A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Thanks Edwin. I was seeing a bit of both views in “Surprised by Hope.” I still want to read his other books.
Anna
- Status
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Gurney,
I’ve been showing your thread “the love.”
Where are you?
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Writing long-winded answers to questions and presenting possibilities to you all in IM? Remember? sheesh! 
Gurney,
I’ve been showing your thread “the love.”
C
cheese_sdc
Guest
Interesting. I will consider these sources.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
This is my Post #36. I’m really hoping for some helpful comments.
Marc Anthony,
I, too, would love for you to elaborate. I spent most of my 55 years viewing the crucifixion through the lens of penal substitution; but have been questioning that the last few years. At this point, I’m leaning more toward “Christus Victor.”
I realize there are many Scriptures that point to the theory of “penal substitution.” However, I can’t quite reconcile them to the many passages pointing to God’s preference of mercy, rather than sacrifice. I don’t understand “mercy” in terms of sacrificing the innocent for the wicked. That is merciful to the wicked; but certainly not merciful to the innocent.
I also have trouble reconciling “penal substitution” with the concept of the Trinity. It’s like God sending Himself to sacrifice Himself to Himself, when God is immortal (I’m not doing an add for the movie “Religulous”-which I never saw, btw.) I realize Christ is the Son of God, who came as both man and God.
My questions may bring on an onslaught of criticism; but I need to ask them. These are some of the things that keep me awake at night.
Micah 6: 6 “With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” 8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Proverbs 21: 2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart. 3 To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
Jeremiah 7: 22 **For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. **23But this command I gave them: **‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’
**
**Even in the N.T. we find Jesus quoting **Hosea 6:6:
Matthew 9: 12 But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Hosea 6: 4 What shall I do with you, O Ephraim? What shall I do with you, O Judah? Your love is like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes early away. 5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth, and my judgment goes forth as the light. 6** For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.**
One of the most intriguing passages in the NT reveals Jesus agreeing that loving God and your neighbor is more important than "all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."
Mark 12: 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.
**This seems to be a very strange thing for Jesus to say, since he came as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.
Also, throughout the NT, Jesus forgave sins. Not once did he tell those he forgave to go and make a sacrifice to complete the forgiveness.
In addition, John proclaimed Baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins**.
**Luke 3: **2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 1: 4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
There is also the question, “If God is God and He makes the rules, why does anyone have to die?” There are no laws higher than God.
**I welcome all help in understanding the atonement.
Anna**
Marc Anthony,
I, too, would love for you to elaborate. I spent most of my 55 years viewing the crucifixion through the lens of penal substitution; but have been questioning that the last few years. At this point, I’m leaning more toward “Christus Victor.”
I realize there are many Scriptures that point to the theory of “penal substitution.” However, I can’t quite reconcile them to the many passages pointing to God’s preference of mercy, rather than sacrifice. I don’t understand “mercy” in terms of sacrificing the innocent for the wicked. That is merciful to the wicked; but certainly not merciful to the innocent.
I also have trouble reconciling “penal substitution” with the concept of the Trinity. It’s like God sending Himself to sacrifice Himself to Himself, when God is immortal (I’m not doing an add for the movie “Religulous”-which I never saw, btw.) I realize Christ is the Son of God, who came as both man and God.
My questions may bring on an onslaught of criticism; but I need to ask them. These are some of the things that keep me awake at night.
Micah 6: 6 “With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” 8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Proverbs 21: 2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart. 3 To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
Jeremiah 7: 22 **For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. **23But this command I gave them: **‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’
**
**Even in the N.T. we find Jesus quoting **Hosea 6:6:
Matthew 9: 12 But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Hosea 6: 4 What shall I do with you, O Ephraim? What shall I do with you, O Judah? Your love is like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes early away. 5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth, and my judgment goes forth as the light. 6** For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.**
One of the most intriguing passages in the NT reveals Jesus agreeing that loving God and your neighbor is more important than "all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."
Mark 12: 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.
**This seems to be a very strange thing for Jesus to say, since he came as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.
Also, throughout the NT, Jesus forgave sins. Not once did he tell those he forgave to go and make a sacrifice to complete the forgiveness.
In addition, John proclaimed Baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins**.
**Luke 3: **2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 1: 4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
There is also the question, “If God is God and He makes the rules, why does anyone have to die?” There are no laws higher than God.
**I welcome all help in understanding the atonement.
Anna**
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Keep in mind the Lord is talking within a Judaic framework to a Jewish audience about the way they were doing business. Sacrifice, in itself, is supposed to be giving up something that means something deep and special to us. Maybe in a modern context it would be giving up a cell phone or laptop or our favorite show for a month, giving up Starbucks, a chunk of income, you name it. In the ancient times it was the most valuable of your flocks…an unblemished, unspotted goat or sheep, etc. Which of the sheep would get you the most $$$ in trade or sale at the marketplace? The unblemished lamb/goat/etc. So God is asking the shepherd to give up that most valuable $$$ animal to show his love for God.
As time progressed, the Hebrews/Jews lost sight of this. They were actually going to the temple in Jerusalem and, outside in the market, buying a goat and sacrificing it. Why? To appease a ritual, feel righteous, go through the motions. It’s really empty?
It’s like me going and buying $200 in Starbucks coffee and then burning it for God. I don’t even drink coffee? I could care less. It becomes impersonal and silly.
Christ is trying to talk not about his OWN atonement, but about the lack of charity and walking the walk going on at that time in the Jewish world. God doesn’t want these silly burnt offerings but rather contrition, charity, giving, sacrifice of time and of love for others, and for true love directed at HIM. Buying two doves at the market and cutting them in half, saying some Hebrew prayers and going home are not love in action. It’s empty and ritualistic.
Christ’s atonement satisfies the entire universe’s salvation and is the only REAL and valuable, substantive, timeless, and salvific sacrifice where all those previous ones were foreshadowing and eventually worthless signs of going through motions.
That is what my take is on Jesus’s words. Jesus isn’t saying his own sacrifice is like those empty ones of the Jews. Otherwise, why would he go through the cross for us?
Israel had gone from a sacrificial model in which someone like Abraham took his BEST sheep, unblemished, that would fetch him big $$$, and gave them back to God in a sign of his faith and thankfulness to God. Over time this became commercialized. Is Jesus criticizing sacrifice in general or globally or is “empty” sacrifice constantly condemned?
And remember that the moral imperatives of the Gospel are one part, the Good News about Christ dying and rising are the other. Jesus came here to preach and teach the moral truths of God. And one of those truths is that we should love our neighbors as ourselves. God does value that more than an empty sacrifice. But did that have anything to do with JESUS’S sacrifice? Of course not.
Be careful in the “innocent for the wicked” outlook. God is not being cruel in sacrificing Jesus for us. He is being loving. Jesus is being loving. It is pure love. If we oversimplify things to the piont that we think that it’s merciful to the wicked for the innocent to die and yet cruel to the innocent one, we’re oversimplifying the situation. “Greater love hath no man than to lay his life down for another.” That’s pretty clear that someone must be willing to lay it down. Jesus didn’t ask any of us to do this. He put it all on himself. And it was of his own volition, not demanded by anyone.
Looking at Isaiah and the “suffering servant” narratives, the references to Christ being “crushed” for our offenses, like a lamb led to the slaughter, by his stripes we are healed, very very sacrificial tones and context. Nothing about just overcoming death or opening the well springs of grace…it’s sacrifice and atonement.
Paul talks about nailing the Law to the Cross in the Passion. He talks about its legal claims being nailed away. This is about obedience to God in satisfying justice. And true justice by God’s universal justice is that we must die for our sinful nature and original sin. We should’ve died on the Cross, not Christ. Paul talks in this manner and at the same time mentions the “where oh death is thy sting?” kind of life-bringing language at the same time. Jesus accomplished a satisfaction of divine justice, opened the wellspring of grace, and conquered death. It’s really all of those things. But the sacrificial tenor of it all is plainly there IMO.
Just because Jesus wants us to live a more sincere moral life doesn’t mean he devalued sacrifice and atonment.
As time progressed, the Hebrews/Jews lost sight of this. They were actually going to the temple in Jerusalem and, outside in the market, buying a goat and sacrificing it. Why? To appease a ritual, feel righteous, go through the motions. It’s really empty?
It’s like me going and buying $200 in Starbucks coffee and then burning it for God. I don’t even drink coffee? I could care less. It becomes impersonal and silly.
Christ is trying to talk not about his OWN atonement, but about the lack of charity and walking the walk going on at that time in the Jewish world. God doesn’t want these silly burnt offerings but rather contrition, charity, giving, sacrifice of time and of love for others, and for true love directed at HIM. Buying two doves at the market and cutting them in half, saying some Hebrew prayers and going home are not love in action. It’s empty and ritualistic.
Christ’s atonement satisfies the entire universe’s salvation and is the only REAL and valuable, substantive, timeless, and salvific sacrifice where all those previous ones were foreshadowing and eventually worthless signs of going through motions.
That is what my take is on Jesus’s words. Jesus isn’t saying his own sacrifice is like those empty ones of the Jews. Otherwise, why would he go through the cross for us?
Israel had gone from a sacrificial model in which someone like Abraham took his BEST sheep, unblemished, that would fetch him big $$$, and gave them back to God in a sign of his faith and thankfulness to God. Over time this became commercialized. Is Jesus criticizing sacrifice in general or globally or is “empty” sacrifice constantly condemned?
And remember that the moral imperatives of the Gospel are one part, the Good News about Christ dying and rising are the other. Jesus came here to preach and teach the moral truths of God. And one of those truths is that we should love our neighbors as ourselves. God does value that more than an empty sacrifice. But did that have anything to do with JESUS’S sacrifice? Of course not.
Be careful in the “innocent for the wicked” outlook. God is not being cruel in sacrificing Jesus for us. He is being loving. Jesus is being loving. It is pure love. If we oversimplify things to the piont that we think that it’s merciful to the wicked for the innocent to die and yet cruel to the innocent one, we’re oversimplifying the situation. “Greater love hath no man than to lay his life down for another.” That’s pretty clear that someone must be willing to lay it down. Jesus didn’t ask any of us to do this. He put it all on himself. And it was of his own volition, not demanded by anyone.
Looking at Isaiah and the “suffering servant” narratives, the references to Christ being “crushed” for our offenses, like a lamb led to the slaughter, by his stripes we are healed, very very sacrificial tones and context. Nothing about just overcoming death or opening the well springs of grace…it’s sacrifice and atonement.
Paul talks about nailing the Law to the Cross in the Passion. He talks about its legal claims being nailed away. This is about obedience to God in satisfying justice. And true justice by God’s universal justice is that we must die for our sinful nature and original sin. We should’ve died on the Cross, not Christ. Paul talks in this manner and at the same time mentions the “where oh death is thy sting?” kind of life-bringing language at the same time. Jesus accomplished a satisfaction of divine justice, opened the wellspring of grace, and conquered death. It’s really all of those things. But the sacrificial tenor of it all is plainly there IMO.
Just because Jesus wants us to live a more sincere moral life doesn’t mean he devalued sacrifice and atonment.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Gurney,
Great post. I’ll answer tomorrow, when I have the energy to give my thoughts in a coherent way. Exhausted, tonight.
Anna
U
UniversalistGuy
Guest
I don’t think any of the theories are helpful. Wouldn’t passing over all of them and settling for not knowing how the Atonement works be the best way to go?
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I understand your sentiment but I think it IS important to understand the purpose of the Atonement, crucial in fact. I hear people in here frequently who think all Jesus accomplished with the Passion was overcoming death and opening up grace. If it is true that Christ was sacrificed, put in our place, to satisfy the justice of God that we deserve, that is a different paradigm than one in which Jesus just restores grace, isn’t it? In the end, all agree that Jesus saves us from hell. But one model is merely an opening up the wellspring of grace for humanity. In that model so much leans on us. So much is our response, so much is our works. It’s works-heavy IMO. The other model we see a substitutionary view in which Christ bore all the brunt of our sins and took the whips, spit, throrns, rejection, hate, and death that we deserve as sinners. In that model we are more connected by faith and a constant thanksgiving and indebtedness to His mercy. Our works are not as much the nucleus as faith is. I think these theories do matter. They are helpful IMO in understanding how we should interact with God? How we view what He did is huge to me. But it seems more people agree with you. Anna and I have been surprised how few folks have weighed in on this heavy issue in this forum? I think it points to either the fact many (like me until lately!) don’t understand how Christ saves them or don’t give it much thought. I think it’s worth discussing and I’m open to the various views on it. At this point my brain is wrapped around substitution and I’m not at all buying the Christus Victor view. I’d like to hear a really good apology and exposition in favor of that view. God bless.
I don’t think any of the theories are helpful. Wouldn’t passing over all of them and settling for not knowing how the Atonement works be the best way to go?
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Can you outline specifically what you find to be inadequate about it?
C
Contarini
Guest
If you read Athanasius, you will see that for him more than that is going on. Indeed, I would say that in Gregory more than that is going on. That’s why I’m careful about simply saying, “I believe in Christus Victor,” because “Christus Victor” has been turned into an “alternative theory” that is defined over against penal substitution. Athanasius has a lot of elements that sound like penal substitution, but there are key differences.
Well, “just restoring grace” is vague. What was “blocking” us from grace?
Both the patristic models I’ve cited agree that God’s justice is involved, but they interpret this differently. Athanasius says that God justly imposed death as a penalty as the result of sin. Jesus, who was fully human (and thus could serve as our representative) but also both sinless and fully divine, offered Himself on behalf of all, thus depriving death of any further legal claim over us. This goes along with his more strictly “Christus Victor” view that sin cuts us off from the life of God, and Jesus’ death destroys the power of death over us, restoring us to that life. For him they are two ways of saying the same thing, not two opposed “theories.” What is missing from Athanasius is Calvin’s idea that God imputed our sin to Jesus, and so that Jesus suffered the “wrath” of God, being treated as if He were a sinner. You may say that Athanasius’ view amounts to the same thing, but to me there is a significant difference.
Furthermore, there are two other theological concepts lurking behind Athanasius, though not made explicit. One of them is Irenaeus’s “recapitulation” idea, itself based on Paul’s “New Adam” language. Jesus sums up the human race in Himself, so that what He does is done on behalf of all. The other idea is the “ransom theory,” which Athanasius clearly doesn’t want to endorse explicitly, but which is explicitly found in Gregory.
According to Gregory, God’s justice is involved because God does not use sheer power against His creatures, even Satan. Satan had a right over us because of sin, and God is not going to march in and take us away from Satan by force. Instead, Jesus offered Himself as a sinless victim, as a “ransom” for us. But when Satan “swallowed” Jesus up, he found Jesus’ divinity concealed under the “fishhook” of His humanity.
You may have problems with this–many people do. I myself like it, but I’m not going to insist that it’s the right explanation. It’s present in Athanasius in a very muted form. Athanasius speaks of death having a right or a claim over us, almost as if death were a being in its own right. Go back to Origen, and you find him speaking of Satan and death synonymously. I think that’s what Athanasius is doing, implicitly.
So for my money Athanasius’s view sums up what is strongest in the various theories, rather than simply being one theory among others. I think we actually misrepresent it when we simply dub it the “Christus Victor theory.” Whatever is true in penal substitution is found in Athanasius. The other stuff–Anselmian satisfaction and Protestant imputation–is a corruption of the orthodox doctrine.
Certainly in the sense that the orthodox view rejects limited atonement and does not think that those for whom Jesus died will inevitably be saved. But the view I’m defending certainly does not say that Jesus just “opened up” the possibility for us to be saved. It says that Jesus saved the human race as a collective whole–that He changed the human condition by satisfying the claims of death over us and emptying death of its power. Death here means not just “ceasing to breathe” but every form of decay, corruption, sliding back into the nothingness from which we were created.
Where this is radically different from the Calvinist model (and perhaps even from the Augustinian model, though Augustine actually held to the “ransom theory” of the atonement itself) is that damnation is a choice to “opt out” of what Jesus has done for the human race as a whole. Instead of a “massa damnata” (which is arguably an essentially Manichean/Gnostic view, though Augustine’s champions reject this claim indignantly), we have a human race that has been redeemed, but whose members remain free to reject that redemption.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
No, because what we think about the Atonement is linked to our doctrine of salvation generally.I don’t think any of the theories are helpful. Wouldn’t passing over all of them and settling for not knowing how the Atonement works be the best way to go?
In the classic Protestant view (seen in its “purest” form in five-point Calvinism), the Atonement is Jesus suffering the punishment of sin on behalf of certain chosen individuals, who receive that salvation through faith. Salvation is about specific human beings escaping damnation, which is the just end to which human beings as a whole are headed. That affects everything else we believe about the Christian life.
In the orthodox view as found in Athanasius, the Atonement is Jesus suffering death on behalf of the whole human race, thus delivering us from the power of death (sin, corruption, Satan, hell, etc.) and restoring us to union with the life of God. Salvation is about the human race as a whole receiving that salvation and being restored to our proper role within God’s creative purposes.
Edwin
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Great posts!
I need to think about these for awhile.
Anna
I need to think about these for awhile.
Anna
U
UniversalistGuy
Guest
Yes it is. I don’t wish to be discourteous but doesn’t the thought strike you, as it does me, that to become entangled with “paradigms” is to get caught up in irrelevancies?UniversalistGuy;6869685:
I understand your sentiment but I think it IS important to understand the purpose of the Atonement, crucial in fact. I hear people in here frequently who think all Jesus accomplished with the Passion was overcoming death and opening up grace. If it is true that Christ was sacrificed, put in our place, to satisfy the justice of God that we deserve, that is a different paradigm than one in which Jesus just restores grace, isn’t it?I don’t think any of the theories are helpful. Wouldn’t passing over all of them and settling for not knowing how the Atonement works be the best way to go?
What’s wrong with being works–heavy? The more works that one performs, the greater the expression of faith, surely? Can’t have too many works, right?
.Then I guess it might be argued that the view is flawed in that it leads to a tendency to separate faith from works in people’s minds. How can faith be expressed if not by works?
I’m not amongst the “we” in this instance and so I stand apart. The theories about the Atonement are contradictory so, of course, they cause confusion. I don’t think the way to God is through debate and discussion but through prayer. Most Christians seemed to be content to accept the doctrine of the Trinity as beyond understanding. Why not place this question in the same category? Then you’ll be able to move on.
But my point is that nobody understands how Christ saves them. There are only a bunch of contradictory theories about it. So all one can do, really, is choose one of the theories (that would be an either/or approach) or pass over all of them and concentrate on the life application of Christianity, which even a child can understand (that would be a both/and approach).
God bless you, too.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Outstanding post, Edwin. I thoroughly enjoyed it and will read it again. Very helpful. As I said, you know FAR more about this than yours truly. I’m working through all this and find it key in my walk. I want to understand the Atonement as best I can. You obviously have put a lot of time and reading into this topic. Kudos. Well-done. I’d love it if you ever get time, as an intellectual challenge to yourself, could you defend the imputation model of Calvin with any Scripture and argue IN FAVOR of it? That would be fascinating.
By the way, I noted you said on another post that you’re working on a “disertation” right now. If you don’t mind me asking, are you working on a Phd in theology or…? Very impressive…thanks for the post.
By the way, I noted you said on another post that you’re working on a “disertation” right now. If you don’t mind me asking, are you working on a Phd in theology or…? Very impressive…thanks for the post.
C
Contarini
Guest
No, I wrote my dissertation some years ago (goodness–I defended it nearly five years ago–it seems longer!). I have been intending to send it off for publication for a while–there’s a Dutch Reformed scholar interested in publishing it–but I am disorganized and easily distracted by things like discussion forums
I don’t publish much (probably my 10,000 posts here are partly responsible
). I did just go over the proofs for some brief articles (I mean really brief–most 150 words; one 450 words) I wrote last summer for the forthcoming Westminster Handbook to the Theologies of the Reformation.At the evangelical college where I teach, we lost our systematic theologian and I had to teach systematic theology for a year. That really helped me clarify my ideas on this! Also, I have taught a class on early Christianity once, and on Eastern Christianity twice. This fall I’m teaching a class on medieval theology.
Edwin
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Hey, sorry it took me so long. I completely forgot about this thread. I have little time now (I’ll try and elaborate more later), but Western Theology has generally seemed to focus more on the Hellfire and damnation aspect of God’s love rather than God’s forgiveness. The idea of original sin being a “stain” on the soul, the rather bleak view of purgatory being “firey”, and the idea that Christ has died to atone for our sinful behavior. Eastern views, in contrast, have always seemed more optimistic-no concept of a “stain” of original sin, a view of of Purgatory as “The Final Theosis”, and the concept that Christ’s death was a victory over sin and death, rather than “payment” for our sinful behavior.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
While I agree that we may not fully understand how the Atonement works I think all of these theories are helpful. So while you choose E. None of the above I choose F. All of the aboveI don’t think any of the theories are helpful. Wouldn’t passing over all of them and settling for not knowing how the Atonement works be the best way to go?
None of these theories were spun up out of nothing, they all have support so as I see it none of them can just be discarded as “not being the Atonement”. Gurney made a point that in his opinion one view of the Atonement leads to reliance on works while another leads to reliance on faith, the faith vs works argument has never troubled me, similarly the Atonement debate hasn’t troubled me, I see the theories as all showing some aspect of the Atonement. My own Grand Unification Atonement Theory
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Gurney & Edwin,
This is a tough issue for me. I do reject the “limited atonement” view. I believe Jesus did change the “human condition.”
I can see elements of “penal substitution” and “Christus Victor” in the Scriptures. I’m still studying and haven’t fully formed an option. I seem to always be a “work in progress.”
I’ll continue to follow the thread, and appreciate all your comments.
Anna
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
There’s no rush to decide on anything, Anna. Like you, I am a work in progress. Honestly with the way I am put off by so much I’m hearing at church (Anglican) lately and with the nutty crud going on in the Communion, I’m fed up with Anglicanism. I’m equally fed up with Catholicism in my area and disagree with several key ideas within Catholicism. Some of my friends have told me, dump em both! Go Lutheran! LOL
- Status