing consequences to God revealing God's nature in the place of consequences.
NPSA says the cross hears the rupture between God and humanity. The theology of the cross says God hears by entering the wound. The shift is from healing as a result to healing through God's self-giving..
NPSA says Jesus enters death to destroy it from within. A Christus Victor motif. The Theology of the Cross says the victory is hidden under defeat. Luther's favorite saying was God wins by losing.
NPSA says the cross is the supreme revelation of God's love. The Theology of the Cross says the cross reveals who God is where God appears absent. The shift is from the cross showing God's love to the cross overturning every human idea of God. The true God is found where humans expect God the least.
How does all this relate to the fear of hell? Fear of hell is based on four assumptions. God's love is conditional. God's justice is retributive. God abandons sinners, and God's presence stops at death. The theology of the cross contradicts all four. God meets us in our weakness, not our strength. God is revealed in suffering, not glory. God is present in foresakenness. God's love goes to the bottom, not the top. God's victory is hidden in defeat, not triumph
Simply put: hell is not the final word.
Five sources
Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, particularly Theses 19-25
The Apology of the Augsbug Confession . Article IV and Article XIII
David Lump Theology of the Cross
Mark Mattes. "Theology of the Cross Today.' There are two related podcasts here.
I’m not proof texting. I think it is a very good explanation.
PSA isn’t the only theory of substitutionary atonement; there are others. But either way, I think you’re the only one who’s raised any form of substitutionary atonement in this thread.
This. I’d even say that it’s holding a single theory that leads to problems and lack of balance.
@Nick Tamen You want me to name all the theories of atonement? I can, you know. I addressed the main one that people said they adhered to. If I had gone through all of them, I could have written a book.
@Lamb Chopped and @Nick Tamen are right that there are overlapping and complementary 'models' in how we understand the atonement and I'm sure we could list all the various models between us.
Heck, I can't see how any of us here are saying anything that contradicts your lengthy post on the subject. I'd suggest that the defence of 'substitutionary' - or 'participatory' as @Dafyd puts it - atonement made by @Barnabas62 doesn't conflict your exposition of the 'theology of the cross' but rather complements it.
I don't think anyone has posted anything about the atonement here that isn't compatible with a Big O Orthodox/small o orthodox understanding of the atonement.
I certainly don't have any issue with what you've posted on the subject other than it sounding like you want to lecture the rest of us about it - which I'm sure isn't your intention but that's how the tone of it feels to me.
Clearly, though, I am going to find myself at variance with @A Feminine Force on the reincarnation issue but hopefully we can explore that respectfully and without rancour at some point.
I may post something on Christology in relation to that later but meanwhile, I think we are getting sidetracked from the theme of the OP into discussions about the atonement when that's something most of us here will be in broad agreement over.
Hmm. On the old Ship we had one of the longest threads ever discussing this and I really don’t want to go over that again. I’ve read loads of commentaries (liberal and conservative) looking at this and the key rests in verse 21, which is seen as the summary of the argument Paul was making.
The general view is that sin was imputed to Christ. Not his own sin, since he remained sinless, but everyone else’s. Why isn’t that a substitution? I don’t see anyone else participating in that imputation. I see all of us benefitting from that imputation.
YMMV. That’s where I’m coming from, anyway.
The Orthodox tend to understand this verse more in terms of Christ expressing solidarity with us in our fallen and sinful state rather than becoming 'guilty' himself on our behalf. Some of the Fathers I think emphasised that Christ remained sinless even when bearing our sins.
We don't see it in those 'transactional' terms - Christ bears our guilt and in exchange we bear his righteousness. Rather, it's a more ontological than juridical thing and yes, there is a 'for us' aspect to it of course - Christ voluntarily offered himself as an atoning sacrifice.
So yes, there is a 'substitutionary' element but not in a crudely legal sense in our understanding of it.
Anyway, we are going off into the territory covered by the lengthy thread you alluded to.
And I’ll leave it there. If anyone wants another 90 page thread on the atonement they can set it up!
So no, I'm not about to start another 90 page thread on the atonement!
What I may start a new thread about is the Christological issues alluded to earlier.
I may do that to avoid derailing this one.
@A Feminine Force asked me to provide something on the Orthodox understanding of Christology. My response was that it pretty much accords with what we might call 'small o' orthodox understandings within Western Christianity per se, which largely takes a 'Chalcedonian' line on this alongside the Orthodox and the RCs.
So my guess would be that AFF has come across this in Baptist and other Protestant circles without hearing it 'labelled' as Orthodox / orthodox in any 'technical' sense.
As a short summary, usual caveats apply, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedonian_Definition
If I may, I'll try to copy AFF's comments onto a new thread so we can unpack and discuss this definition more and what the implications of 'two natures' in one 'Person' might be.
Thank you for this.
TBH in all the years I worshipped with my Baptist congregation there was never really a lot of discussion about the Trinity or about the nature of Jesus that pertained to atonement. It was left very much up to the individual members to make what sense they could of the "fully human/fully divine" doctrine.
Baptists like to do that - in the name of soul competency they can skirt many uncomfortable cognitive dissonances.
Ours was a non-creedal congregation. Some of us got really prickly when it was suggested we might recite the Nicene creed every once in a while.
You can maybe see why I might have hung out with them until my life circumstances took me elsewhere.
AFF
From what you describe—why so?
I'd also attended a Baptist church in South Wales during university holidays between 1981 and 1983. I regularly visited other Baptist churches both Baptist Union ones and sometimes a Reformed Baptist church where I had friends.
So I'm familiar with the territory.
So much was left to the individual. It was a place that engaged with unorthodox ideas, we had Jewish and Buddhist members, and we engaged modern critical Biblical scholarship and analysis. Even so, my ideas were still on the "out there" edge.
It was a good place for the time I needed it.
AFF
Gwai,
Epiphanies Host