A 'Lamb'-centred atonement theory
Having spent my entire adult lifetime as an learner of Jesus, the Messiah, in all that time, I've never been aware of having any dependency upon a theory or even an understanding of "atonement." It just hasn't been an issue. However, provoked by all this discussion about the subject, I wanted to test out my own convictions about the Sacrifice which is so central and vital to the Messianic faith, while endeavouring to avoid typical evangelical jargon, primarily to help in giving a fresh look at things. Thus, a couple of nights ago, I decided to attempt to communicate a personal understanding of "the atonement" and to do so placing the major elements of the Messianic Sacrifice in a broader, narrative context, feeling that without maintaining this broader view, we are in danger of cutting loose to investigate little whirlpools of theology, while failing to locate either the source or the destination of the River, so to speak... The 'theory' is offered 'as written, as thought,' with no claim on theological correctness. There will, of course, be huge gaps visible to some, perhaps some enlightenment for others. If you wish to criticise, go ahead, but go gently, remembering it's a kick-off to a discussion, not a submission for the Booker Prize!
So, let begin at our beginning...The Entrance of Death The primary eschatological events of the death, burial and resurrection of the Messiah, have their raison d'etre in the events of Gan Eden. It was here that we witness, the entrance of two vital elements of our story: Rebellion and Wickedness. These two represent related but different concepts. For the purposes of this discussion we shall summarise them thus:
In Eden, the wickedness of the snake, typifying the Tempter, later called the Adversary, tempted the Mother and Father of Humanity, into Rebellion against the Creator and the Good conduct he had instructed them in. Before that, rebellion did not exist within humanity or humanity's experience, nor in the Good Creation which is in view (we might argue that the snake / Adversary was formerly created and he rebelled – but the must be the subject of another discussion). This Rebellion is a genuinely serious matter, with profound, real, inviolable consequences. In short, it opened the door to the irreversible corruption of the entire Creation. How so? Because Rebellion was the first step away from the intended purpose of the creature. After that first step, whatever else happens is simply a step further away from or back toward the intended purpose and because permanent damage has been done, then even steps toward, will inevitably "fall short" of the original, intended glory, which has now been lost. In fact, it seems that this Rebellion was such a serious step that it was effectively the Death of the Creation. Right there: Death. The Good Creation had been corrupted, with no way back. I suggest that unless we grasp the genuineness of this, this finality of Death, it will be impossible to make sense of all that follows. Prior to the Rebellion, Creation could, it seems, have remained completely Good, uncorrupted. Immortality could have become the next Reality, after the probation of Eden. But it was corrupted by Rebellion and the Creator bound it to Death. Creation must thereafter die. It has become mortal (subject to death) and corrupt - it cannot, ever again, fulfil the Eternal Purpose for which the Creator made it.
The Need for a New Creation What about the Creators original intention: to have a people, made in the image of God, with whom he would dwell eternally – his "Eternal Purpose"? Was that intention to be thwarted, therefore, by this intrusion of Death? No, the Creator would not allow it to be thwarted. But, due to the entrance of Death, this fulfilment would require nothing less than a New Creation. New in what sense? A completely new one? (Perhaps on another planet, in another solar system?) No, not entirely new, but, rather, one that would be born out of the "womb" of the decaying Creation. (Think of it this way: an impregnated woman brings forth New Life and yet, herself, eventually dies; the baby has an innocence which the woman has lost, yet it is the woman, still subject to Death, out of which Life emerges. This is a parable of the New Creation, which comes out of the original Creation.) So that is our initial, panoramic view: Creation has been corrupted and bound to Death: only a New Creation will be able to fulfil the purposes of the Creator. How will such a New Creation be produced? What is the process? How can the forces of Death (decay, destruction, disease) and of Rebellion and Wickedness all be Overcome? Thiat is the task that the Creator faces if his Eternal Purpose is to be fulfilled.
And he has a Plan.
He requires a human being who will wholly embrace and serve his Eternal Purpose and the necessary Temporal Plan to bring that eternal purpose to fruition. He requires a Human Being who will intercede for the interests of the New Creation, to perform the necessary acts that will precipitate the birth of the New Creation. What are those acts? This person, this Human Being must overcome – must defeat – Death, Rebellion and Wickedness:
Thus, this Human Being must defeat every attempt of Wickedness to corrupt his essential role in the Creators Eternal Purpose. He must resist absolutely the temptation of Rebellion him to divert from the path of obedience to the Creator's Plan of and suffer and overcome Death by entrusting himself completely to the Creator, his only hope of Resurrection. This is the Victory that will bring forth a New Creation. In fact, the Human Being that does these things will become the First Fruits of that New Creation, by the power of Resurrection Life and will receive Complete Authority over Creation to grant the same power of Eternal Life to any other human being, allowing them to participate in the New Creation (free from Death, Rebellion and Wickedness). Although they will still die, they will be Resurrected – as this Human Being must first be (otherwise, while suffering Death, he has not overcome it, rather been overcome by it). This Human Being will choose to suffer Death and this is what likens him to a Sacrificial Lamb. A Lamb whose sufferance of Death will Release Creation from its bondage to Death – as he becomes the First Fruit of the New Creation. In this way, the Death of the Lamb will deal with the (consequences of the) Rebellion of Humanity. The Narrative of the Messianic Community Alongside this Reality of Deliverance, there must also be a Narrative, to explain the Promise of Deliverance to the human beings who are invited into the New Creation and a Community, to provide a context for the Deliverer. And so, a Tribe is selected and a system of sacrificial offerings is described and prescribed, carefully regulated to avoid misconception and degradation into paganistic rites. The role of this religious duty is given to the Selected People, whose taks it is to be the living Narrative of the Creator, the Canvas upon which he paints his vision of the Sacrificial Lamb and his Eternal Purpose.
However, during the course of the telling of this 'People of God' Narrative – this preparation of a people who would Light the Way for the Human Being who would become the Deliverer of Creation – Rebellion continues to work amongst the Creation and distinctly amongst this Peculiar People of God. Rebellion has already introduced Death; now, aided and abetted by Wickedness, it goes on to continually produce Chaos as its brood. Consequently, no matter how much Order the Creator now places into the Creation, by way of Rules, Regulations, Commandments and Teaching of things and acts, Rebellion continually corrupts the effect, so that the very things intended to prepare the way for Deliverance, for "Life in its Fullness" to come, those things actually make a way for Chaos and, in so doing, demonstrate the utter bondage of Creation to Rebellion. Extraordinarily, the Creator nevertheless succeeds in completing his Narrative. At times his frustration with his Chosen People erupts and he even occasionally thinks of beginning again on a new canvas; but, each time, one of the human beings who has seen something of the vision he is presenting, is able to sufficiently remind the Creator of his Eternal Purpose, to keep him from doing so. Some parts of the canvas are destroyed; others are wiped out and repainted. But the distinctive Image is taking its form. And, in the midst of this, despite the Greatness of some of the characters emerging within the Narrative, it is gradually more and more clear that it will be no ordinary human being who, in the midst of Chaos, is able to resist the combined forces of Death, Rebellion and Wickedness. The Creator's Forbearance of Individual Rebelliousness Now, while we are considering Chaos, prompted by Rebellion, let us revisit the matter of "forgiveness." Up to now, we have been considering the consequences of the Original Rebellion which corrupted Creation. Nevertheless, since then, numerous Acts of Rebellion have been carried out. Each of these acts does two things: it identifies the actors with the Mother and Father of Humanity, who introduced Rebellion; secondly, each act has a consequence whereby, someone suffers, almost always someone else, other than the actor. Theoretically, in a simplistic "justice" scenario, there would be a Day of Reckoning, in which every act of rebellion would be considered. Each person with a just grievance would bring a complaint against those who had harmed them and their interests. In fact, due to the reigning Chaos, this is simply not practical. The task of Justice is impossible because no one is wholly victim: everyone is a participator in Rebelliousness, in some way. Moreover, a Day of Reckoning that did nothing other than weigh each individuals acts of rebellion in the stark light of some external legal-type Standard, it's quite clear that no human being could stand before the Creator. Such a Day would not be "of Reckoning" it would surely simply become a "Day of Vengeance" -- the very thing the Creator wishes to Deliver Human Beings from. Thus, no such simplistic Day of Reckoning is in view in the Creators Narrative. (In fact, at a later point in history, a successful counterfeiter will produce another narrative promising such a Day, when humans "good" deeds will be weighed against their "bad" deeds – but no such immature religiosity is in view on the Original Canvas.) Consequently, the Creator decides to overlook all Offences. Initially, this is Forbearance: the overlooking of these acts, letting them go without punishment. The ritual sacrificial lambs are justifiably linked with this Forbearance because they remind the Creator of the Lamb who will come. Forgiveness and New Life for Individual Human Beings The Creator actually looks (beyond Forbearance,) forward to a time when, because of the Intercession of the Human Being who willingly suffers Death (as the precursor to Resurrection, the Harbinger, Evidence and Doorway to the New Creation) he will be able to completely Forgive: to Justly declare, "PARDONED : FREE OF GUILT"to everyone who is willing to come to him, without any plea of innocence, without any claim of being in the right in – or in spite of – their acts of rebelliousness, who are willing to trust his Narrative and the provision he has made for Death to be overcome by the "Lamb." To such people he will say: "Your part in the Rebellion, your unity, your uniting with it, has been Forgiven – and, consequently, your "Covenant with Death" has been annulled. You are herewith joined to LIFE eternally." How is this possible? Where is the Justice in such an abandonment of Natural Retribution? Where is Vengeance against the Rebellious? Where and what is the Justification for such a "sentence" being lifted from us? "The Justification," says the Creator, "is that a Willing Victim has become a Mighty Victor, who has suffered Death and resisted Rebellion and defeated Wickedness (though the final, complete banishment of Wickedness will come later), he has "paid the price" of laying down his life, sacrificially – as a Sacrifice – so that others can follow him into the New Creation. That Justifies my Forgiveness of all your complicity in the Rebellion!" The Death of the Lamb So, following the Incarnation, the Lamb effectively "takes away" (the consequences of) the Rebellion of Humanity. He does to by receiving, in his own body, the Due Penalty of Death – a penalty due, remember, to the Corruption of the Original, Good Creation, which thereafter could no longer serve the pure purpose for which it was intentionally made. He does this by Offering himself up to the hold of Death. He does this by becoming a thorn in the flesh of incumbent Powers and Principalities which, rightly, perceive his (ad)ministration of Truth to be a threat to their Corrupt Power. Thus, in accordance with the Creators prearranged, Temporal Plan, in accordance with the Creator's Eternal Purpose, he is literally led by the Rulers of Darkness and Wickedness in High Places, as a Lamb to the slaughter. ... For anyone to die upon the brutal, torturous, killing instrument of the Roman stake is a perversion of the intended, created purpose of human beings and may always be rightly called Wickedness. However, when we consider that this particular Human Being has never succumbed, even the least bit, to the powerful temptation and force of Rebellion, we can see Wickedness was personified, as never before, in those who condemned and, effectively, murdered the Lamb. They completed the Absolute Corruption, the Wicked Rebellion of Humanity, to its fullest.
So again, we ask, since we too are mortal, corrupt, human: how can those who have committed such a crime be Forgiven? Let us not be too hasty. Let us see that it is possible to refuse the Free Gift which the Creator offers. And to do so is not simply to side with Mortality, Rebellion and Corruption. It is to side with Wickedness. That is, to so embrace Wickedness, to so reject Truth, that while we might want to say that – theoretically – the same Door to Forgiveness is open to them, as to all, in practice we observe that certain actors are embracing a depth of Rebellion which brings with it a more immediate Judgement... Can this be? Yes, the Creator, though Patient and Forbearing, does not overlook Wickedness. Those who wholly embrace this Way, which leads to Destruction, who actively refuse to love the Truth (we are not speaking of the ignorant), are subject to a special and peculiar form of Judgement: they are "given over to what they love (lust after)." Those who harden their heart deliberately to the Creator, are eventually given over to the hardness of their own hearts – and for such a person to humble themselves thereafter is practically impossible. To those who purposely reject the Truth, they receive a More Powerful Lie. Those who embrace Wickedness, they are given over to the Power of the Evil One. But the Creator is never quick to bring any human being into such a terrifying sentence. It is not his desire that anyone should "perish" in their own Rebellion, not even those who embrace Wickedness. He would prefer each person to turn away, not only from their individual acts of rebelliousness - though it requires that - but to turn towards him and his provision – the Lamb – and Embrace the Way into which the Lamb leads them, gently and meekly.
A way into Life Eternal, an escape from the power of Death, Rebellion and Wickedness.
authored by john - www.eternalpurpose.org.uk
please note this article is licensed, under a Creative Commons License, allowing you to distribute it freely, non-commercially, providing you do so in it's entirety, including this notice. EndnotesThe following are some of the technical words used in connection with "atonement":
|
Comments
"Plan" as opposed to "purpose"
Thanks for your clarification. I think we agree fairly well on God’s purpose; we disagree as to whether his plan was for man to fall in the garden (me) or not (you). The reason I believe God planned it that way is that his plan (Jesus dying for us) assumes the fall rather than that man would choose fellowship and righteousness. It is probably more accurate for me to say “I inferred” rather than “you implied” that the shedding of Jesus’ blood became a part of God’s plan only after the fall.
In my metanarrative, God knew that we as autonomous creatures would not live up to our potentials, so his plan included not only creating us, but also providing for our inevitable rebellion and wickedness. I distinguish between his “plan” (what he believed would happen and what he intended to do about it) and his “purpose” (what he desires for us and from us, even though we may not live up to it).
I’m happy to leave off any discussion of the ignorant for now, just wanted to mention it as a possible consideration, since I gathered you were seeking constructive comments on your construction of the biblical metanarrative.
Powerful plan and assured purpose in harmony, yet distinct
I believe that God designed us with the ability choose to do what is right, and at the same time he knew that we would choose instead to sin. Otherwise, if we were designed with no ability to choose to do right, we would not be responsible for doing wrong—God would be. The righteousness God intended for us was a righteousness from Christ, not of ourselves. In that this works, God’s plan is effective, not impotent.
I did not mean to imply that God’s plan and his purpose are not in harmony, merely that they are distinct. The plan gets history to God’s purpose—it is not itself the culmination of that purpose. (I’m in agreement with the way you use plan=method above.)
To summarize, as I understand it God’s plan always was for those people with whom he’d dwell in eternal glory to be there “in Christ” and not on the basis of their own righteousness. And this plan is going to work (Rom. 8:28ff).
I agree with your final point—that the eternally lost will have chosen to be so lost.
Intersections
Someone wrote once (I paraphrase badly), time depends on the revolution of the spheres God set into motion.
Michael Card in his song “Joy in the Journey”, says something similar this way:
“To all who’ve been born of the Spirit
And who share incarnation with Him,
Who belong to eternity, stranded in time
and weary of struggling with sin.”
We seemed fixed in place on this planet, adrift in a river of time, measuring our decline and decay [in conformance to the 1st and 2nd laws?-tip of the hat to the creation/evolution thread elswhere] by seasons, calendars, watches, weight gain, wrinkles and the births and deaths of our children, grand-children, parents and friends. Hopefully we can also measure our growth into the fullness and likeness of Christ, however incremental, by the fruit of the Spirit in our lives, an eternal counterpoint to temporal entropy and the wages of sin.
When we limit God to this limited perspective we reduce Him to something like a late night television psychic trying to predict the future.
In this perspective I can envision God, rather preoccupied with the ongoing burden of sustaining His creation, nurturing the Trinitarian family and suddenly taking a look over His shoulder and-OOPS!
” What the devil! There goes that serpent messing up rather badly my whole Garden of Eden enterprise. And what about that Adam fellow? Why didn’t he simply stand tall and deal with the serpent rather than letting the little woman handle the affair. A renegade male, that’s what that Adam fellow is, just what I need heading up the little earthly family I’ve been working on. There will be trouble down the road on that account, mark My Word. Well, bother it all, I am now forced to go down there and get to the bottom of all this and make some difficult decisions. Son, I may have a job for you when I get back.”.
Rather than this, God must be more like (not much like really), an author of a very long novel which just fits in the Library of Congress in America where he can move freely between volumes, pages, paragraphs and words at will. Not a very good analogy I admit, but God, eternity, time, free will and foreknowledge do not lend themselves to easy analogies. And these are inextricably linked to the discussion at hand.
This discussion thread is a rich, difficult lode to mine. Please do not consider this comment a criticism of any kind. I am reading all of the comments with great interest and am finding them all stimulating. These are daunting concepts to grasp though certainly worth the effort. Thank you all for your insights.
Alario
Many thanks for sharing your
Many thanks for sharing your thoughts with us, John. Although I’m sure I missed much on my first reading, I found it genuinely enlightening, particularly your thoughts on Jesus’ sacrifice as having far broader significance than just forgiveness. It seems I’ve been over-fed a diet of simplifications with regard to the cross, and I feel now my eyes opening to the - I struggle to find words - vastness, the depth, the richness of what Jesus did. I can only thank you!
God's Accountability
This is how I make sense of the Cross of Jesus. In my eyes, Jesus did not die for the sins of men, entirely; but also for the sins of God. On the Cross, God discovers what it means to suffer as humans suffer; and takes responsibility for the divinely destructive side of Creation.
In other words, God is guilty of causing enormous pain and suffering in Creation, and the Cross is God’s penalty, not man’s. God even says so, “I create the light and I make the dark. I create peace and I make evil. I, Yahweh, do all these. There is no other.” Isaiah 45:7. From the Cross we discover that love requires taking responsibility for one’s actions, facing up to the consequences of one’s behaviors- especially the powerful and those in charge.
In other words, God is being held accountable on the Cross.
If God, the most powerful, is also capable of evil destruction, then how much moreso are the powerful and mighty among men capable of evil too! The Cross shows that the powerful must take responsibility for the evil they sow.
How so? Live the life that Jesus lived in service of those who have been most damaged by the abuses of those in power: the vulnerable, children, women, outsiders, sick, and heartbroken.
God becomes human in Jesus, as a servant to the powerless and critic of the powerful, to show that the most powerful must pay for the damage they cause to the least among us. If even God is guilty, then how can any man avoid his responsibility?
Otherwise, the so called atonement on the Cross is an insult to justice and a slap in the face to every child beaten, wife abused, or family starved; as though God needed to kill an innocent man to pay for their sins! No, rather God needed to pay for God’s sins: and that is justice.
I have little patience for those who preach about a deity who can only do good and must constantly punish his creation that can only do bad; until finally, this deity must sacrifice an innocent man to pay for the crimes of a creation that has no choice but to sin.
It is absolute insanity and reminds me of a wife and family that is survivng the abuses of a tyrannical father who can do no wrong, yet must beat his wife and children because they can do no right. In other words, it is a model of abuse where the powerful are rewarded for their abuses and the weak get sacrificed. I see no love there.
God's accountability
If God is an abuser, who invented evil, and had to apologise to man, the innocent victim, what hope is there for the future of the world? God taking his advice from man on how to run things? Possibly with Iraq, Rwanda, Congo, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc as examples? I think the cross demonstrates that God made himself the victim - of all the evil we could throw at him. Including what goes on in my heart unless he changes it. More - the cross is the place where all my pain is born by him, and effectively transferred onto him. He was the only one who could identify and take into himself the depth and extent of that woundedness so that I could experience his wholeness and healing. But God an abuser? If so, I truly have nowhere to go.
Divine Complicity
“If God is an abuser, who invented evil, and had to apologise to man, the innocent victim, what hope is there for the future of the world?”
The Atonement Scenario I described above is not meant to portray God needing to apologize, but to take responsibility and be held accountable. This is far more than God saying, “Sorry for what I’ve done.” It is God saying, “I love you, and this is how I will show it. And, this is also how you must show it. This Cross is the burden all of us must bear: this is how we clean up the mess we are in. We are in this together. There is no easy way out. Not for me or you or anyone.”
I admit there is little hope in this scenario if you are expecting a clean and easy walk through salvation: as though all we need do is repeat a few magic words, memorize key texts, and call ourselves ‘saved’.
On the contrary, the Atonement Scenario I describe requires a radical commitment to your death: a concrete, tangible, historical, political sacrifice of your life. The hope is in this sacrifce, in this loving resistance against the powers of domination and abuse, authentic humanity is found and expressed.
And authentic humanity isn’t even the goal. No, lending all you have to cleaning the mess we are in, handing over your aspirations, desires, goals and plans for your professional/familial/economic future to this Cross- is the price we all must pay to help heal and mend the pain we participate in and suffer from.
There is no ‘majicking away’ the sins of the world. There is only the hard work of love in the mix of human injustice and misery. This is radical hope, not cheap grace.
The grace is in knowing that it is worth the effort, not a wasted sacrifice, and something that surpasses all claims to our time and talents. There is no human voice that can supersede or demand allegeinces that can avoid the Cross: if even God has to undergo such a personal sacrifice and public confession, then no human can opt out of the equation. All the temptations of success, prestige, prominence, and power fade away before this Cross; they are less than nothing.
I cannot accept a Creator God unable, unwilling, and in denial of the divine complicity in the evil of Creation.
The Atonement Scenario I’ve described is an imperfect attempt to brigge the God of Love with the often wretched Creation we are forced to endure.
God in the Dock
John,
Thank you for your very generous welcome and careful exploration of my admittedly short and provocative post that is heavy on impact and light on explanation.
I am interested in what it means to have your view of God “undermined” by my Atonement Scenario. Does this mean God is diminished, tarnished, blemished, devalued, stained by an Atonement such as the one I’ve described? If so, how so?
My “prooftexting” of Isaiah 45:7 (which you connected to Lamentations 3.38 and Amos 3.6, and to which could also be added Jeremiah 26:3, Jeremiah 36:3, Jeremiah 32:42, Ezekiel 6:10, 1 Samuel 16:23, Micah 1:12, 2 Kings 21:12) was an attempt to show that the Bible does explicitly refer to the evil that God does. These verses do not include the many places that God creates profound calamity, destruction, misery and death throughout the Bible…implicitly the source of evil, or at least a powerful element for it.
As I see it, your ‘panoramic’ view of Scripture where God is righteous, just and loving avoids those blatant instances where God is anything BUT these things.
I am extremely sympathetic to your desire to keep God clean of any wrongdoing, and wish that it were so myself. But I am unable, with good conscience, to do so for at least two reasons:
1. The scriptural references above, of both explicit and implicit descriptions of the injustice and evil that God does and lends power to.
2. The ethical implications arising from the need for an illegal, immoral, unjust death sentence to somehow “set things right” between God and Creation, God and Humanity, Humanity and Creation, Humanity and itself.
As I see it, again, the Cross is God taking responsibility for the evil that Creation contains: NOT because only an innocent sacrifice can rectify such collosal misery; BUT because Justice demands the offender be held accountable.
God is part of the offense, as are we all.
Divine accountability - cyber thought police?
John’s response to Dissident Heart was enlightening: I’d never heard of the demonic-in-Jahweh idea before. The further verses that DH quotes don’t seem to get beyond John’s response - all but 1 are referring to the judgement God brought on Israel through the exile; 1 Sam 16:23 can hardly be said to make God in some way criminally responsible for an evil act. The question then really is: is God culpable for bringing judgement - in the form of national disaster?
The scriptural basis for DH’s views doesn’t stand; the issue is more a philosophical one. Is it possible to conceive of a God who in himself is flawed, and one of whose attributes is evil/malevolence, for which he later makes himself accountable (on the cross)? I appreciated John’s affirming response to DH - and I did recognise that DH’s position had a practical end in view - which is to accommodate God to abused people. That God is able to identify with the abused in such a way that the cross becomes a place of transfer of pain is not a magic and superficial formula - it plumbs profoundly the depths of identification, and works in practice.
P.S. I did have this fantasy of a kind of cyber thought police: patrolling the net for heresy - swooping down on us in the act of propogating false doctrine. Maybe www.spanishinquisition.org or something of the like
Dreading the judge
They already are, look at this accusation of blasphemy.
Of course the accusation is justified and within the narrow bounds of this site’s ‘Rules of Engagement’ it is understandable.
I have had several stabs at challenging some basic doctrine here because I believe Christianity lost its way in the muddle of the very early proto-church. I think the root of Christianity’s inability to maintain levels of standing and respect in the community at large is planted firmly in an over reliance on a theology that boils down to inherited opinion based on always debatable interpretations of an historically challengeable written source. It is these interpretations, philosophised about and debated for centuries that are the source of all current theology. I am very much in a minority of one here and I am confident that I will only acquire any level of evangelical certainty when I meet our maker, and not before even if they do pull out my finger nails.
So if that’s not heresy, what is? I don’t worry too much about it though.
It's a fair cop
John,
you got me bang to rights guvn’r.
Though, I seek feet to sit at not sitters at mine.
Slainte Mhor
Memo from the Grand Inquisitor General:
Albannach writes, “…look at this accusation of blasphemy. Of course the accusation is justified and within the narrow bounds of this site’s ‘Rules of Engagement’ it is understandable.”
Hopefully, anyone who links to my reply to his assertions that God’s crime is our creation and that God ‘created’ a Son to offer up to pay the price for God’s crime of mass murder will read the entire conversation spread over several posts on an Atonement thread.
I believe I gave Albannach the benefit of the doubt on the blasphemy count, suggesting perhaps his rhetoric was a ploy (“a trick up his sleeve”) to enliven debate and dramatize his point. Now that I rethink his comment about God ‘creating’ a Son, I might rethink putting his name in my Heresy book. Just kidding right? I hoped challenging his rhetoric would give him opportunity to clarify his argument and evidence.
In this more recent post Albannach likens me to a cyber-Inquisitor and ignores a reasonable and courteous request (I thought) to explain his thinking and offer his thoughts on a portion of scripture defending penal substitution and my “take” on that snippet of scripture (Colossians 2:10-14). It was on, after all, an Atonement thread. I realize everyone has issues with time and can’t be on all threads at all times, but he did respond once, though not as effectively or comprehensively as I had hoped he might, particularly with respect to St. Paul’s statements in Colossians.
( On a personal and emotional level I ‘feel’ a bit like the minority of one, an orthodox anglican with an apparently “stratospheric” view of scriptures and the Church and accused of reviving the rack and thumb screws. Perhaps I should lament the narrow bounds of the “Rules of Engagement”.)
As I now understand Albannach’s opinion:
1. Christianity went astray early on in a proto-church muddle.
2. Christianity lacks standing and respect in the community because of an over reliance on its theology which is nothing more than
a. inherited opinion
b. based on always debatable interpretations
c. of a historically challengable written source.
This rather sweeping assesment is not without merit on its face. Is it the final word on these matters? I have a different assesment.
Christianity has gone astray rather recently, in the last century or so, on two fronts. On one hand, the concept of a salvation and a Christian faith based on the individual and his or her personal feelings, opinions and experiences has replaced the concept of a salvation and Christian faith walked out in a corporate experience within the Church. On the second front there has been a consistent devaluation of the reliability and authenticity of the scriptures, particularly with respect to the new testament. Part of this has been aimed at St. Paul, a most likely target because of his tremendous contributions to a cohesive theology and his controversial positions on many subjects.
I am unclear about inherited opinion theology. I believe there have been instances of persons untutored in Christianity and non-Christians alike who have read the scriptures and have become Christians adopting something very like orthodox theology, though in most cases they would not have been able to put a scholarly name to their particular beliefs (penal substitution and so forth). It seems to me the doctrines, the theology, are contained within the sriptures and are there for the taking. These cases seem more like Holy Spirit illumination rather than beliefs based on inherited opinion.
I am not sure how constantly debatable all things really are. Certainly there are some things which are fixed and unchangeable. St. Paul reminds the church in Corinth what he had taught them perhaps as much as a decade earlier. Christ died for our sins according to scripture, he was buried and rose again the third day according to scripture and that he was seen on numerous occasions, to numerous people, many of whom were alive. Paul says this is the gospel he preached to them, it’s what they believed and it’s what would save them if they continued steadfast. This is a clear, concise gospel with an appeal to the old testament and to tangible evidence of people still walking around who could be asked if they did or did not see the resurrected Jesus.
Respecting the historically challenged written record, I believe there are a number of conservative, orthodox scholars who regard the written record as quite reliable and have published their findings and opinions.
I am sceptical of a theology that is based in our opinions alone, freed from the scriptures and the consensus of a long line of theologians back to the apostles and prophets. Yet, I believe this is what Albannach is attempting. He is profound at times and many of his observations are perceptive and challenging. For all that, his opinions seem rooted in an inflexible rejection of scripture as a foundation or starting point for discussion.
Albannach proposes an answer to why the church lacks standing and respect in the community at large. I have an opinion as well and I believe scripture also tells us why.
I believe the scriptures offer an assement of mankind and of individuals which is not congenial to the community’s current sensibilities. If the Church maintains its fidelity to the scriptures it will stand in opposition to much of the community’s morals, ethics and spirituality which are, if not inimical to Christianity, at best, indifferent to it. In a misguided attempt to be “seeker” friendly much of the Church has abandoned difficult teachings unpalatable to the community. Because much of the Church has attempted to accomodate the community’s sensibilities, it now finds itself salt without savor having thrown overboard its rich deposit of orthodox teaching, preaching and holy living.
Jesus said, “These things I command you, that ye love one another.
If the world hate you, ye know it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin.
He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated me and my father.
But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.”
John:17-25
Alario
Are pain and suffering always evil?
I have to agree with Peter, that the question is more philosophical (or theological) than Scriptural. (The word “evil” in Hebrew does not exactly correspond with the way the word is used in English.) I think most here would agree that God did create the world knowing that many would suffer. Some would say that right there is evil—could not an all-powerful creator have made a world where there would be no suffering? So the questions then are whether creating free-will beings—and knowing that they would choose to do evil—is evil or not, and whether causing pain or suffering in general can ever not be evil, and if so whether the specific pain and suffering God has caused falls under this category. (Edit: One could also consider whether forgiving heinous sins is “grace” or “evil.”)
I have no problem with those who take as their starting point their experience of God as completely good, and reason from there that whatever pain and suffering people experience now from God is nevertheless “good,” perhaps because of some good result or good motive. An analogy might be someone who is confused by something a loved one does, but decides that that other person would never do such a hurtful thing. Or a parent who causes pain or suffering to a child for health, safety, or social reasons. (The child might consider it painful to be separated from his mother on the first day of Kindergarden, to be deprived of some chocolate, or to be grounded for using foul language, or to be physically restrained from stepping into the street.) Certainly the analogy breaks down in that God, unlike the parent, is all-powerful and could have made a world in which Kindergarden was silly, chocolate healthy, foul language unheard of, and without streets. Further, this very same reasoning could be used to justify real child abuse.
While I think this is a valid form of reasoning, I don’t expect it to be very persuasive to people who don’t know God or who understand him differently. From a postmodern perspective, different people are going to “construct” different gods—some based on Scripture using one set of hermeneutics, some based on Scripture using another set of hermeneutics, some based on their own positive personal relationship with God, some based on their own negative personal relationship with God, all subtly influenced by their culture, education, family, etc. For me, a God who predestines some individuals to eternal torment isn’t “good” and isn’t biblical; others, I am convinced, see such a God not only biblical but also quite good.
At any rate, I can see even a good God acknowledging some level of responsibility for pain and suffering and being willing to show solidarity with his creatures in their plight.
Here’s how I would make a case that God can remain good while being responsible for the creation of a race that inflicts evil on one another: God could choose to have fellowship with beings that would freely choose to relate with him (or not), or with beings that would be programmed to think he was the neatest guy ever. The first sort of relationship is better than the second. Such semi-autonomous beings, however, would be able and sometimes willing to do evil, thereby being capable of responsibility. As responsible moral agents, it is bad to inflict pain and suffering on innocent others, and good to give some consequence to those who do that.
As for natural suffering (suffering and death caused by nature), that is, well, natural. How Christian is it to view death as the ultimate evil, when we aren’t supposed to believe in the power of death? A million years from now, will we look at the Tsunami differently than we do now? If a grain of wheat were self-aware, how would it view being dried out and buried in the ground?
This thread is very provocative and I’m still thinking.
Cross Communique
God on the Cross: “Look everyone, I understand the place is a mess and a whole lot of misery and pain are everywhere to be found. Not only do I know this, but I have lived it and been right in the belly of the ugliest of beasts. I have lived as one of the oppressed and persecuted, the outlaw and renegade, denied sanctuary and leniency, rejected by friend, family and beaten to death by foe. This is not a theoretical exercise undertaken in some celestial palace high atop Olympus: I have been betrayed, arrested, beaten, mocked, publically humiliated, unjustly sentenced, and crucified till dead surrounded by the carrion of criminals, thieves, and rebels.
I sympathize, empathize, and participate in and with your suffering.
And, in many ways, I, God, have created this mess. There is no way around it, no need to minimize, deny, sugarcoat, or make believe it isnt true: I, God, have helped to make this suffering possible. And not only suffering, but cruelty, malice, and evil too. Yes, evil.
Actually, we all have a hand in the mess. None of us, including me, God, are clean of guilt. Obviously there are degrees of guilt, but none stand purely innocent. Children are the closest. Not entirely, but surely the one’s who are least responsible. But, don’t fool yourself- they can be terrible tyrants too. As I have been, and you as well.
So, here’s the good news: we are all forgiven of this guilt. The slate is wiped clean. There’s no need to beat yourself up, seek punishment, find some sort of self-mutilation to set things right. I, as God, send out a universal decree of innocence to all. I’m God, I can do this sort of thing.
Now, it’s time to get busy. Give up your delusions of status, prestige, honor, wealth and power: that’s all tied to your guilt. Let it go and give it up. Instead, seek out the hungry, naked, sick, abused, homeless, orphaned, widowed, imprisoned, the insane…this is where you will find your joy and glory. This is where your salvation lies.
Understand, and this is the rub: this work will kill you. Sure enough, as soon as you chack out of the status quo passion for wealth, prominence and power…you will be seen as a threat. Likewise, as soon as you begin to remedy the suffering of the least among you, you will end up confronting those systems of power that profit from their miseries.
So, prepare for a Cross much like the one I am on here. I don’t know any other way to do this: to clean up this mess we are all in. But we are going to have to love one another like nothing else matters, and this is dangerous stuff in our world.
Fear not, I am with you all the way. The Cross will not have the last word, but it can’t be silenced either.”
cross purposes
It’s all very rousing stuff, but I still don’t totally square D/H’s view of the atonement with what I read of Jesus in the gospels, or God anywhere else in O.T. or N.T. It’s an interesting point of view, of course, but if every point of view is valid provided it is held with sufficient passion, then truth is no longer debatable. Which would be a pity, as there is so much on offer at the moment, in which ‘truth’ is becoming stranger, more paradoxical, and yet more wonderful than it ever has before. I can’t recall there being a time when a search for ‘truth’ has been more exhilarating (and far more than ‘truth versus falsehood). D/H’s views have echoes of one of the lines of ‘truth’ which seems currently to be re-emerging: that of the ‘Christus Victor’ understanding of the gospels and atonement, with its apologists in the Anabaptist and Mennonite traditions. But D/H also diverges from this, with what are to me gaping holes both philosophically and in any attempt to anchor it in the O.T. or N.T. Like a terrier, D/H has got hold of an idea and won’t let go. Which is also a shame, as the ‘Christus Victor’ idea itself needs to be critiqued and subjected to a more rounded, informed discussion of historical understanding of the atonement. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the passion which burns under D/H’s approach, and hope that it is responsive to the sympathetic comments of folk on this thread of the website discussion forum.
P.S. Has anyone seen andrew, joeblow, or justin recently?
To the extent that OST is the
To the extent that OST is the product of Bible-believing Christians, then it will be grounded in Scripture. To the extent that the broader culture is engaged, unbiblical and even antibiblical perspectives are going to be entertained. I’m not sure how a tendency to point out that our culture’s thinking is unbiblical is going to encourage representatives of that culture to participate in the dialogue.
Does the church have to honestly deal with our culture’s understanding of the cross? Or is it sufficient to disregard such hindrances to discipleship on the grounds that they are not anchored in the Bible?
Further, I believe D/H does try to ground his/her thinking in Scripture, but s/he may not share the same hermeneutic as many others of us; as I understand it, D/H is arguing that Scripture must be interpreted through the Great Command—love.
Out of the box
I imagine the kind of person that visits this website is wanting to think ‘out of the box’, but taking broadly Christian (even biblical) viewpoints as a jumping off point. We need to be able to subject each other’s points of view to gentle questioning. That way they can be advanced with credibility in the ‘broader culture’. I doubt whether the broader culture, in itself, has a whole lot of interest in visiting a website with this name. But maybe the webmaster can correct me.
cross examinations
I think D/H has grasped something of the horror of the cross, God’s love and identification with our pain and alienation and the cost Christ paid when left the Father and emptied himself to become a slave. That said, I find it impossible to reconcile his view that God paid for his own guilt when he died on the cross, with Jesus statement “Can any of you accuse me of sin?” John 8:46. D/H apparently can. To put this in the context of “Lamb-centred atonement”, the sacrificial lamb had to be without spot or blemish, If Jesus had been a blemished sacrifice it would never have been acceptable. Such a lamb could not “‘take away the sin of the world’.
About this Lamb-centred atonement, John, I don’t understand your point that the lamb was not being punished for the Rebellious Acts of other human beings; he was, rather, voluntarily bearing the Penalty of Death laid upon Creation. Surely we die for our own sins, not the sin of our fathers Ezek 18:20, however far back. Adam only lead the way for us. “Death spread to all men because all sinned Rom 5:12. If the cross only dealt with the penalty of death from Adam’s rebellion, we would be no better off because we all incur the same penalty through our own actions.
Nice work though, it is good to get the people of God thinking.
Deacon
In the same way? "All"
Here’s the problem I have with using this passage to establish some form of original sin: the logic used would seem to imply that through Jesus all men will be saved (see especially v. 18). Paul uses the words “many” and “all” to describe both those who are condemned and those who are justified. On what basis, then, is this chapter a support for the idea that “all men” (literally understood) are under condemnation to death for sin, but not “all men” will be acquitted and enjoy eternal life?
Romin' around
Hi John
Quote:
Your translation avoids the complex link word usually translated “inasmuch” (death spread to all men inasmuch as all men sinned)
Most translations simply say ‘because’, however I think the ‘inasmuch’ puts my my case even more strongly. Only to the extent that all men have sinned themselves does the death spread to all men. ‘Inasmuch’ strictly limits any claim we make about Adam’s sin hitting the rest of the world, only those who sin themselves are covered by what Paul is talking about.
In Rom 5:12 Paul gives a detailed step by step exposition of how Adam’s sin effects the world. Then in each of verses 15-19, Paul compares an aspect of Adam’s fall with Jesus’ victory. Now in these verses, is Paul extending what he says in verse 12? If he is he doesn’t give his usual (confusing) step by step explanation. Or does verse 12 explain more clearly the aspects he touches on in vs 15-19? How is it ‘death ruled through that One Man’ verse 12 tells us ‘sin came into the world through one man … death spread to all men insasmuch as all sinned’. It seems to me Paul is taking his analysis from verse 12 and comparing it to what we have in Jesus.
Quote:
Likewise Romans 5.12-21 as a whole is indicating that the Many (the Human Race) were made into “sinners” - those without the power to Live free of Rebellion - by the action of the One Man
OK no problem with that. Since the fall the human race seems to have a certain propensity for sin.
Quote:
In other words, “sin reigned through death” indicates that it was precisely because the world had come under the power of Death, that men inevitably sinned.
Ah now you turn it back to front again. No it’s because men sin that we are under the power of death.
Did sin reign through death as (what version are you using anyway?) did sin reign in death (more literal but what does it mean?) or did sin reign unto death. Even your reigned through death can be taken two ways. As you say, it could mean sin has become irresistible because death has taken a hold on the human race, or it could simply mean that death is the terrible power sin wields over those who become its slaves. The problem is, Paul’s use of the preposition en is rather vague to say anything precise. I think we should interpret this verse in terms of more specific statements elsewhere in the letter.
Quote:
This is made clear by 5.14: death ruled even over those who didn’t actually transgress a specific command, as Adam did. Death and Sin in this passage enjoy a certain synonymity, as far as I can tell.
Romans 5:14 doesn’t say people did not sin before the time of Moses, just that without a law there was no way to keep a precise account of the sin. Verse 13 makes it clear people did sin before Moses, if fact it is very clear throughout the book of Genesis, from sin crouching at Cain’s door to Joseph forgiving his brothers for their sins against him. I see no reason to understand death’s reign any differently here. All men died inasmuch as all men sinned. They were the same as the Gentiles Paul talked about in Rom 2:14 who show they are aware of God’s law in their hearts even though they have not heard of the ten commandments. People know in their hearts what is wrong, do it anyway, and die.
Are death and sin synonymous? Yes Paul uses the two terms interchangeably, but only because one leads so inextricably to the other. If you confuse them, your analysis may be missing the deadly relationship between the two.
I think Paul explains this very clearly in Romans 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
Notice #1 Paul is not talking about physical death here but something spiritual because he was still alive when he wrote this verse.
#2 Paul was not dead or ‘under the power of death’ as a child before he understood it was wrong to covet. He was alive, alive in the same sense that he wasn’t alive after he sinned. The death that came in when he sinned, which is the ‘Adamic fall’ death all men died because all men sinned, did not have a hold of Paul before he sinned, only after.
I must give you my own take on the atonement, rather than me sniping at your all the time! But seriously I would appreciate you views. I don’t know how long it will take to put it together though. I will try to keep it short.
Yours Deacon
PS how do you do quotes?
Swirling around the plughole
Hi John
Hello Deacon and thanks for your… question? … rebuttal?
…
I’m rather glad you volunteered the word “sniping,” because it did feel a bit like that!
Hmm, there is a balance in there somewhere if I can find it.
with regard to your first point, I was referring to the underlying Greek word; thus your reasoning that “inasmuch” supports one argument over the other, also misses my point (although even re. the English wording, I don’t personally see the “slam-dunk” that you apparently see);
The Greek is ef w ‘on that’. I am not a Greek expert and prepositions are complicated especially in constructions like this. It seems to be saying ‘on the basis of the fact that’. The ‘because’ in most translations seems reasonable. So it seems to mean: death spread to all men on the basis of the fact that… all sinned. Paul is just saying the death that came into the world through Adam effects those who sin. How do you read the ‘inasmuch’ in verse 12? If your point is simply that it is too complicated a construction to be dogmatic, that is fine, but if you have a specific reading of it I would like to hear. Anyway I’ll try to keep out of the plughole.
I’m afraid I can’t comprehend your enthusiasm for certainty with respect to dividing paradoxical truths which have stumped - or at least divided - theologians for millenia!
If I was happy to accept paradox, or as it was called where I grew up ‘mystery’ (…it’s a mystery, we cannot understand it, but we have to believe it) I would still accept that the Pope was infallible. I read the bible, got a hold of what it said, and held onto my opinions like a terrier. I love the opportunity to explore God’s word and try to understand what it says. I appreciate the approach that tries to understand different interpretations, but I also think we also should be ‘fully convinced in our own minds’ (without causing grief to our brothers, sorry if I have!). I think paradox is often the bible’s way of telling us to try look at the question from another angle, though in the end we will often have to accept our limitations and live with it.
would I then be correct in saying that the only way we can resolve this is if we are speaking about different forms of ‘death’ e.g. spiritual death, as seperation from God over against physical death? Otherwise (and it seems distasteful to raise it, apologies), how could babies, who’ve never broken a commandment, die?
This is probably key to my understanding of these verses. Paul is talking about spiritual death not physical. That is why he could say ‘sin seizing an opportunity … killed me’ Rom 7:11. I don’t see physical death as the result of the fall, rather the death Adam died the day he ate the fruit was a spiritual death. In my understanding, biological death was a part of the original creation. In Psalm 104 we read that lions looking to God for their prey, yet this is a psalm about the creation.
The death of children is a problem whether we say death came through the fall, or that physical death was part of the original creation, one says the world God created contains a lot more pain than we would like, the other that innocent children are somehow being punished for a sin they did not commit. Neither are easy to deal with.
I suppose my question is, can your understanding of Lamb Centred Atonement be described in a way that doesn’t depend on physical death originating with Adam, and by implication a young age for the universe and the planet? My concern about creationism is that it is often a stumbling block for those who are really seeking the truth and it is not necessarily what the bible actually teaches.
I don’t think you are trying to push creationism, your contributions to the monkey debate have been to preach tolerance and respect. Though the LCA is grounded in garden of Eden, can it be inclusive with room for both creationists and the bene qophim? How would Lamb Centred Atonement look if Adam and Eve was simply an allegorical story describing God’s relationship with early man? Or if an already mortal Adam died spiritually when he sinned and lost his access to eternal life?
I think it probably would be much better to post your own “take” on atonement, by way of an interesting comparison, rather than risk us both “drowning” in further details…
I followed up you link to the discussion on The Atonement - Atonement Theories http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/498 This is very good though sparse. Is there more information available on the three theories?
What knocked me back was Justin’s approach, coming from quite a different angle has a very similar take on the atonement to mine.
Basically my understanding of the atonement comes from Romans 6. Christ’s death and resurrection have their power because we share in what he went through. Whatever punishment is due to our sin, spiritual or physical death, we don’t escape it, so much as go through it in Christ. What would destroy us for all eternity on our own, becomes a way through to resurrection when we go through it in Christ.
The power of sin is broken in us because when we died in Christ we died to our sinful nature. Instead of being alive to sin and dead to God, we are now alive to God and dead to sin, though that bit can take a bit of working out! It is passing through the Red Sea and leaving all our enemies behind.
Blessing Deacon
Didn't God always plan to sacrifice Jesus?
It seems that you are arguing that the shedding of Jesus’ blood became a part of God’s plan only after the fall, and that God’s original plan for man was for us to live in a state of uninterrupted fellowship, goodness, and life. Do you not see any indication in Scripture that God was already planning to send Jesus to suffer and die even before man was created? (Consider e.g. 1 Pet. 1:17-20, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 1:4, 2 Titus 1:9.)
Then in your conclusion you argue that those who harden their hearts, who purposely reject the truth, put themselves in the special category of those who are given over to death. Are those who are simply ignorant of God’s plan also placed in that category? (I’m not arguing that they are without rebellion and wickedness, just that they are not aware of God’s working in history through Israel and Jesus, and so don’t have that knowledge to harden their hearts against.)