More On Evangelicalism
Seeker
Evangelicalism is. Apparently, this has been going on for the last
year or so (article published in "Christianity Today" in June 1999,
book recently released June 2000).
They've drafted a document called "The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An
Evangelical Celebration" known more commonly as "the Gospel
Statement." Includes things like scriptural infallibility from my
skimming of it.
http://www.christianityonline.com/ct/9t7/9t7049.html
Blessings,
--
Pam
Give a hungry person a free meal when you visit
http://www.thehungersite.com
Edward Green
news:8n3tcq$h6g$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> American Evangelicals are banding together to try to define what
> Evangelicalism is. Apparently, this has been going on for the last
> year or so (article published in "Christianity Today" in June 1999,
> book recently released June 2000).
Christianity Today claims to represent Evangelicalism, but in fact refuses
to even review a lot of books published by Evangelicals
> They've drafted a document called "The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An
> Evangelical Celebration" known more commonly as "the Gospel
> Statement." Includes things like scriptural infallibility from my
> skimming of it.
I will read it - thanks Pam.
--
--
Edward Green
www.khite.co.uk
--
Flying Dot Designs - www.dotdesigns.homestead.com
--
Rhiannon Macfie
huddled around the fire, Seeker told them this story:
> They've drafted a document called "The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An
> Evangelical Celebration" known more commonly as "the Gospel
> Statement." Includes things like scriptural infallibility from my
> skimming of it.
From an equally cursory read, it looks to me as if, in the
introduction, they equate evangelicalism with protestantism.
I can agree with much of the actual document (with a caveat
as to the definition of "savingly related to Jesus Christ")
until we get to this bit:
The Father sent the Son to free us from the dominion
of sin and Satan, and to make us God's children and
friends. Jesus paid our penalty in our place on his
cross, satisfying the retributive demands of divine
justice by shedding his blood in sacrifice and so
making possible justification for all who trust in
him (Rom. 3:25-26). The Bible describes this
mighty substitutionary transaction as the achieving
of ransom, reconciliation, redemption, propitiation,
and conquest of evil powers (Matt. 20:28; 2 Cor.
5:18-21; Rom. 3:23-25; John 12:31; Col. 2:15).
Now this seems to me to imply that the other ways of looking
at the atonement are subsidiary to the substitutionary one,
and are only ways of describing it. I don`t like this,
because I don`t like to limit God by saying "This is how God
works".
Then we get this:
This Gospel further proclaims the bodily resurrection,
ascension, and enthronement of Jesus as evidence of
the efficacy of his once-for-all sacrifice for us,
of the reality of his present personal ministry to
us, and of the certainty of his future return to
glorify us (1 Cor. 15; Heb. 1:1-4, 2:1-18,
4:14-16, 7:1-10:25).
I think the resurrection is much more important than mere
evidence. I think the incarnation, passion, and
resurrection all come together to create God`s work of
salvation. (While I`m thinking about it, there`s not much
there about the incarnation either: Christ`s life wasn`t
merely in order to enable his death!)
Then we get:
We learn from the Gospel that, as all have sinned,
so all who do not receive Christ will be judged
according to their just deserts as measured by
God's holy law, and face eternal retributive
punishment.
We can have a good debate about that one, I reckon. I
suspect that "receive Christ" here means "praying the
prayer" and "becoming a Christian", whereas I think there
will be quite a few people who receive Christ without
knowing it.
There`s a long section of affirmations and denials, which
are quite interesting. What I find most interesting,
though, is the fact that they say, just before these, "an
attempt has been made to state what is primary and essential
in the Gospel as evangelicals understand it". Yet in their
definition, they spend a lot of time trying to define
exactly what goes on. Surely the only thing that is
"primary and essential" in the *Gospel* (as opposed to, say,
the Christian belief) is "Although we are separated from
God, he loves us and sent his Son, Jesus Christ, so that the
relationship between us and God can be restored, if we
want". Questions about *how* it happens can come later.
Rhiannon
--
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~rhi/
While his neighbour grew ever more famous, Alligator Aberdeen remained obscure.
Kevin Donnelly
<r...@electric.custard.org> writes
Kingdom of God?
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly
Seeker
news:8nb83d$nud$1...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk...
> Now this seems to me to imply that the other ways of looking
> at the atonement are subsidiary to the substitutionary one,
> and are only ways of describing it. I don`t like this,
> because I don`t like to limit God by saying "This is how God
> works".
Rhiannon:
I understand that requiring belief in substitutionary atonement is
becoming a very big thing amongst American evangelicals, so you were
right to pick up on that.
I think you'll find that the UK-based Evangelical Alliance also
specifies substitutionary atonement in its statement of faith. It
seems to be becoming an evangelical touch-stone as far as I can see.
And it's probably THE biggest reason I'm dubious about wanting to call
myself an evangelical.
Gerald Yuen
<seek...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Rhiannon Macfie" <r...@electric.custard.org> wrote in message
>news:8nb83d$nud$1...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk...
>> Now this seems to me to imply that the other ways of looking
>> at the atonement are subsidiary to the substitutionary one,
>> and are only ways of describing it. I don`t like this,
>> because I don`t like to limit God by saying "This is how God
>> works".
Well, I'm not sure it is limiting God, merely trying to understand how God
chooses to work.
>Rhiannon:
>I understand that requiring belief in substitutionary atonement is
>becoming a very big thing amongst American evangelicals, so you were
>right to pick up on that.
>I think you'll find that the UK-based Evangelical Alliance also
>specifies substitutionary atonement in its statement of faith. It
>seems to be becoming an evangelical touch-stone as far as I can see.
>And it's probably THE biggest reason I'm dubious about wanting to call
>myself an evangelical.
I don't get it - why would you want to call yourself an evangelical if you do
not agree with its statements of faith?
You don't need to be an evangelical to be a Christian. (The evangelical
statement of salvation by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, rather clearly
states this).
The rest of the statements of faith, merely express how evangelicals
understand certain aspects of God's dealings with us.
Gerald.
--
Gerald Yuen. e-mail: gc....@ukonline.co.uk PGP key on web site.
"The first to present his case seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him." Proverbs 18:17.
Richard Dudley
> I think you'll find that the UK-based Evangelical Alliance also
> specifies substitutionary atonement in its statement of faith. It
> seems to be becoming an evangelical touch-stone as far as I can see.
> And it's probably THE biggest reason I'm dubious about wanting to call
> myself an evangelical.
I agree with you Pam ! The word would appear to have been hijacked.
Those of us who believe Jesus' message really is *good news* for all
( as opposed to very bad news for the majority, which most
fundamentalists / inerrantists seem to want to maintain ) cannot
appropriate for ourselves the term 'evangelical' without collecting
all of their baggage too.
So can we come up with another word ? Or are we better off
without having a label at all ?
Richard
Seeker
news:1707.262T1821T...@ukonline.co.uk...
> >> Now this seems to me to imply that the other ways of looking
> >> at the atonement are subsidiary to the substitutionary one,
> >> and are only ways of describing it. I don`t like this,
> >> because I don`t like to limit God by saying "This is how God
> >> works".
>
> Well, I'm not sure it is limiting God, merely trying to understand
how God
> chooses to work.
>
> >Rhiannon:
>
> >I understand that requiring belief in substitutionary atonement is
> >becoming a very big thing amongst American evangelicals, so you
were
> >right to pick up on that.
>
> >I think you'll find that the UK-based Evangelical Alliance also
> >specifies substitutionary atonement in its statement of faith. It
> >seems to be becoming an evangelical touch-stone as far as I can
see.
> >And it's probably THE biggest reason I'm dubious about wanting to
call
> >myself an evangelical.
Gerald:
> I don't get it - why would you want to call yourself an evangelical
if you do
> not agree with its statements of faith?
Well, like I said, I don't know that I *want* to call myself an
evangelical at all. I happen to come from that tradition, so a lot of
people quite naturally seem to see a lot of it in me. The best reason
that I can think of to be called an evangelical is the feeling that
one wants to share the gospel with others -- which is what the *word*
means. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of other "de facto
required belief/behaviour" that comes with the moniker that I can't
accept.
> You don't need to be an evangelical to be a Christian. (The
evangelical
> statement of salvation by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ,
rather clearly
> states this).
There are ordained clergy in "evangelical" denominations in the States
that are very worried about being defrocked because some denominations
are starting to stipulate belief in substitutionary atonement as a
requirement for being a "real Christian". I agree with you. But the
tendency to demand lots of doctrine peripheral to the gospel happens
quite a lot throughout history. I'm worried that this movement
sponsored by Christianity Today is a move in that direction.
> The rest of the statements of faith, merely express how evangelicals
> understand certain aspects of God's dealings with us.
See above.
Pete
<seek...@btinternet.com> writes
>There are ordained clergy in "evangelical" denominations in the States
>that are very worried about being defrocked because some denominations
>are starting to stipulate belief in substitutionary atonement as a
>requirement for being a "real Christian". I agree with you. But the
>tendency to demand lots of doctrine peripheral to the gospel happens
>quite a lot throughout history. I'm worried that this movement
>sponsored by Christianity Today is a move in that direction.
conducts itself, I think it would be historically accurate to suggest
that the doctrine of substitutionary atonement has always been at the
heart of evangelical Christianity. Stott argues this in The Cross of
Christ, and the plain meaning of Article 2 in the 39 Articles seems to
me to be inescapably substitutionary. [Note that I am not saying that
other "theories of the atonement" are not also to be deduced from
scripture and the teaching of the Church; merely that substitution is
very clearly a part of the reformed catholic faith].
--
Pete Broadbent
Archdeacon of Northolt
Seeker
Pete <Pe...@arch-northolt.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Without wishing to endorse the way in which evangelicalism in the USA
> conducts itself, I think it would be historically accurate to suggest
> that the doctrine of substitutionary atonement has always been at the
> heart of evangelical Christianity. Stott argues this in The Cross of
> Christ, and the plain meaning of Article 2 in the 39 Articles seems to
> me to be inescapably substitutionary. [Note that I am not saying that
> other "theories of the atonement" are not also to be deduced from
> scripture and the teaching of the Church; merely that substitution is
> very clearly a part of the reformed catholic faith].
Pete:
I'm not arguing the substitutionary atonement is not part of
the "reformed catholic faith" nor am I arguing that it ought not to
be. In fact, it would be utterly ludicrous for me to argue that
because my whole point here is "let's embrace the different
understandings that the catholic church has held down through history
and accept that prayerful, faithful Christians might accept some and
not others." In fact, I'd go further and say we can learn something
from ideas that we can't swallow whole and we are wise to try to do so
(and that includes /me/ trying to understand what I can learn from
substitutionary atonement, for instance!).
I suppose it depends on how one feels about the concept of the
existence of denominations. The pragmatic (and often painful) solution
in the US has been to start another offshoot deonomination when people
get excommunicated or defrocked for not being able to agree with their
brothers and sisters on some detailed point of doctrine. I think it's
sad. Some people seem to think that this is perfectly fine.
--
Pam
"Fides quaerens intellectum"
--Anselm of Canterbury
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pete
writes
>I'm not arguing the substitutionary atonement is not part of
>the "reformed catholic faith" nor am I arguing that it ought not to
>be. In fact, it would be utterly ludicrous for me to argue that
>because my whole point here is "let's embrace the different
>understandings that the catholic church has held down through history
>and accept that prayerful, faithful Christians might accept some and
>not others." In fact, I'd go further and say we can learn something
>from ideas that we can't swallow whole and we are wise to try to do so
>(and that includes /me/ trying to understand what I can learn from
>substitutionary atonement, for instance!).
>
>I suppose it depends on how one feels about the concept of the
>existence of denominations. The pragmatic (and often painful) solution
>in the US has been to start another offshoot deonomination when people
>get excommunicated or defrocked for not being able to agree with their
>brothers and sisters on some detailed point of doctrine. I think it's
>sad. Some people seem to think that this is perfectly fine.
Evangelicalism is unfortunately by its very nature fissiparous. Because
of the premium it places on truth, it becomes impossible to hold
together with others if they do not also hold to the same truth in the
same way as you define it.
That's actually why I believe that "evangelical" should normally be used
as an adjective, not a noun, whereas the Evangelical Alliance approach
is to use it as a noun. I prefer to call myself an evangelical Anglican
(or perhaps a reformed catholic Anglican), simply because the genius of
Anglicanism is its ability to hold together disparate forms of Christian
spirituality and belief within a framework of defined orthodoxy. [The
faith "uniquely revealed in the holy scriptures and set forth in the
catholic creeds", to which the historic formularies of the Church of
England bear witness, but which is also a faith which the church is
"called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation"] (Declaration of
Assent).
I think therefore that I agree with you about denominationalism as the
US Church expresses it. I am more content with an inclusive Anglicanism
which allows catholics, evangelicals and liberals to live together and
to embrace their distinctive approaches to the enrichment of the whole.
Seeker
> Pete Broadbent
> Archdeacon of Northolt
Pete:
I don't know which bits to snip because I totally agree with everything
you say. About "evangelical" as an adjective. About including both the
words "reform" and "catholic" in my understanding of what I believe.
And about unity being a strength of the intent of the C of E (I use
that convoluted sentence structure because I'm not certain that there
is *actual* unity, I'm afraid.)
For my own part, I would very much like to reclaim "evangelical" as an
adjective. Sadly, I think that's a bit unrealistic -- even in the C of
E today. And what happens in the States now may well happen here with
a bit of a time lag.
Rhiannon Macfie
>>"Rhiannon Macfie" <r...@electric.custard.org> wrote in message
>>news:8nb83d$nud$1...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk...
>>> Now this seems to me to imply that the other ways of looking
>>> at the atonement are subsidiary to the substitutionary one,
>>> and are only ways of describing it. I don`t like this,
>>> because I don`t like to limit God by saying "This is how God
>>> works".
> Well, I'm not sure it is limiting God, merely trying to understand how God
> chooses to work.
I don`t mind them trying to understand how God chooses to
work. I do mind them saying "This is absolutely the way
that God works" as if you can comprehend God! And I
definitely mind them saying, as they do, that a particular,
rather complex theological argument is "primary and
essential" in the Gospel. In my original post, I put
forward what I thought was primary and essential. It was a
lot shorter than that document.
Rhiannon Macfie
> Thanks for this overview. Anything in the document about usury? Or the
> Kingdom of God?
Nothing whatsoever.
Seeker
"Richard Dudley" <dig...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I agree with you Pam ! The word would appear to have been hijacked.
> Those of us who believe Jesus' message really is *good news* for all
> ( as opposed to very bad news for the majority, which most
> fundamentalists / inerrantists seem to want to maintain ) cannot
> appropriate for ourselves the term 'evangelical' without collecting
> all of their baggage too.
> So can we come up with another word ? Or are we better off
> without having a label at all ?
Richard:
I guess the term that has been tried is "Post Evangelical".
I have to laugh at "very bad news".
Richard Dudley
Seeker <seek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I guess the term that has been tried is "Post Evangelical".
I'm grateful to Mr Thomlinson for his eponymous book - that kind of got
me started down the road I'm more than happy to be travelling down now.
However the term does leave me somewhat wanting a more positive
description. With 'post' meaning 'after' perhaps we can gain
inspiration from 1 Kings 19:12 'And after the evangelicals, a still
small voice.....'
> I have to laugh at "very bad news".
Can't claim any originality with that. I borrowed the words from John
Chapman, an evangelical from whom I learned much in former years ! I
can still hear him say it in his characteristic Australian accent :-)
Richard
--
Sign the petition at :
http://www.thehungersite.com/rbt/THSPetition/h061423
Gareth McCaughan
> I understand that requiring belief in substitutionary atonement is
> becoming a very big thing amongst American evangelicals, so you were
> right to pick up on that.
Always has been, I thought. English ones too.
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construction
Ian Collier
>There are ordained clergy in "evangelical" denominations in the States
>that are very worried about being defrocked because some denominations
>are starting to stipulate belief in substitutionary atonement as a
>requirement for being a "real Christian".
If you will forgive me I think I need educating as I've been under
the impression that that was one of the defining characteristics of
Christianity.
So, if this isn't a silly question, what other kinds of atonement are
there and why is Jesus's death and resurrection necessary for those?
--
---- Ian Collier : i...@comlab.ox.ac.uk : WWW page below
------ http://users.comlab.ox.ac.uk/ian.collier/imc.shtml
Keith Mason
>Seeker entertained uk.religion.christian with the following story:
>>There are ordained clergy in "evangelical" denominations in the States
>>that are very worried about being defrocked because some denominations
>>are starting to stipulate belief in substitutionary atonement as a
>>requirement for being a "real Christian".
>
>If you will forgive me I think I need educating as I've been under
>the impression that that was one of the defining characteristics of
>Christianity.
It was and most commonly is. There are however people like myself who
say that it is a load of codswallop but I still consider myself to be
a "Christian". I think that Pam also denies belief in the
substitutionary atonement, but she would have to speak for herself.
It is therefore the laying down of the rule that one *must* believe in
substitutionary atonement as a requirement for being a "real
Christian".
>So, if this isn't a silly question, what other kinds of atonement are
>there and why is Jesus's death and resurrection necessary for those?
No, it isn't a silly question. There are those like myself who
believe that the teaching that God required sin to be paid for is way
out of line. To suggest that God required or demanded a death or the
shedding of blood, be it animal or human to pay for sin is wrong.
I agree that man believed that God required appeasing, placating or
satisifying, and that sacrifice seemed like a good way to go about it,
but the question is - did God ever require it and was He ever
appeased, placated or satisified by it?
I for one, say - No. He never was appeased, placated or satisified by
it, because He did not need to be appeased, placated or satisified in
the first place.
The sacrifice of Jesus was provided to appease, placate and satisify
man's belief that a sacrifice was required.
Man feared God and believed that a sacrifice was necessary, so God
provided it, thus opening the way for man to believe that God had been
placated and thus could be reconciled to God and the reason for fear
be removed.
The idea that the gods/God required a sacrifice in order to be
appeased goes a long way back. Just about every civilisation has
ascribed to it, sacrificing both animals and humans for the purpose of
appeasing God.
As far as the Bible is concerned Cane and Abel believed it. Noah
believed it, Abraham believed it. It became the structured belief of
the Jewish religion. Chrisitanity adopted it, and so on, but the
question still remains - did God ever require it and was He ever
appeased, placated or satisified by it?
Keith Mason
Patrick Herring
>
> On 22 Aug 2000 00:44:35 GMT, i...@comlab.ox.ac.uk (Ian Collier) wrote:
>
> >Seeker entertained uk.religion.christian with the following story:
> >>There are ordained clergy in "evangelical" denominations in the States
> >>that are very worried about being defrocked because some denominations
> >>are starting to stipulate belief in substitutionary atonement as a
> >>requirement for being a "real Christian".
> >
> >If you will forgive me I think I need educating as I've been under
> >the impression that that was one of the defining characteristics of
> >Christianity.
>
> It was and most commonly is. There are however people like myself who
> say that it is a load of codswallop but I still consider myself to be
> a "Christian".
Me2.
...
> The sacrifice of Jesus was provided to appease, placate and satisify
> man's belief that a sacrifice was required.
Me2. This particular theory was used to connect with the Jewish
understanding, but it creates a nonsense since sacrifice only works for
you if you sacrifice something of your own.
Someone should rehearse the various Theories of the Atonement at this
point.
--
Patrick Herring
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/cgi-bin/makeperson?P.Herring
Stephen Kingston
wrote:
>It is therefore the laying down of the rule that one *must* believe in
>substitutionary atonement as a requirement for being a "real
>Christian".
This is, of course, rubbish.
Belief in a substitionary atonement is a requirement of being a "real
evangelical". That is altogether a different matter.
For instance, I understand that C S Lewis did not hold to this view,
and he was certainly not an evangelical, but you will be hard pressed
to find any Christian (evangelical or otherwise) who would argue that
C S Lewis was not a real Christian.
Regards,
Stephen
Ian Collier
it was manually moderated then I guess the moderator may still have a
copy]
Keith Mason entertained uk.religion.christian with the following story:
>Man feared God and believed that a sacrifice was necessary, so God
>provided it, thus opening the way for man to believe that God had been
>placated and thus could be reconciled to God and the reason for fear
>be removed.
That's an interesting view - thanks for your answer.
>The idea that the gods/God required a sacrifice in order to be
>appeased goes a long way back. Just about every civilisation has
>ascribed to it, sacrificing both animals and humans for the purpose of
>appeasing God.
>As far as the Bible is concerned Cane and Abel believed it. Noah
>believed it, Abraham believed it. It became the structured belief of
>the Jewish religion. Chrisitanity adopted it, and so on, but the
>question still remains - did God ever require it and was He ever
>appeased, placated or satisified by it?
If that wasn't God's way then it would seem odd that throughout the
Old and New Testaments no one ever seemed to question it. Did Jesus
have to die or couldn't he just have preached forgiveness and told
everyone how wrong they were to insist on sacrifices all the time?
(My mind's just gone off on a tangent... if it wasn't the blood on the
doorposts which saved the Isrealites from the tenth plague of Egypt then
what might it have been?)
Mind you, I do know a person of Jewish belief whose opinion is that
Abraham actually failed God's test because he ought to have known that
human sacrifice was beyond the pale.
Nick Milton
<p.he...@dcs.shef.ac.uk> enhanced the collective wisdom with:
>Keith Mason wrote:
>>
>> On 22 Aug 2000 00:44:35 GMT, i...@comlab.ox.ac.uk (Ian Collier) wrote:
>>
>> >Seeker entertained uk.religion.christian with the following story:
>> >>There are ordained clergy in "evangelical" denominations in the States
>> >>that are very worried about being defrocked because some denominations
>> >>are starting to stipulate belief in substitutionary atonement as a
>> >>requirement for being a "real Christian".
>> >
>> >If you will forgive me I think I need educating as I've been under
>> >the impression that that was one of the defining characteristics of
>> >Christianity.
>>
>> It was and most commonly is. There are however people like myself who
>> say that it is a load of codswallop but I still consider myself to be
>> a "Christian".
>
>Me2.
>
>...
>> The sacrifice of Jesus was provided to appease, placate and satisify
>> man's belief that a sacrifice was required.
>
>Me2. This particular theory was used to connect with the Jewish
>understanding, but it creates a nonsense since sacrifice only works for
>you if you sacrifice something of your own.
>
>Someone should rehearse the various Theories of the Atonement at this
>point.
Cut and paste from valuable summary some time in the past, posted at
the time by Tony, but I think he was quoting Gareth
<cut>
"From Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology I find:
1. Ransom to Satan Theory - the single idea that the death of Christ
constituted a ransom paid to Satan.
2. The Recapitulation Theory - Christ recapitulates in Himself all the
stages of human life, including those belonging to our state as
sinners.
3. The Satisfaction Theory (Commercial Theory/Anselmic view) - Like
the penal substitution view, but Anselm held that the satisfaction
required was God's honour.
4. The Moral Influence Theory (Abelardian view) - Christ's death
exercises a moral influence (by the greatness of what he has done)
upon
us so that we can be reconciled with him.
5. The Example Theory - That there is nothing preventing God from just
pardoning sin, but Christ offers an example of true obedience
6. The Governmental Theory - Christ's death was not necessary, because
God could simply remit our sins, but through his death he reveals the
inviolable nature of the law, and God's holy displeasure of sin.
7. The Mystical Theory - Like the moral influence theory, but sees the
change in man at a subconscious level
8. Vicarious Repentance - Presuming that perfect repentance would be a
sufficient atonement for sin, Christ presents a perfect repentance in
our place
(and there is, of course, the Penal substitution view as well).
**************
per Gareth McCaughan
1. "Substitution": sin demands punishment, and Jesus was punished on
our behalf. Therefore, we no longer have to be punished for our sins.
(Feelings run high about this one. To a lot of people, this is simply
*the* explanation of how Jesus saves us, and any other alleged
explanation is a mistake. To a lot of other people, it's obviously
useless for all sorts of reasons.)
2. "Ransom": the devil claimed the right to dispose of our souls as
he pleased, but God gave him Jesus instead. (This may be a garbled
version of the idea. It goes back a very long way, and probably seemed
more plausible then than it does now. Or, as I say, I may be
misrepresenting it.)
3. "Outwitting the devil": the whole thing was an enormous and very
clever trick. The devil thought he was doing tremendously well, doing
away with Jesus, but either (3a) it turned out that by letting Jesus
into hell he was also giving him an opportunity to smash the place up,
or (3b) he realised too late that he'd overstepped what he was allowed
to do and thereby forfeited his rights over us. (I think (3a) went
along with (2) when that theory was in vogue. (3b), or something like
it, is the preferred explanation of one once-regular contributor to
uk.r.c.)
4. "Demonstration": in allowing himself to die for us, Jesus shows
us the extent of God's love for us. In responding to that love, we
become open to God's grace.(This theory was advanced by Peter Abelard.
It's not very satisfactory on its own, since it seems to make the role
of what Jesus did very small and our role rather too large. But it's
clearly part of the picture.)
5. "Participation": Jesus shared every part of our human experience.
He didn't actually commit any sins, but on the cross he experienced
the separation from God that results from sin. Possibly some other
aspects of human sin, too -- the sense of guilt, for instance.) By
some sort of mystical identification of Jesus with us, made possible
by the fact that he shared our life and our death, we can share his
life.
6. "Reconciliation": the reason why sin requires punishment is because
punishment is a way to make the sinner realise the gravity of their
sin, and (if accepted properly) for them to express decisively their
opposition to what they did wrong. Jesus's death gives us a way to do
that without undergoing the punishment ourselves: we (a) look at what
Jesus went through and see in it the seriousness of our sins, and (b)
identify ourselves with him in his suffering and thus accept that our
sin was wrong and turn from it. Further, in identifying ourselves with
Jesus we identify
also with the perfect life he lead, and are able to offer *that*
to God instead of the miserably imperfect lives we actually lead.
(Something like this was probably Thomas Aquinas's view.)
<paste>
HTH
Nick
Tony Gillam
news:39a1f31...@news.freeserve.net...
>
> The sacrifice of Jesus was provided to appease, placate and satisify
> man's belief that a sacrifice was required.
>
perhaps you could explain to the rest of us what Christ's death on the
cross was all about then.
--
Tony
tony....@lineone.net
http://website.lineone.net/~tony.gillam - Home of TUCOWSAT
http://www.christians-r-us.org.uk - A Site for sore eyes
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours tagline
Mark Goodge
typed:
>
>Cut and paste from valuable summary some time in the past, posted at
>the time by Tony, but I think he was quoting Gareth
Some comments, from an evangelical point of view....
><cut>
>"From Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology I find:
>
>1. Ransom to Satan Theory - the single idea that the death of Christ
>constituted a ransom paid to Satan.
This is certainly used in the Bible, but I think should be seen as a
metaphor rather than reality. If satan really was able to hold God to
ransom then what we have is dualism, which doesn't fit with
traditional Christian belief.
>2. The Recapitulation Theory - Christ recapitulates in Himself all the
>stages of human life, including those belonging to our state as
>sinners.
I don't think this is explicitly stated anywhere in the Bible, but it
makes a lot of sense as another metaphor. However, the simple fact of
it not being expounded in the Bible rules it out for the evangelical
as the underlying reality.
>3. The Satisfaction Theory (Commercial Theory/Anselmic view) - Like
>the penal substitution view, but Anselm held that the satisfaction
>required was God's honour.
I think this is so close to standard Penal Substitution as to not
really warant a separate category - it's a difference of detail,
rather than material facts.
>4. The Moral Influence Theory (Abelardian view) - Christ's death
>exercises a moral influence (by the greatness of what he has done)
>upon
>us so that we can be reconciled with him.
I would say that this is definitely a part of the reality. However, I
don't think it can be seen in isolation - it doesn't answer the
question to why Jesus *needed* to die for example (as opposed to
simply deciding to do so).
>5. The Example Theory - That there is nothing preventing God from just
>pardoning sin, but Christ offers an example of true obedience
This has some backing from the Bible, but again I find it incomplete.
Couldn't Jesus have shown perfect obedience by living a full life of
dedication to the father?
>6. The Governmental Theory - Christ's death was not necessary, because
>God could simply remit our sins, but through his death he reveals the
>inviolable nature of the law, and God's holy displeasure of sin.
This one helps answer the question of why Jesus had to die, but it's a
bit legalistic. In any case, it relies on the same underlying concept
of sin needing remission which is key to penal substitition.
>7. The Mystical Theory - Like the moral influence theory, but sees the
>change in man at a subconscious level
I find this the least convincing. I can't see any backing for it in
the Bible, and it doesn't seem to make much sense from observation
either.
>8. Vicarious Repentance - Presuming that perfect repentance would be a
>sufficient atonement for sin, Christ presents a perfect repentance in
>our place
This is another that doesn't have any explicit Biblical backing, but
works well as a metaphor.
>(and there is, of course, the Penal substitution view as well).
Which is the "traditional" evangelical interpretation. I don't think
it answers all of the questions on its own, but I do think it's still
*a* key (rather than *the* key). A lot of the other theories hang off
this one - the Governmental and Vicarious Repentance theories both
require the same concept of original sin in order to "work", and the
Satisfaction theory is really just a reworking of Penal Substitution.
So, to sum up, I would say that the underlying reality is a
combination of the Penal Substitution, Governmental, Moral Influence
and Example theories, with Penal Substitution being the central, and
the others primarily as metaphors.
Mark
--
More pretentious waffle now at http://www.mark.x.tc
Annabel Smyth
>Seeker entertained uk.religion.christian with the following story:
>>There are ordained clergy in "evangelical" denominations in the States
>>that are very worried about being defrocked because some denominations
>>are starting to stipulate belief in substitutionary atonement as a
>>requirement for being a "real Christian".
>
>If you will forgive me I think I need educating as I've been under
>the impression that that was one of the defining characteristics of
>Christianity.
>
No, a relationship with Jesus is *the* defining characteristic of
Christianity!
However, I would say that most Christians believe in the Atonement.
However the substitutionary theory is only one possibly explanation
of "how it works" (someone has posted a list, which saves me
looking it up!). None of the various explanations is complete in itself,
and even taken together they are probably only part of it, since the
Atonement is a mystery. If it weren't, it wouldn't be of God. St Paul
says that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, but he
doesn't say how......
--
Annabel Smyth mailto:Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 6 August 2000
Gerald Yuen
<r...@electric.custard.org> wrote:
>It was a dark and stormy night, and as the people of uk.religion.christian
>>>"Rhiannon Macfie" <r...@electric.custard.org> wrote in message
>>>news:8nb83d$nud$1...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk...
>>>> Now this seems to me to imply that the other ways of looking
>>>> at the atonement are subsidiary to the substitutionary one,
>>>> and are only ways of describing it. I don`t like this,
>>>> because I don`t like to limit God by saying "This is how God
>>>> works".
>> Well, I'm not sure it is limiting God, merely trying to understand how God
>> chooses to work.
>I don`t mind them trying to understand how God chooses to
>work. I do mind them saying "This is absolutely the way
>that God works" as if you can comprehend God! And I
>definitely mind them saying, as they do, that a particular,
>rather complex theological argument is "primary and
>essential" in the Gospel. In my original post, I put
>forward what I thought was primary and essential. It was a
>lot shorter than that document.
I dunno. It would seem quite feasible to say that certain things are essential
to the Gospel, not in its understanding, but in its execution.
i.e.. A person may trust Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, without
having to understand the complex theology behind the substitutionary
atonement. Regardless of understanding, the substitutionary atonement, is part
of how that Gospel works.
They are not saying they can completely comphrehend God, as there are an
unnumberable number of things they could say if they did, yet they do not.
It is possible to comprehend part of God's plan.
Gerald.
--
Gerald Yuen. e-mail: gc....@ukonline.co.uk PGP key on web site.
Credo in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem
David Ould
news:22489-ca...@comlab.ox.ac.uk...
oh Ian, shame on you for pointing out how substitutionary atonement courses
right through scripture. Whatever you do, don't mention how Abraham points
clearly to it on Moriah (Golgotha) by stating "the Lord will provide". That
wouldn't do.
> Mind you, I do know a person of Jewish belief whose opinion is that
> Abraham actually failed God's test because he ought to have known that
> human sacrifice was beyond the pale.
but surely there's no suggestion, is there, that Isaac's death was to be
atoning? As it is, Hebrews tells us clearly that Abraham trusted the Lord to
raise Isaac.
> --
> ---- Ian Collier
David
Keith Mason
>[Patrick: the referenced post had an incomplete References line - if
>it was manually moderated then I guess the moderator may still have a
>copy]
>
>Keith Mason entertained uk.religion.christian with the following story:
>>Man feared God and believed that a sacrifice was necessary, so God
>>provided it, thus opening the way for man to believe that God had been
>>placated and thus could be reconciled to God and the reason for fear
>>be removed.
>
>That's an interesting view - thanks for your answer.
>
>>The idea that the gods/God required a sacrifice in order to be
>>appeased goes a long way back. Just about every civilisation has
>>ascribed to it, sacrificing both animals and humans for the purpose of
>>appeasing God.
>
>>As far as the Bible is concerned Cane and Abel believed it. Noah
>>believed it, Abraham believed it. It became the structured belief of
>>the Jewish religion. Chrisitanity adopted it, and so on, but the
>>question still remains - did God ever require it and was He ever
>>appeased, placated or satisified by it?
>
>If that wasn't God's way then it would seem odd that throughout the
>Old and New Testaments no one ever seemed to question it.
I think that they did. How much they were taken heed of is another
matter. One such instance -
ISA 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?
saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat
of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of
lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath
required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
>Did Jesus have to die
To fulfil the belief within man that a sacrifice was necesary I would
say that unfortuantely He did.
>or couldn't he just have preached forgiveness and told
>everyone how wrong they were to insist on sacrifices all the time?
Well, I suppose that He could have done. Do you think that they would
have listened?
We now live two thousand years on and from my experience the people
who would agree with me that a sacrifice was not necessary to pay for
our sins because they did not require paying for are certainly in the
minority.
I notice that Patrick has said "Me2.", and I am sure that a few others
might concur, but there again, perhaps not. I think it reasonably
safe to say that probably ninety per cent of Christians would not
agree with me and give me numerous reasons why.
>(My mind's just gone off on a tangent... if it wasn't the blood on the
>doorposts which saved the Isrealites from the tenth plague of Egypt then
>what might it have been?)
I do not believe that it was the blood on the doorposts which saved
them any more than it was their eating bitter herbs. I am afraid that
I doubt the story altogether.
As I see it, if the story is correct it would be impossible to have
Pharoah dying before his eldest son, if his first born was wiped out
by the angel of death. But I think I am correct in saying that I
recently saw an archealogical commentary where the eldest son of
Paroah's tomb was positively dated after the death of his father. Now
that doesn't add up.
>Mind you, I do know a person of Jewish belief whose opinion is that
>Abraham actually failed God's test because he ought to have known that
>human sacrifice was beyond the pale.
An interesting thought.
Keith Mason
Keith Mason
<tony....@lineone.net> wrote:
>Keith Mason <ke...@gospel.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:39a1f31...@news.freeserve.net...
>>
>> The sacrifice of Jesus was provided to appease, placate and satisify
>> man's belief that a sacrifice was required.
>>
>Since the mainstream of the Church has got it all wrong for 2K years,
>perhaps you could explain to the rest of us what Christ's death on the
>cross was all about then.
I thought that I had, Tony.
The sacrifice of Jesus was provided to appease, placate and satisify
man's belief that a sacrifice was required.
Man feared God and believed that a sacrifice was necessary, so God
provided it, thus opening the way for man to believe that God had been
placated and thus could be reconciled to God and the reason for fear
be removed.
Keith Mason
Keith Mason
<ma...@davidould.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"Ian Collier" <i...@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:22489-ca...@comlab.ox.ac.uk...
>> [Patrick: the referenced post had an incomplete References line - if
>> it was manually moderated then I guess the moderator may still have a
>> copy]
>>
>> Keith Mason entertained uk.religion.christian with the following story:
>> >Man feared God and believed that a sacrifice was necessary, so God
>> >provided it, thus opening the way for man to believe that God had been
>> >placated and thus could be reconciled to God and the reason for fear
>> >be removed.
>>
>> That's an interesting view - thanks for your answer.
>>
>> >The idea that the gods/God required a sacrifice in order to be
>> >appeased goes a long way back. Just about every civilisation has
>> >ascribed to it, sacrificing both animals and humans for the purpose of
>> >appeasing God.
>>
>> >As far as the Bible is concerned Cane and Abel believed it. Noah
>> >believed it, Abraham believed it. It became the structured belief of
>> >the Jewish religion. Chrisitanity adopted it, and so on, but the
>> >question still remains - did God ever require it and was He ever
>> >appeased, placated or satisified by it?
>>
>> If that wasn't God's way then it would seem odd that throughout the
>> Old and New Testaments no one ever seemed to question it. Did Jesus
>> have to die or couldn't he just have preached forgiveness and told
>> everyone how wrong they were to insist on sacrifices all the time?
>>
>> (My mind's just gone off on a tangent... if it wasn't the blood on the
>> doorposts which saved the Isrealites from the tenth plague of Egypt then
>> what might it have been?)
>>
>
>oh Ian, shame on you for pointing out how substitutionary atonement courses
>right through scripture. Whatever you do, don't mention how Abraham points
>clearly to it on Moriah (Golgotha) by stating "the Lord will provide". That
>wouldn't do.
But God did provide, David. He provided the very thing that man
needed. He provided the sacrifice that man believed was necessary. He
provided the means of escape for those who were burdened by the law to
be relieved of their burden. He provided the means of rescue and ease
for those whose consciences were heavy laden. He provided Jesus, made
under the law to buy back those who were under the law.
"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son,
made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under
the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." GAL 4:4-5
Keith Mason
Mark Goodge
typed:
>
>Man feared God and believed that a sacrifice was necessary, so God
>provided it, thus opening the way for man to believe that God had been
>placated and thus could be reconciled to God and the reason for fear
>be removed.
Why didn't God simply tell us we were wrong?
It's not much of a god who has to do what people expect him to just
because they have some odd idea about him.
Ian Collier
>Pharoah dying before his eldest son, if his first born was wiped out
>by the angel of death. But I think I am correct in saying that I
>recently saw an archealogical commentary where the eldest son of
>Paroah's tomb was positively dated after the death of his father. Now
>that doesn't add up.
Well, we don't even know which Pharaoh ruled at the time of the
plagues so this seems doubtful. (I think tradition has it that it was
Rameses II on account of the fact that we know he built lots of things,
and the fact that the Bible gives the name Rameses to an area in which
the Israelites stayed. There isn't a great lot of evidence either way,
however. Some archaeologists have other theories.)
Tony Gillam
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:44:48 +0100, "Tony Gillam"
> <tony....@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> >Since the mainstream of the Church has got it all wrong for 2K
years,
> >perhaps you could explain to the rest of us what Christ's death on
the
> >cross was all about then.
>
> I thought that I had, Tony.
>
> The sacrifice of Jesus was provided to appease, placate and satisify
> man's belief that a sacrifice was required.
>
> provided it, thus opening the way for man to believe that God had
been
> placated and thus could be reconciled to God and the reason for fear
> be removed.
>
I get the impression that you are in the mould of Joseph Smith who
proceeded to explain away the concept of Hell and punishment.
David Ould
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:23:20 +0100, "David Ould"
> <ma...@davidould.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Ian Collier" <i...@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:22489-ca...@comlab.ox.ac.uk...
> >> [Patrick: the referenced post had an incomplete References line - if
> >> it was manually moderated then I guess the moderator may still have a
> >> copy]
> >>
> >> >provided it, thus opening the way for man to believe that God had been
> >> >placated and thus could be reconciled to God and the reason for fear
> >> >be removed.
> >>
yupper.
He provided the "Lamb of God". Now why was he the "Lamb"?.....
>
> "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son,
> made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under
> the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." GAL 4:4-5
>
but to redeem means to buy at a price....
how was that price paid....?
see. keeps coming back to the same thing
> Keith Mason
David
Martin Biddiscombe
Keith Mason wrote:
>The sacrifice of Jesus was provided to appease, placate and satisify
>man's belief that a sacrifice was required.
>
>provided it, thus opening the way for man to believe that God had been
>placated and thus could be reconciled to God and the reason for fear
>be removed.
Not good enough. Why did it have to be Jesus? What was wrong with
animal sacrifice?
God said "animal sacrifice isn't good enough" - why would he say
that if the **only** reason for sacrifice was to placate **our**
consciences? If God didn't want or need ANYTHING at all in
relation to our salvation, and the only problem was our guilty
feelings, then surely God could have chosen something far less
painful to himself than sending his only beloved Son to die...
Along a similar vein, why was Abel accepted but Cain rejected?
<M>
--
Websites:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~priatel/
http://www.oakwood-chapel.org.uk/
Today's photo:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~priatel/martin/alzbeta1.html
Turn off your radio mike before you blow your nose.
-----------------------------------------------
Global WebMail -
Delivered by the best value ISP on the planet
-----------------------------------------------
Keith Mason
wrote:
>On 23 Aug 2000 09:20:08 +0100, Keith Mason put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>
>>Man feared God and believed that a sacrifice was necessary, so God
>>provided it, thus opening the way for man to believe that God had been
>>placated and thus could be reconciled to God and the reason for fear
>>be removed.
>
>Why didn't God simply tell us we were wrong?
>It's not much of a god who has to do what people expect him to just
>because they have some odd idea about him.
I don't know. It obviously wasn't His way of doing things.
I remember many years ago considering the implications of why God led
the children of Israel into Egypt and its ensuing slavery and bondage
to suffer for hundreds of years in the first place. The only answer
that I could come up with was that He led them in so that He could
lead them out again, and hopefully they would learn something from
their experience.
Maybe the same applies to many of men's concepts and ideas. In my own
personal experience God has never seemed to shift Himself very fast to
eradicate erronious thought. Its always been a sort of - here a
little there a little, line upon line, here a litttle there a little.
Keith Mason
Keith Mason
<tony....@lineone.net> wrote:
>Keith Mason <ke...@gospel.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:39a3886a...@news.freeserve.net...
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:44:48 +0100, "Tony Gillam"
>> <tony....@lineone.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Since the mainstream of the Church has got it all wrong for 2K
>years,
>> >perhaps you could explain to the rest of us what Christ's death on
>the
>> >cross was all about then.
>>
>> I thought that I had, Tony.
>>
>> The sacrifice of Jesus was provided to appease, placate and satisify
>> man's belief that a sacrifice was required.
>>
>> Man feared God and believed that a sacrifice was necessary, so God
>> provided it, thus opening the way for man to believe that God had
>been
>> placated and thus could be reconciled to God and the reason for fear
>> be removed.
>>
>Interesting viewpoint. Can't say I buy that and based on your website,
>I get the impression that you are in the mould of Joseph Smith who
>proceeded to explain away the concept of Hell and punishment.
The name rings bells. I have heard of him, though I can't say that I
have read anything by him.
But if he proceeded to explain away the concept of Hell and punishment
as most Chrisitans today seem to believe in and teach, then he must
have something going for him.
Keith Mason
Keith Mason
<ma...@davidould.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> >oh Ian, shame on you for pointing out how substitutionary atonement
>courses
>> >right through scripture. Whatever you do, don't mention how Abraham
>points
>> >clearly to it on Moriah (Golgotha) by stating "the Lord will provide".
>That
>> >wouldn't do.
>>
>> But God did provide, David. He provided the very thing that man
>> needed. He provided the sacrifice that man believed was necessary. He
>> provided the means of escape for those who were burdened by the law to
>> be relieved of their burden. He provided the means of rescue and ease
>> for those whose consciences were heavy laden. He provided Jesus, made
>> under the law to buy back those who were under the law.
>
>yupper.
>He provided the "Lamb of God". Now why was he the "Lamb"?.....
Because He was sacrificed, I imagine. He was the sacrifice that God
provided. But the question still remains - was that sacrifice
necessary to appease or satisfy God, or to appease man's belief that a
sacrifice was necessary?
>>
>> "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son,
>> made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under
>> the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." GAL 4:4-5
>>
>but to redeem means to buy at a price....
That's right
>how was that price paid....?
By his dying of course.
>see. keeps coming back to the same thing
No it doesn't. Because the question still remains - was that
redemption actually necesary as far as God was concerned or because
man believed it was necessary?
Keith Mason
Keith Mason
>Keith Mason entertained uk.religion.christian with the following story:
>>As I see it, if the story is correct it would be impossible to have
>>Pharoah dying before his eldest son, if his first born was wiped out
>>by the angel of death. But I think I am correct in saying that I
>>recently saw an archealogical commentary where the eldest son of
>>Paroah's tomb was positively dated after the death of his father. Now
>>that doesn't add up.
>
>Well, we don't even know which Pharaoh ruled at the time of the
>plagues so this seems doubtful. (I think tradition has it that it was
>Rameses II on account of the fact that we know he built lots of things,
>and the fact that the Bible gives the name Rameses to an area in which
>the Israelites stayed. There isn't a great lot of evidence either way,
>however. Some archaeologists have other theories.)
Fair comment, and I am always ready to listen to different
archaeologists theories.
Keith Mason
Tony Gillam
> The name rings bells. I have heard of him, though I can't say that
I
> have read anything by him.
>
> But if he proceeded to explain away the concept of Hell and
punishment
> as most Chrisitans today seem to believe in and teach, then he must
> have something going for him.
>
Keith Mason
<tony....@lineone.net> wrote:
>Keith Mason <ke...@gospel.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:39a699b4...@news.freeserve.net...
>> The name rings bells. I have heard of him, though I can't say that
>I
>> have read anything by him.
>>
>> But if he proceeded to explain away the concept of Hell and
>punishment
>> as most Chrisitans today seem to believe in and teach, then he must
>> have something going for him.
>>
>Founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Make of that what you will.
I don't make anything of it, Tony. Why, do you?
Keith Mason
Tony Gillam
away with Hell and punishments' than a reasoned understanding of
scripture. However, much heat on this ng is generated in yes it is, no
it isn't exchanges and I've no wish to get into anything
counter-productive with you. I shall stick with my 'orthodox'
viewpoint - ftb at least
Annabel Smyth
>Keith Mason <ke...@gospel.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:39a699b4...@news.freeserve.net...
>> The name rings bells. I have heard of him, though I can't say that
>I
>> have read anything by him.
>>
>> But if he proceeded to explain away the concept of Hell and
>punishment
>> as most Chrisitans today seem to believe in and teach, then he must
>> have something going for him.
>>
>Founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Make of that what you will.
Joseph Smith? I thought he founded the Mormons, not the JWs.
Tony Gillam
news:famGA6Bq...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk...
> In a message on Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Tony Gillam wrote:
>
> >Founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Make of that what you will.
>
> Joseph Smith? I thought he founded the Mormons, not the JWs.
>
confusion.
Pete
<tony....@lineone.net> writes
>Keith Mason <ke...@gospel.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:39a699b4...@news.freeserve.net...
>> The name rings bells. I have heard of him, though I can't say that
>I
>> have read anything by him.
>>
>> But if he proceeded to explain away the concept of Hell and
>punishment
>> as most Chrisitans today seem to believe in and teach, then he must
>> have something going for him.
>>
Saints.
--
Pete Broadbent
Archdeacon of Northolt
Tony Gillam
news:xYfyhNAP...@arch-northolt.demon.co.uk...
I wrote
> >Founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Make of that what you will.
> You mean the Mormons - a/k/a the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day
> Saints.
>
type Chas Rusell. Annabel has already claimed her jelly baby.
Seeker
Richard Dudley <dig...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I have to laugh at "very bad news".
>
> Can't claim any originality with that. I borrowed the words from John
> Chapman, an evangelical from whom I learned much in former years ! I
> can still hear him say it in his characteristic Australian accent :-)
Richard:
I've actually been thinking a lot about "very bad news" while I've been
on holiday and I'm not laughing any more. I'm taking this idea very
seriously. It really struck a chord with me. Because this is, in
fact, what I grew up with. I guess most people normally think of it as
legalism or "fire and brimstone" but the fact is that preaching "very
bad news" rather than the "good news" could be construed as being
profoundly unChristian.
--
Pam
"Fides quaerens intellectum"
--Anselm of Canterbury
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Seeker
i...@comlab.ox.ac.uk (Ian Collier) wrote:
> Seeker entertained uk.religion.christian with the following story:
> >There are ordained clergy in "evangelical" denominations in the
States
> >that are very worried about being defrocked because some
denominations
> >are starting to stipulate belief in substitutionary atonement as a
> >requirement for being a "real Christian".
>
> If you will forgive me I think I need educating as I've been under
> the impression that that was one of the defining characteristics of
> Christianity.
>
> there and why is Jesus's death and resurrection necessary for those?
Ian:
Um, there are quite a few other theories of salvation and to go into
them all and the meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection in each would
be a bit long (and you *don't* want to see *me* writing a longer-than-
usual post!) Alister McGrath tries to tie the different theories into
four broad main ideas:
1) The Cross as Sacrifice;
2) The Cross as Victory (Martin Luther's favourite);
3) The Cross as Enabling Forgiveness (I think substitutionary atonement
comes in here);
4) The Cross as Moral Example.
Each of these "main ideas" has a lot of subsidiary theories of
salvation. There are quite a few other theories of atonement other
than substitutionary. For example, one theory of atonement is that
Jesus paid the price to Satan, not to God, because Satan became the
ruler of creation when the first sin was committed. (Not a theory I
believe but one I recently came across someone believing.)
I don't believe that Jesus *had* to die. I believe that Jesus died
because he came to proclaim the truth that God forgives all who turn to
God for salvation rather than relying on their own deeds. I believe
that Jesus probably knew his words and deeds and Being were going to
get him in big trouble and that he would probably die. For me, the
fact that he was willing to die to do that is extremely significant and
proof of God's love. But I don't believe that God demanded Jesus'
death in payment for the sins of humanity. I explain what I personally
believe about salvation in more detail on:
http://www.geocities.com/seeker963/new_page_7.htm
Richard Dudley
Seeker <seek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've actually been thinking a lot about "very bad news" while I've
been
> on holiday and I'm not laughing any more.
Welcome back Pam ! But I hope all that hard thinking didn't spoil your
break ?
> I'm taking this idea very
> seriously. It really struck a chord with me. Because this is, in
> fact, what I grew up with. I guess most people normally think of it
as
> legalism or "fire and brimstone" but the fact is that preaching "very
> bad news" rather than the "good news" could be construed as being
> profoundly unChristian.
I agree. I wonder if this is what Paul was referring to in Galatians
1:6,7 ? He didn't seem to have much time for the legalists in that
letter !
As it seems to me, there's a lot of 'bad news' being spouted in the
traditional 'gospel' presentations. As I see it they go something like
this :
a) God has laws and we've all broken them
b) Therefore God is angry and desires punishment
c) Jesus took the punishment which was rightly ours
d) Therefore ask Jesus into your life to ensure the punishment doesn't
catch up with you later.
Of course, this 'asking Jesus into your life' has to be demonstrated in
reality by conformity in behaviour to whatever social norms were
adopted by your particular church.....
Is this the kind of thing you had in your youth ?
Its all apparently based on fear, isn't it ? And it works too, for a
while.
Richard
--
Sign the petition at :
http://www.thehungersite.com/rbt/THSPetition/h061423
Seeker
news:8ogaol$21s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Hi Richard:
To be fair to evangelicals, I'd better change the name of this thread
now.
[Pam thinking about "very bad news" whilst on hols]
> Welcome back Pam ! But I hope all that hard thinking didn't spoil
your
> break ?
<g> Nah, Richard. I tend to think about this stuff spontaneously,
actually. (I know, I know. I should "get a life".)
[Pam's proposition that "very bad news" is profoundly unChristian]
> I agree. I wonder if this is what Paul was referring to in Galatians
> 1:6,7 ? He didn't seem to have much time for the legalists in that
> letter !
Interesting! I never actually applied "very bad news" to those
verses. However, I think it's quite clear that Paul is talking
against legalism in 1 Timothy 1: 3 - 8ff. Let's be fair though. It's
easy enough to make Paul sound like the arch-legalist if one wants to.
<Pam trots off to look at Peak's commentary...comes back 10 minutes
later>
Hmm. Re Galatians 1: 6, 7 and Galatians in general, not too much
enlightenment here. Just the obvious comment that Paul's opponents
were trying to persuade the followers of The Way to be circumcised.
I'm personally uncomfortable with automatically characterising
everything that is Judaising as being "legalistic".
> As it seems to me, there's a lot of 'bad news' being spouted in the
> traditional 'gospel' presentations. As I see it they go something
like
> this :
>
> a) God has laws and we've all broken them
> b) Therefore God is angry and desires punishment
> c) Jesus took the punishment which was rightly ours
> d) Therefore ask Jesus into your life to ensure the punishment
doesn't
> catch up with you later.
Yep. That's pretty much what I grew up with. You forgot e) though:
e) And if you don't ask Jesus into your life, we win and you lose.
> Of course, this 'asking Jesus into your life' has to be demonstrated
in
> reality by conformity in behaviour to whatever social norms were
> adopted by your particular church.....
> Is this the kind of thing you had in your youth ?
The church of my youth didn't actually apply a lot of "social norms"
like not drinking, not smoking or not dancing. The social norm was
basically that it was best to associate only with other members of the
denomination if at all possible (they still practice closed communion,
for example). It was expected that one would attend (our particular
"breed" of) Lutheran elementary school, High School and college, for
example.
It was more the theological and emotional norms that I now find really
disturbing, because I view them as having kept me from God. These
norms went basically like this:
a) The bible is the literal, dictated Word of God and is inerrant in
matters theological, scientific, historical, geographical and secular
therefore;
b) God has spoken to us through the bible and only through the bible
therefore;
c) Religion is mainly about correct doctrine. Belief and faith is
irrelevant and possibly even dangerous therefore;
d) Trying to have a living relationship with God will only lead one
into Satan's clutches.
We were instructed, for example, that meditative prayer was dangerous
(because Satan would answer us rather than God) and that we should
simply pray by asking our petitions to God and not spend a lot of time
"praying in vain like the heathen". "Don't nag God" is my favourite.
This bit was significant to me, because I've always liked "listening
prayer" and it was this form of prayer that eventually brought me back
to God.
Essentially, I was told that all my natural responses to God (to love
God and want to be with God) were "wrong". I was taught that God was
to be feared and obeyed, not loved with affection. I was taught that
God does not want a one-to-one relationship with us, but that God
wants to be respected and have "his" power acknowledged just as a King
does. In fact, I'd say firm-but-not-very-fair-or-caring-King was how
I feel God was characterised. (I should point out that the pastor of
our church eventually got excommunicated from this
already-very-conservative denomination for being too conservative! So
my experience is a bit exaggerated too.)
> Its all apparently based on fear, isn't it ? And it works too, for a
> while.
It *was* all based on fear. Did it work? Not for me growing up as a
child in such a religion. Imagine sitting in church as a 5-year-old
(Americans didn't tend to bundle their kids out of the service in
those days) and listening to a fire-and-brimstone sermon based on
sexual lust and adultery. You sit there thinking "What does this have
to do with me? Why does God hate me so much?"
Last comment. When fear is present, anger is usually not far behind.
I know a lot of very angry and extremely dysfunctional people.
Blessings,
--
Pam
Give a hungry person a free meal when you visit
http://www.thehungersite.com
Tony Gillam
news:8ogntv$26n$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snip Pam's graphic description of childhood "evangelicalism">
> Last comment. When fear is present, anger is usually not far
behind.
> I know a lot of very angry and extremely dysfunctional people.
>
evangelicalism, I, as an evangelical am not surprised. You do seem to
have experienced the worst caricature of what evangelicals really are.
You'd be surprised. Some of us are quite normal(perhaps not me though-
I'm in a class of my own {;-) )
Seeker
news:8ogtv2$c63$1...@supernews.com...
> <snip Pam's graphic description of childhood "evangelicalism">
> > Last comment. When fear is present, anger is usually not far
> behind.
> > I know a lot of very angry and extremely dysfunctional people.
> >
> If that is the experience of those on this ng thta have 'renounced'
> evangelicalism, I, as an evangelical am not surprised. You do seem
to
> have experienced the worst caricature of what evangelicals really
are.
> You'd be surprised. Some of us are quite normal(perhaps not me
though-
> I'm in a class of my own {;-) )
> --
> Tony
Tony:
I deliberately changed the name of the thread because I certainly
would not put "all" (or possibly even /many/) evangelicals in this
category. The evangelical church which I just left, for instance, was
much more a "church of love" than a "church of law".
I don't think one can put a label such as "evangelical" or even
"fundamentalist" on this. But the experience has convinced me that we
all interpret not only the bible, but God, religion and faith too,
with the mind-set with which we come to them. If we see the world as
threatening, frightening and about to go to hell in a hand-basket, the
"risk" of believing in a loving God rather than a God of law, order
and control is too great. If we are raised in a religion that teaches
us this, well: chickens and eggs. However, I'd say that if one wants
to raise up generations of angry dysfunctional perfectionists (a good
foundation for substance abuse BTW), teaching one's kids that God
essentially hates them is a good way to begin.
Richard Dudley
"Seeker" <seek...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <g> Nah, Richard. I tend to think about this stuff spontaneously,
> actually. (I know, I know. I should "get a life".)
If you're thinking spontaneously about stuff, sounds as if you already
have a life :) I was only hoping it hadn't made you unhappy by dwelling
on it !
> Interesting! I never actually applied "very bad news" to those
> verses. However, I think it's quite clear that Paul is talking
> against legalism in 1 Timothy 1: 3 - 8ff.
Pam, and you, an out-and-out liberal attributing 1Tim to Paul ! Shame
on you <g>
> Let's be fair though. It's
> easy enough to make Paul sound like the arch-legalist if one wants to.
I don't much care for all the negative press the guy gets. I'll defend
his corner when I can. One reason he gets slated is those letters that
he didn't write being attributed to him.
> <Pam trots off to look at Peak's commentary...comes back 10 minutes
> later>
> Hmm. Re Galatians 1: 6, 7 and Galatians in general, not too much
> enlightenment here. Just the obvious comment that Paul's opponents
> were trying to persuade the followers of The Way to be circumcised.
> I'm personally uncomfortable with automatically characterising
> everything that is Judaising as being "legalistic".
Legalism is something of a harsh term isn't it ? Yet I see people who
insist on 'obedience' to Christ ( or for that matter to the bible ) as
being legalistic to some degree. ( I'll probably get flames for that
statement now ). 'Obedience' is such an unhelpful word in describing a
life lived spiritually. It implies spirituality can only come about
from doing what you don't really want to do, but feel you have to. Yet
Jesus maintained it wasn't *what* you did, but the attitudes and
motivation while you do it, which are important. So prayer itself could
be quite useless if done for effect. ISTM the sermon on the mount ( esp
chapter 6 ) is concerned with this inner inclination.
> Yep. That's pretty much what I grew up with. You forgot e) though:
>
> e) And if you don't ask Jesus into your life, we win and you lose.
Its all about taking sides - are you on God's 'side' or are you
on 'man's' side isn't it ? So we're stated as being in opposition to
God. That's what makes me think this 'gospel' has been conceived by a
man !
< snippage of fascinating stuff ! >
> We were instructed, for example, that meditative prayer was dangerous
> (because Satan would answer us rather than God) and that we should
> simply pray by asking our petitions to God and not spend a lot of time
> "praying in vain like the heathen". "Don't nag God" is my favourite.
> This bit was significant to me, because I've always liked "listening
> prayer" and it was this form of prayer that eventually brought me back
> to God.
Yes I recall being told that meditation ( leaving your mind open ) was
a very bad thing, because that opened the door to the devil. I even
think one of Jesus' parables was cited in support of that view ( about
sweeping the house clean, and then seven demons arriving ). So any
meditation had to be on words in the bible.
One of the things that brought me back to God was actually not even
attempting to pray at all for about eighteen months. I just gave up,
knowing deep down that I was doing it all wrong. That deep down feeling
proved to be quite accurate !
> Essentially, I was told that all my natural responses to God (to love
> God and want to be with God) were "wrong". I was taught that God was
> to be feared and obeyed, not loved with affection. I was taught that
> God does not want a one-to-one relationship with us, but that God
> wants to be respected and have "his" power acknowledged just as a King
> does.
Gosh. This went a lot further than the teaching I received. Sounds as
though there was a huge degree of ego projection on to your church's
idea of God. Was your pastor a particularly vociferous egotist ?
> It *was* all based on fear. Did it work? Not for me growing up as a
> child in such a religion. Imagine sitting in church as a 5-year-old
> (Americans didn't tend to bundle their kids out of the service in
> those days) and listening to a fire-and-brimstone sermon based on
> sexual lust and adultery. You sit there thinking "What does this have
> to do with me? Why does God hate me so much?"
Sounds gruesome Pam. I empathise with you.
> Last comment. When fear is present, anger is usually not far behind.
> I know a lot of very angry and extremely dysfunctional people.
Are those people from your church ? I know a few resentful people in
churches at present who hide their resentment on the surface but it
bubbles out in places. They feel that they 'have' to
demonstrate 'commitment' to the church, or they will be seen to be
lacking in love for God. So they forgo their true selves in exchange
for continued acceptance by the church institution. Which is a picture
of conditional love isn't it, quite unlike God's love for all of us ?
Well, I'm off on my vacation now for three weeks ! I may get a chance
to post from a cybercafe somewhere in Thailand, but I'm also going to
Cambodia, and there's hardly any internet there.
So I'll 'see you' in a while :-)
Tony Gillam
> I deliberately changed the name of the thread because I certainly
> would not put "all" (or possibly even /many/) evangelicals in this
> category. The evangelical church which I just left, for instance,
was
> much more a "church of love" than a "church of law".
>
> I don't think one can put a label such as "evangelical" or even
> "fundamentalist" on this. But the experience has convinced me that
we
> all interpret not only the bible, but God, religion and faith too,
> with the mind-set with which we come to them. If we see the world
as
> threatening, frightening and about to go to hell in a hand-basket,
the
> "risk" of believing in a loving God rather than a God of law, order
> and control is too great. If we are raised in a religion that
teaches
> us this, well: chickens and eggs. However, I'd say that if one
wants
> to raise up generations of angry dysfunctional perfectionists (a
good
> foundation for substance abuse BTW), teaching one's kids that God
> essentially hates them is a good way to begin.
>
woodshed until they repent' school still remains though.
Seeker
> > However, I'd say that if one
> wants
> > to raise up generations of angry dysfunctional perfectionists (a
> good
> > foundation for substance abuse BTW), teaching one's kids that God
> > essentially hates them is a good way to begin.
> >
> One wonders how much of the 'leather strap and lock 'em in the
> woodshed until they repent' school still remains though.
Tony:
Um, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
From my own experience, the sufficient conditions were:
a) Teaching that humankind is sinful and that God hates sinners;
b) Hammering home a) at every single opportunity;
c) Talking about God's love once every two months in passing;
d) Commanding the congregation not to have any significant form of
prayer life lest they encounter God's love on their own (which of
course, would simply be Satan trying to deceive them).
Locking people in woodsheds and beating them with straps is
unnecessary and amateurish in that context. I suspect that you might
scoff at the concept of psychological abuse. I think the above
atmosphere breeds self-loathing and I think self-loathing breeds
psychological abuse in families. It certainly did so for at least
four generations of one of my parent's family.
It's why I think that the un-gospel of the "very bad news" is
dangerous. If you want an interesting experience, try doing a search
for "ex fundamentalists" on the web. What you'll find mainly is a
string of testimonies of how people became born again atheists
often -- in my personal opinion only and not to be taken as abuse --
displaying the same sort of anger at religion that I experienced
people having in my church. What a lot of people never manage to do,
it seems, is let go of the anger. I think it takes embracing the real
gospel -- that God loves us as we are through God's grace and mercy --
to get rid of that.