In a recent Submissions thread, Rick F asked:
Chris L. – This post puzzles me.
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5708
Especially this statement:
“Any Emergents that deny the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (aka the True Biblical Gospel) will have to try to save themselves based solely on their good works, best of luck to them.”
I am no expert of the different views of the atonement, but do they really “try and save themselves SOLEY based on their good works”? Isn’t that a gross misrepresentation?
Here, Rick has hit the nail on the head with what is wrong with the armchair “discernment” “ministries” – as opposed to professional discernment ministries (like Reasons to Believe, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, The Christian Research Institute, Stand to Reason, etc.) – the dividing line between “discernment” and “gross misrepresentation” is sometimes hard to navigate, and when it is bungled it does great damage to the bride of Christ, as in the example cited.
With the post in question, not only is their conclusion wrong, but their initial definition of PENAL Substitutionary Atonement is wrong, as well:
penal substitutionary atonement, the teaching that Jesus Christ is our substitute and that through His death on the cross our sins and wickedness were atoned for and through faith we are given Christ’s righteousness.
Incorrect (definitionally) – What they have described is simply Substitutionary Atonement, leaving out the Penal aspect of PSA – the belief that God HAD TO punish someone for sin, so He chose Jesus instead of every other individual on earth. It is this particular clause within this systematic view, which has been existent for about 500 years, that many Christians disagree with.
A couple months ago, we published an article which lays out all of the major BIBLICAL views of atonement, including PSA. Each view of atonement holds that Jesus was a substitute – though where they differ is who Jesus was a substitute for and how this substitution fits narratively. PSA says that God HAD TO punish Jesus for the sins of each individual who He predetermined to be ‘elect’. Other views of atonement differ as to whether the atonement was for mankind or for individuals and whether it was a holistic victory over Satan or only over sin. Additionally, each theory differs somewhat on the mechanism of Jesus’ substitutionary atonement – was it a substitution for punishment? Was it a substitution for the dishonor done to God by man, satisfying the need to glorify God? Was it a substitute for the necessity for punishment?
So, when the writer of the quoted article says:
“Any Emergents that deny the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (aka the True Biblical Gospel) will have to try to save themselves based solely on their good works, best of luck to them.”
They are committing multiple logical fallacies for the purpose of creating division within the Body of Christ. First off, they haven’t even correctly identified PENAL Substitutionary Atonement. Secondly, by calling it the “‘True’ Biblical Gospel”, they are expressing a great deal of anti-Biblical arrogance, ignoring parts of scripture and placing their faith in systematic theology rather than God. Additionally, they are willfully blinding themselves to the possibility of their own man-made explanation of PSA being deficient as a holistic word-picture to describe atonement.
Finally, by somehow bringing in the notion that all non-PSA theories are based on faith in works, they are committing a fallacy of false dichotomy. All of the major atonement theories (Ransom Theory, Satisfaction Theory, PSA, Governmental Theory, Moral Influence Theory and Christus Victor) support that salvation is based on God’s grace, not good works.
So, to Rick’s question:
Isn’t that a gross misrepresentation?
The simple answer is “yes”, and it is an unbiblical one, as well…
243 Comments(+Add)
If anyone here rejects salvation by works it is Iggy. I mean he is almost militant about it, even strange sometimes, but no one could ever accuse him of works theology. And it is disigenuous to equate doing good works in Jesus’ name with earning one’s salvation.
I believe in the penal view, however, I cannot in good conscience accuse others of “works” theology. I may disagree with their perspective, but to say they are trusting “soley on their good works” throws any meaningful exchange into the round file.
BTW Chris – that German Shepherd puppy looks just like my German Shepherd (Rudy – Notre Dame) who is now 113 pounds and would eat that cat alive!!
ChrisL-
As always, well delivered.
Rick, when you say you believe in the penal view is that to say you think the other views are wrong or moot?
peace to you and Rudy.
I am not a good student of the other views, however I believe that some of the ones Chris mentioned are part of a larger view. But I believe the penal substitutional view is at the core of the cross.
I have yet to hear an emmergent suggest a works theology, in fact, some even expand grace to include unbelievers. So that was my point, the assertion about “soley relying on works” is obviously disigenuous and probably purposely misleading.
Chris,
The simple fact that so many theories have been ‘found’ in Scripture seems to lend weight to the fact there is not ‘one’ theory that satisfies the entire picture. Yet, what I have learned is that it is not enough to say ‘Jesus died for me’. Perhaps this is unfortunate.
On the other hand, it does seem rather arrogant for anyone to conclude that all those who have discovered other theories are somehow works righteousness type of folks. I think there is something to be said about the idea that perhaps what we need is a sort of blend where all the ideas come together: you know, a piece here, a piece there, and then when they are all overlapped we have a complete picture.
jerry
I found it ironic that someone in the”true” church denies their own doctrine… or the fullness of it…
Good post Chris.
iggy
I was so mad at this article… especially the “Purpose Driven Heavenly Rewards Calculator.” it basically shows Chris Rosebrough’s continuing ignorance towards anything and everything purpose driven. Does he really believe that Rick Warren preaches gospel that says if you do enough good things you will make it to heaven!?! geeeeze!
it’s equivalent to me making an assessment called the “Calvinist Regenerate Possibility Predictor.” It would have a series of questions… like “define transubstantiation and why it is evil”, “list every field of systematic theology you know, and define each”, “Do you know what TULIP stands for”, “are you willing to hate gays and democrats” and “are you willing to fight to the death over the reputation of calvin, luther, spurgeon, Ken Silva and occasionally Jesus”…
it’s that wrong and stereotypical.
Chris,
Just an update at the Wordle site.
oops… here is the link…
http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/97822/CRNinfo
Just so PB can see who is the center of this site…
igs
Nathan,
I got into it with him at extremetheology on that stupid calculator and finally just bowed out for good from that site. The ignorance there is baffling and rather than seeking truth they now have to make up stunts like that and wordles in order to further ridicule a fellow brother in Christ. How very sad.
Nathan,
the funny thing is that Chris Rosebrough’s theology is more RCC than Rick Warren… He is Lutheran… not much difference really… slight changes here and there, but they still teach baptismal regeneration…
iggy
I will never understand how one camp says Warren teaches a watered down gospel that doesn’t require works to substantiate it, and the other syas Warren teaches salvation by works.
And those two camps say they stand for the same truth.
Love is in the air.
Anyone who has ever read or studied even the basics of soteriology would see that the definition of Penal Substitution in the opening paragraph of “Good-O-Meter” is incorrect – i.e. what is described is, as Chris L. said, not PSA.
So I’m left wondering; does “The Editor” not know what the correct definition is, or does he know and intentionally misrepresent it so as to impugn others?
Neil
Have any of you read Scot McKnight’s book “A Community Called Atonement”?
I have it on my book shelf, but haven’t had a chance to delve into it yet.
I’m curious to hear from someone who read it.
Shalom
Nathanael-
It’s on my list as well. Should be a good read.
Chris, Chris L. and Phil, just read your article again. Well done. Thanks for your insights…very helpful.
This just reminds me of the six blind men and the elephant. They all held to their position of what an elephant was like based on the part they examined.
None of them checked things out from the other men’s perspectives.
The real heart of God is Jesus dying on the cross for the very people who put him there. That would be us.
The view that God had to punish somebody, and Jesus drew the short straw, has made many people have a good feeling about the Son, but then they want nothing to do with the Father. But everything you want to know about the Father, according to Scripture, can be found in the person of Jesus Christ.
Sandman-
Which part reminds you of the 6 blind men? The CRN article or the responses to it?
Chad –
A little bit of everything, and my comment wasn’t meant to be pejorative. Rick’s comment in #4 is what really clicked in for me.
When you read the story of the six blind men, they seem totally oblivious to their one common limitation. Same with us, the finite trying to determine the nature of the infinite and eternal.
You know Sandman you are right the bible is really fuzzy about the atonment and what it does. You limit God and His ablilites to communicate with His creation by those comments. You are saying that God is unable to clearly communicate to His people therefore everyone should just get a long. I know that is really simpilfied, but that it what that blind story always seems to boil down to. Basically we can not know, therefore everyone sing cum baya.
I really don’t see how a christian can deny or lessen PST and still think themselves a christian. I am not saying that the atonment is only PST but that is at the core of the atonment.
Also I loved that PD calculator I thought it was funny. You don’t think some of his critisism of PD are valid. Warren centeral message is changed lives not the gospel. When you focus on changing lives legalism can easliy slip in. That is why Paul always had to defend his theology of the gospel as not being antinomian.
Just my two cents.
Jesus certainly wasn’t interested in changed lives.
Great point, Kyle.
This is a trustworthy statement. Jesus came to give us purpose and change our lives.
What was Jesus central message and mission from birth to death and after that.
Kyle,
True, it’s much more important to believe exactly the right things (as defined by Calvin) – who cares if any lives are changed in the process…
Seriously, though, I can’t express how off-base you are on this:
First, you write:
But then you pretty much contradict yourself by saying:
Are you suggesting that Calvinism, and in this case, its doctrine of PENAL substitutionary atonement, is a revelation from God and we have to accept it as God’s direct communication? If the Bible is unclear, as you agree, on how the atonement works and what exactly it does, then is it not entirely possible that we can’t understand or don’t need to know that level of detail? If the Bible is unclear, that doesn’t mean that God is unable to communicate something – it just means that He decided not to for His own reasons.
Exactly wrong.
Did you read the overview article on the major six BIBLICAL views/theories of atonement. One of the first things we point out is that there is a need for “guardrails” – basic beliefs about what the Bible DOES teach about atonement.
This isn’t a kum-bay-ah, everything’s game kind of thing. It is saying “OK, here’s what the Bible DOES teach, and here’s what it is silent about… while we’re free to speculate and theorize what it is silent on, we need to be charitable in accepting views which keep within the guardrails but may disagree on the ‘fuzzy’ areas.”
Calvin invented PSA because he needed a way to 1) individualize atonement rather than have it be corporate; 2) fit predestination into the scheme; and 3) find a way to make the atonement only cover the predestined elect.
He stayed within the guardrails with PSA, but he still added a bit of speculation (which is where parallels to ‘cosmic child abuse’ become fair criticisms if PSA is held as exclusive).
So does that mean that Christians during the first 1500 years of the Christian era really shouldn’t consider themselves to be Christian?
What arrogance.
Kyle-
Is that a question? Are you suggesting that Jesus did not care about changing lives?
As for “central” that could mean a number of things. Let me ask you this: Is your life about one and only one thing? Is is possible that God, who is far more capable than you and I, could have a bigger “center” than you and I could ever imagine?
The forgiveness of sins changes lives in itself. That would seem to be a huge life changing event?
Yes Rick that is what I mean.
Changed lives is not the gospel but the fruit of it.
Am I wrong in saying that Go’d speaks with clarity and we can truly understand what he means.
So did Jesus and the apostles not believe in PS.
Sorry if I am arrogant I just think the bible is clear and we can rightly understand it.
Like I said PS is not the whole of the atonment but it is the central and message of the atonment. That Christ did for my sins, that he died for me. And if you do not beleive that then you are not a chrsitian. If that is untrue statement where am I going wrong?
I love the fact that when Paul is brought before King Agrippa he witnesses by recounting his own personal life changing experience without going into the Mosaic law, without telling Agrippa he was a sinner, and ultimately just lifting up Jesus and His gospel.
Paul needs more discipleship before he can accurately present the gospel and all its many, many, many, many, many facets and facts. According to some…
My own DRAMATIC conversion demonstrates that lifting up Jesus as Savior can surely be used by the Holy Spirit to draw sinners. My life was changed unbelievably and it wasn’t until later that I realized I hadn’t come to Christ in the orthodox way, not to mention I was saved listening Billy Graham.
Spiritual hubris is the core of unchristian behavior. If I ever hear John McArthur say he doesn’t quite understand a Bible verse I might faint.
You know Sandman you are right the bible is really fuzzy about the atonment and what it does.
This part was sarcasim. It think the bible is really clear on the atonment. Sorry if that was misunderstood.
Yes chagned lives is evidence of the gospel, but it is still not the gospel.
Here is a good question. What is the gospel?? What is the defintion of the gospel??
And by the way, Kyle, I also believe in the penal view as well. But I can see elements in some of the other views as well without compromising my own view. Ask a sinner who just got saved which view of the atonement he espouses and he will not understand what you are speaking about.
So even though the atonement is an important subject, believing a certain perspective is not essential to salvation.
I don’t think anyone is saying the Bible is “fuzzy” on atonement. I think the issue is that no one analogy or metaphor can fully demonstrate all that Christ accomplished on the cross.
Saying there is only one proper understanding is like saying there’s only one proper way to describe a sunset.
Mostly. Yes, we can affirm that God speaks with clarity. We cannot affirm, however, that we clearly understand what God means. If that was the case than there wouldn’t be any difference of opinion. It is not the same as you saying the fence is red. The fence is either red or it isn’t. There is no room for discussion. That is clear.
As soon as you begin to interpret what God has said or done you have moved beyond the realm of objectivity and are now influenced by your own subjectivity. As fallen creatures we will often get it wrong. But with the aid of the Holy Spirit we can hope to come to a better, fuller understanding as we rely on the Spirit’s guidance rather than our own. But even so, as Paul says, we see now through a glass dimly – i.e. we do not understand “truly.”
The gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ, God’s Son, died for our sins and resurrected from the dead and summons all men to believe on Him for eternal life.
I am not saying PS is the only part. I think there is a lot more to the atonment than just PS. Like the great song says,”Be of sin the double cure, saved from wrath and make me pure” there is a lot found in the atonment. But if you deny that Chrsit died for sins, became a curse for His people, than you are preaching a different gospel than that of Paul.
There are many ways to present the true gospel. I would suggest only two dangerous caveats.
1. Any human works.
2. Jesus is a way to enhance your earthly success.
I disagree. Kyle, did you read the article Chris and others wrote that they linked to in the OP? It has some good information. The apostles did not believe in PS. It didn’t exist until 500 years ago. In fact, as for any theory of atonement one might say they were at a loss. They scrambled to try to figure out why the Messiah had to die (something none of them expected). It was not until many years later that Christians began to try to wrap their minds around the mystery of the cross and what it accomplished.
To be sure, the first answers given had nothing to do with PS. Christ as Victorious was the central theme of the cross and resurrection. That is what you see predominating Christian thought for the first 1000 years. It is only as the Bible became more readily available and in languages of the common people that a more individualized concept of salvation began to take root. And with that, new theories began to develp – like PSA.
peace,
Chad
And hence the whole issue. I’ve not heard or read anyone actually deny that Christ died as a substitute of some kind – at least not anyone who usually gets accused of it.
I have seen and heard particularly bad explanations of the atonement, though. For example, I heard John Piper explain that Jesus was holding back God from destroying us all, as if the Father and Son were working against one another in some way. To me that is dangerous. There’s enough people who project onto God their own negative images of fathers that we don’t need to add to their issues.
Kyle –
ALL the other theories of atonement account for this. One could effectively deny that PSA is even viable and still hold to the above.
Phil –
for now on I will just defer to you
Chad – what the early fathers or apostles or Christians in general believed is not germaine to truth. It is interesting that the PS view grew when the Scriptures became more accessible.
Phil – God was providing a sacrifice for Himself by Himself. A mytery to be sure that can only be humanly explained in incomplete thoughts.
Maybe, maybe not. But don’t you think we should heed the wisdom that came from those closest to Jesus and the beginnings of The Way?
Paul says to hold fast to the message he and the saints have delivered to the churches. I have to believe that they did that. Like anything though, corruption and syncretism eventually occurs. With that in mind, I agree it is interesting that PS only came to light much later (1500 years later). As Augustine said, scriptures in the hands of untrained men[women] are a dangerous thing.
I agree with the sentiment of this, Rick. We don’t hold to tradition just because it’s tradition. I do think, however, that a lot of the early fathers had a better handle on what was going on in the Biblical text than the Reformers, as far as picking up cultural and rhetorical clues goes. Particularly, when you look at a book like Romans, for example.
Augustine limits the Holy Spirit and elevates “trained” men. The Scriptures illuminate truth, not what people believe about them. Sometimes “training” inhibits a person’s unbiased interpretation of Scripture.
So you guys really think Calvin was the first one to think of PS??
The oldest veiw of PS was from Anselm of Canterbury he lived from 1033-1109. Most people recognize that the early church never dealt directly with the atonment but had other issues of the day. Most of the comments from early fathers and pretty much sort and sweet, basically just quoting the bible on the issue becasue they where intrenched with issues like the diety of Christ and other pressing issues of the day. Most of the time the church does not historically deal with issues until some controversy comes up. Some of the early fathers held that Chrsit paid satan, just becasue it is old does not mean it is true. There where only a couple of early fathers that knew greek and hebrew and one of them was crazy in his theology, much learning doth make one mad. . It is kind of like a christian book store you have good stuff with bad stuff.
For the record, as it pertains to who believes what and how it affects my belief system – I only believe what I believe.
I dwell in pristine oneness.
Hi Kyle, regarding your comment to me in #21:
I got your $.02, or at least part of it.
Do you realize you didn’t ask me a single question in your comment?
I know how easy it is to go on a tear over things you may be passionate about, but I think you might be letting your perceptions take you to a wrong conclusion about me.
I submit to you that we should not be so stridently black & white about things on which the Bible isn’t stridently black & white.
Who was it who wrote about certain things “let everyone be convinced in his own mind…?”
Wrong. The only limits I recognize God having is that God cannot do anything that violates His nature.
Wrong. Notice the limitation is on the men and not the elephant? I pointed that out; it’s their foible. A couple of reasons we have false teachings in spite of God’s Word being clearly communicated (on the black & white issues at least): people parsing and proof-texting the Bible to make it say what they want, and a tendency to go beyond what is written. My God is a personal God, and has made Himself known to the world. That is not an invitation for me to presume to know the inner workings of God’s mind or anything that God has chosen to keep unrevealed. I’m in good company by saying those things are a mystery to me, I have what I need for salvation, so I’ll let God be God.
(Notice how I’m refuting your accusations while not accusing you of anything, Kyle?)
In context, I’m thinking you might mean oversimplified instead of really simplified, but with either term, why would you choose to mischaracterize my statement by simplification into what you think I mean instead of asking me directly for clarification? btw, Kumbaya.
Look again. Better yet, what part of the elephant are you examining?
I don’t have a problem with penal substitution, I just don’t believe in the Angry God of Wrath raging around in Heaven every day since the fall of man wanting nothing more than to destroy man except for Jesus’ pleadings to the Father not to. This was the part of the elephant I was introduced to about 30 years ago in a private school, two years after I became a Christian.
A persistent depression followed, because I couldn’t see being with God as being all that great if that was what God was really like. I got enough of that at home. I later learned about the other apsects of God that mediated the wrathful aspect.
As for the rest of your comment, I’ve stated in the past I’m not a real Rick Warren fan; since I didn’t mention him you must be speaking to someone other than myself.
with respect,
S
Disclaimer:
The folks at RFreuh.com regret any beliefs that correspond with what John Calvin believed. In the future, please consider them an accident of free will.
Kyle,
Anselm’s theory is generally referred to as Ransom Theory, and it was based on a analogy that had its roots in the medieval feudal system. It’s basically saying that Jesus paid the cost of our dishonor to God. It wasn’t God’s wrath that was satisfied, but the full honor due Him was restored.
It’s based on the medieval understanding that a king’s honor and reputation was rooted in the actions of his subjects. If they committed wrongs, the king would be held accountable. So in Anselm’s view, Jesus in a way took a penalty, but it wasn’t to mitigate wrath, but to restore God’s honor.
So when poeple are called children of wrath what does the bible mean. Or when it the bible says God is angry every day with sin. What does it mean. If God has no wrath towards evil there there is no need for PS.
Also did the Elephant send his spirit to enlighten reveal Himself. We have had the greatest revelation in these latter days, namely Christ. The Elephant just falls way sort, I do not see how it realtes to a personal God who wants his people to know Him. Why would could keeps us in the dark. If your view of God does not seems Him as anger everday, then perhaps do a study on wrath, anger, indignation ect…Becasue the bible is clear on the fact that God is righteous and hates sin and the people who commit sin.
Psalm 7:11
God is a righteous judge,and a God who feels indignation every day.
Phil-
Well said. Anselm’s view is also known as the Satisfaction Theory. Like you said, it satisfied God’s honor rightly due him. But Kyle, it is not the Penal Sub view as you know it today. That came much later.
Lots of tpyos sorry, ;(
Kyle, you clearly failed to grasp the metaphor.
Rick,
I agree that Augustine is not on target on much. However, given that scriptures were never written for just an individual person but for an audience to be read publically I give some him some lee-way here. The Holy Spirit certainly is the one that illumines scripture, not men, but the Holy Spirit is also part of a communal God-head. The church is a community of saints. Jesus said where 2 or 3 are gathered in his name there he is also – not, where one is hunkered down reading the bible by him/herself.
Do you really believe that we are “unbiased” even if untrained? Do you not think that a refugee in Rwanda will bring to scripture a very different lens to read through than a capitalist on Wall Street? I think we all have our bias.
Yep, universal bias. But perhaps not doctrinal bias?
Kyle – the wrath mentioned is a future event and not a grinding constant? God so loved the world and all that stuff. And in reality the mood of the Almighty is not really essential to anything, Jesus is the answer regardless what He feels now!
What you have just described is not unique to PSA.
What you have described here would be true of any atonement theory.
What you have described does not go into the level of detail that differentiates PENAL Substitutionary Atonement from other atonement theories.
Did you even read the linked article to understand what you’re arguing about between atonement theories?
Seriously?
That is an intriguing question. Makes me think of the recent rise of liberation theologies which I think can tie some of this talk on atonement together…
How might a person in exile or someone living through famine or drought or severe oppression read a passage like Luke 4? Do you think they might read it as hope in the midst of their present condition? What have we done with that same passage in America? We have reduced it to mere spirituality. The ones in “bondage” are those who are enslaved by sin and need a personal savior, for example.
Given our biases, we approach the doctrine of atonement differently. A person who is literally in bondage and feels the oppression of “Rome” will perhaps read more of a Christus Victor in scripture. Passages where God is reconciling all the world and making what is broken right and healing the sick and releasing the captives and destroying sin, death and evil will be good news for them! In Christ God has done something phenomenal and even though my present situation sucks I know that justice will be wrought. That can give great hope to a people in despair.
On the flip side is our Wall Street Christian. He or she has never known real oppression. He or she has never gone hungry, never been sick without aid, never watched their mother die of AIDS in front of them. They live in a world run by “ME” and dependency on others is seen as a weakness (unlike most other cultures). Such a person will no doubt gravitate to the passages which speak to individual forgiveness and the rescue of the soul one day from hell. Why not live well today while also guaranteeing a pretty nice eternity in heaven? Sounds like a good deal!
So yeah, I think there is doctrinal bias based on where we come from. I think it is inevitable in many cases – atonement being a prime example.
What do you think?
Going back to Sandman’s metaphor, Kyle –
The elephant does not cease to be an elephant – the problem is all on the part of the blind men. Until all of the blind men come together to describe their communal experience, they do not come close to an accurate picture of the elephant.
Actually, accessibility wasn’t the key issue – it was that it became an individualized entity for the first time, rather than a communal one. With this advent, you also have the systemization of the Age of Reason, which required everything to fit into a “system” or process.
So, with Scripture, where God was silent on the inner workings of certain things, man had to come up with explanations to make their “systems” work. Prior to this, allowing God to keep certain details to Himself was acceptable, because it fit with the overarching narrative of who He is.
So, really, there’s nothing that suggests that PSA is any more enlightened than the other biblical views of atonement (though it is interesting that you, of all folks, would want Calvin’s explanation that was developed specifically to fit his system of theology)…
Yes I read that link a while ago. We had a discussion on this topic, I think it was the one going for the longest sting of links. It was the one about What if you don’t have a good purpose. Also I try to read as much as possible. Stott’s book was excellent and covered everything in depth.
“all of the blind men come together to describe their communal experience”
But we do not get defition’s of truth and reality from communal experiences, we get them from obejective statement of truth. This is where we divirge greatly. I just don’t fit in with all the po-mo stuff.
Love does not trump wrath. Love is what makes the cross of Christ, so God could be both just and the justifier of the one who has faith.
Rick, what do you think of this.
Psalm 7:11
God is a righteous judge,and a God who feels indignation every day.
Chad I agree we must be careful not to let our context influence the bible. That is what happened with the 1st century Jews, they say the messiah as a phyical and earthyl liberator. The missed the suffering servant, this is why it must be Sola Scriptura.
Kyle, I know you didn’t ask me but I think it is a mistake to try to form doctrine from the Psalms. I would hate for anyone to hear some of my private prayers and try to draw objective truth from them.
So Psalm is less inspired becasue it is prayer and songs. That is the normal response I get here when I bring up any verse from Psalms. Paul did seem to mind to use it as obejective truth.
Kyle,
I am not sure what you are agreeing with me on because I could not disagree with you more on this point. Sola Scriptura is a farce for the simple fact that we can NOT divorce ourselves from our context and culture and bias. We ALL bring our subjective experience to the table. And this is perfectly FINE. The Bible is not meant to be worshipped or idolized. It is not some code book that if we can only distill it properly we can have all the answers. If this were the case we could just take the best systematic theology book and throw the Bible out.
Jesus did not come preaching the Bible he came proclaiming the gospel. The gospel is not static but dynamic – you might say that in this sense it is like God, who is Spirit. The Spirit LEADS us into truth, not freezes us in the past. One of the fascinating things about the LIVING word of God is that it has something to say to our ever-changing times. This is why the Messiah is BOTH an earthly and physical liberator (as seen in the 1st century) and ALSO the forgiver of our individual sins and savior of our souls (as he came to be seen much later).
If we do not bring our collective experiences to the table than what good is the gospel? If it does not address me here, today, in my own context and in my own circumstances than it is not good news but yesterday’s news – and therefore pretty much worthless.
peace,
Chad
That would depend on what you mean by “inspiration.” My guess is that you and I hold different views of inspiration.
But if what Chris L and the others are saying about Calvin and PSA are true, Wouldn’t that mean you’re accepting the viewpoint of a man who adopted and held very narrow views to suit his doctrine? Or was Calvin the first man to figure it all out and the rest of us non-Calvinists probably aren’t really Christians?
The question bears repeating: What did all those early Christians do before Calvin?
Sandman,
Are you a Metallica fan?
They were either RCC or Eastern Orthodox… so were all doomed to hell… ask Ken Silva!
iggy
Chris L. – perhaps you missed comment #49!
Kyle – Any Old Testament verse must be understood through New Testament Scriptures. I reiterate, if God is unbelievable, completely, uncontrollably, fiercely, angry and fomenting at the mouth every second, so what?
Jesus – the answer to it all.
For being soooo ANGRY Jesus sure made friends with those He was angry with. He seemed more angry at the preachers than he was at the adulterers and Miley Cyrus’s of His day.
And to EVERYONE – as long as we see Christ as the Atonement for our sins without any human works, do the particulars really matter?
If one wants to know what the Father is like… look at Jesus… and Jesus was so hateful… not!
iggy
only to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, Rick
It’s like being convicted of murder, and when you receive a document issuing a full and free pardon for both that murder and any future crimes, and we argue over the font.
It’s really bizarre to see someone arguing passionately for Sola Scriptura at the same time they’re arguing passionately for an extra-biblical doctrine, formed from “revelation” 1500 years after the last book of the Bible was written…
Wow – someone might want to inform God of this…
The Penal Substitutionary view
By: Isaiah, through the inspiration of the holy Spirit
800 BC
Isaiah 53
1 Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
10Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.
Christus Victor By Isaiah 850 BC
Hmmm… thanks for making the point for us… great verses.
iggy
PB,
No one denies that PSA is true.. but there is a fuller view than “just” PSA…
This is what so many in your camp deny… that Jesus was the suffering King/servant. He was both the Lion and the Lamb….
By denying much of the other view, you deny much of scripture. In fact the post in question denied PSA.. go there and correct him…!
Sola Scritpura!
iggy
You obviously don’t get what I’m saying.
Using the guardrail metaphor – the guardrails ARE the objective statement of truth contained within the Bible.
However, the idea that God HAD TO punish someone for sin, so he killed Jesus is not an explicit statement of scripture – nor is it supported by the holistic record of scripture. Rather, it can be supported by some proof-texts, while it is not supported by others (which conveniently get ignored when it is treated as the only viable explanation).
So – viewing the multiple aspects of what Scripture does say about atonement and accepting the entire truth of scripture – even when none of our man-made theories fits (including PSA) all of the descriptions in scripture – is not “po mo” or “kum-bay-ah”. Yeah – you don’t get an “objective truth statement” – BECAUSE GOD DIDN’T THINK WE NEEDED ONE OR ELSE HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN IT TO US!
The problem (OK, a problem) with systematic theology occurs when we mistake the System for Scripture – which is exactly what you’re doing when you elevate PSA beyond anything BUT a theory…
No one takes my life from me but I lay it down.
As did Isaac, and Hebrews tells us that Abraham was willing in part because he saw the possibility of a resurrection. It fits all too coincidentally.
Chris – it is obvious that God required the slaying of animals as an atonement. And Hebrews connects that with the last slaying for sins, God’s Son. How can you say that it isn’t clear in Scripture that Christ’s death was a sacrificial requirement for the forgiveness of sins forever?
The entire economy of the law was pointing to Christ and His blood. It was required in the Mosaic law given by God, and even when Christ asked the cup to pass He said He was submitted to the Father’s will. Christ had to die as the requirement and substitutional payment for the sins of mankind. This wasn’t man’s idea, this was the will of the Father as He gave His only begotten Son.
The Father oversaw the entire narrative, including, in Jesus’ words, giving Pilate the power to have Christ crucified.
From the NT:
PB – there are multiple verses that support multiple views of HOW substitutionary atonement works.
THAT IT WORKS is not a question – just the exact mechanism is at issue, and is not fully explained in Scripture.
To take a small set of verses and insist that they comprise the whole of an explanation of atonement is ignorant and foolish, indeed.
PB, Kyle, et.al.
I don’t understand the hang up here. No one has denied PSA. All of us agree that Jesus gave his life as a substitute for us – that by his blood we are saved.
Please realize that this was not the focus of the early christians nor is it the thrust of scripture in total. The earliest Christians came to the amazing conclusion that in Jesus Christ God was redeeming and renewing ALL OF CREATION. It is only in the scope of this totality that they then began to see themselves as individuals benefitting from this sweeping plan of redemption. Christus Victor, for instance, starts BIG – it sees the whole scope of God’s saving action for the world. PSA starts SMALL – it begins with the individual. For the first many centuries of the church, however, the culture was not founded on individualism but on community. Thus, views of atonement are going to be grander in scope. It is icing on the cake that we too, as individuals, get to be swept up in this great plan of God’s.
Did He require it for Himself (was it part of the laws which govern God – that He was incapable of forgiving sin without shedding blood) or did He require it for man (because man required some sort of action to “feel” at peace with God) or was it somewhere in the middle?
We have indications of both:
vs.
vs.
These verses (and others) would say that the penal view is not complete.
It is not clear in Scripture that Christ’s death was a PUNISHMENT for individual sins. In some cases, it is described as a ransom – which is different than a punishment. You also have the word “all” that gets sprinkled in to Scripture but denied in some flavors of PSA…
1) I think we all agree it was substitutional and that it was as a result of sin. That’s not being argued
2) It is whether it was as punishment, or as ransom, or as a restoration of God’s honor or [...] that is at issue.
3) Your own definition was a denial of the strict definition of PSA because you said “sins of mankind” – PSA teaches that it was only atonement for individual sins of the elect – not those of mankind.
“However, the idea that God HAD TO punish someone for sin, so he killed Jesus is not an explicit statement of scripture ”
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.
God gave his only Son as the final sacrifice for sins. Jesus said I MUST go to Jerusalem and die. “But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be”.
Jesus Himself quoted His Father saying to the disciples, “I will smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered.” Who said he will smite? The Father.
next chapter:
Actually, I would note that you are giving a partial proof-text of this verse. The full verse is:
So here, we are referring to the law, which Paul is contrasting in Hebrews to its fulfillment in Christ.
“or did He require it for man (because man required some sort of action to “feel” at peace with God)?”
Wow. Are you suggesting that God gave His Son so that man could “feel” at peace with God and not an actual sacrifce for sins that atoned for sins, even before creation istelf? God was massaging the feelings of man? Scripture never hints at that and in fact it says the law pointed us to Christ as the final sacrifice, not the first because the rest were just windowdressing and not actual atonements toward God.
God even killed men who handled the ark improperly so He didn’t just consider it some psycological tool.
Rick,
I think we would agree that man was made for God.
However, was the Law made for man or man made for the Law?
I really think your suggestion that the sacrificing of animals and the sprinkling of their blood was some perfunctory excercize designed to help sinners feel at peace with God was unwise and perhaps you meant something else?
When I see the blood I will pass over you. The death angel saw it as more than feelings help.
No, I am suggesting, from Scripture, that the answer is somewhere between the poles…
Rick,
If I may, I think Chris is attempting to properly hold in tension the need for sacrifice in the OT as part of the Law and how unnecessary it was in God’s sight – for instance, where God says that he could have 1000 bulls on the hilltops if he so desired, what is your sacrifice to me?
Is that fair to say, Chris?
There was a spicific reason that God killed those men Rick, David sinned and they paid for it. It was more than just mishandling the ark.
Also there is a psychological aspect to salvation… the renewing of the mind…
Peter also states it this way.
Knowing that the blood of Jesus was sufficient, give us a new mind and view of God… apart from the fear of the threat of condemning judgement.
iggy
“However, was the Law made for man or man made for the Law?”
The law was made for man to understand the holiness of God, the unrighteosness of sin, and the redemption of God through the blood of Christ. Even the hHigh Priest had to sacrifice for his own sins and if he had to do it with blood.
This is why it is sometimes dangerous to study pagan religions and find similarities between them and Christianity. God requires blood for forgiveness of sins regardless of how man feels about it.
Not perfunctory, at all. Defining what sacrifices would bring peace with God was to put a limit on the sacrifice (which people were already doing to all of their gods) and to guarantee that peace existed. The sacrifices, in and of themselves, did not eliminate sin, if we read Hebrews (and Psalms and Leviticus).
However, it is rather clear from both OT and NT scripture that the shed blood was a reminder of sins and the promise to forgive them – not a means of forgiveness, itself. Forgiveness is by grace, not by bloodshed.
Exactly, Chad…
Chad – God’s comment about the bulls had to do with the people’s heart, not implying he didn’t require a blood sacrifice.
You might want to tell the writer of Hebrews (traditionally, Paul) that, as he would disagree…
Rick, about half of what you’re saying is not explicitly contained in scripture, but is a systematic view that has been developed within your own tradition…
Were you completely unchurched and stranded on a desert island with just a Bible, you would never come up with a fraction of the systematic theology that exists (nor PSA)…
Grace is only through bloodshed – at Calvary. To minimize and marginalize the shedding of Christ’s blood is very serious business, and it suggests that grace is something seperate from the blood of the Lamb. It seems like intellectual parsing to me and unproductive musings at best.
At worst something else. I am as you can tell very surprised by these comments.
“Were you completely unchurched and stranded on a desert island with just a Bible, you would never come up with a fraction of the systematic theology that exists (nor PSA)…”
You may be correct, but I certainly would believe the Bible teaches redemption through the shedding of blood. Completely, and your interpretation of Paul is just that. Paul was a total blood man and that red strain is unbroken throughout Scripture. No one can teach that the forgiveness of sins can come without blood, and most specifically Christ’s blood, and claim Biblical authority. It is the bedrock of Christianity.
That’s not how the scripture reads:
Even here, God is indicating that He has no need of sacrifice and blood, but that the sacrifices are to fulfill our vows to Him (i.e. for us, not for Him)…
I am not minimizing it or marginalizing it – I am saying that to view is as transferral of punishment is an incomplete view, and that to make it individual instead of corporate is ignoring scripture.
I would agree almost 100% (though I would say Christ is the bedrock, not his blood).
What I am disagreeing with is that blood is required as punishment.
They were using God’s sacrifices for their own purposes. Like indulgences. You contend that much of what I believe has been gleaned from writings and not the Scriptures, and yet you have obviously read extensively from extra-biblical writings and perspectives to arrive at your theology. Much more than have I.
BTW – when I was aved I did not own a Bible, I had never heard the word saved, I could not quote a single Scripture, and I had never set foot in an evangelical church. I was a clean slate only not stranded on an island.
And I strive, many times self righteously I admit, to not be influenced or even care what others teach or think. I rarely quote anything but the Scriptures, and when I do read Christian literature it usually is devotional. McArthur, Bell, Graham, Wesley, etc., etc., mean nothing to mean as it pertains to what I believe.
I know I speak as a fool but I am being honest. I may not and surely am not correct in everything, but I attempt to rely soley on my understanding of Scripture.
My only mentor is
Iggy
God.
Iggy should have a line through it. A joke lost in my infantile usage of the internet.
This is getting into the whole area of whether or not the cross was an act of violence from God or an by God. The PSA view makes God the Father the one committing a violent act against the Son, thereby kind of presenting violence as an act of redemption.
I think of the Cross as an act of violence done to God – it was God absorbing all the sins of the world, taking all the hate, injustice upon Himself, knowing that was the only way true peace would arrive. If God truly demanded some sort of recompense or paymeny, He really wouldn’t be that different from the pagan gods. No, Yahweh doesn’t demand payment, He offers himself as the payment.
In a way, you can see hints of this in what Jesus says about not returning evil for evil. In the OT, the Mosaic law said, “an eye for eye” to limit unending payback. In the NT, Jesus says we are to absorb violence – not pay it back.
My point is that there are underlying things in these theories that can play out in ways you don’t think of right away. In a lot of ways it gets down to how we view the very character and nature of God.
To be a bit more specific – the extension you’re making here – is that God has a rule that governs Him which says “I cannot forgive someone unless I have blood spilled in return”.
I would argue that this is a rule that we have only recently placed upon God.
If you look at the ransom view, it says that Satan had claim over mankind, because of its sin, and that God paid Jesus as a ransom for that sin. In this view, Satan, in his hubris, did not realize that Jesus did not have to die, since he was sinless. It was this view (and some permutations) which was handed down to the early church by tradition, and held for the first 1000 years of the church.
Some would argue that this view placed Satan above God. But others would point out that God gave Satan a role as ‘accuser’ (which his name means), and that Satan’s accusation could not be refuted because God is just (meaning that Satan had no leverage over God, but that God had given His word and was abiding by it).
This view is also supported by scripture (and by the sacrificial system), but does not require blood as punishment for sin – rather it is a reminder of sin (as the writer of Hebrews and other writers indicate) and God’s promise to provide forgiveness for it. So, when Jesus died, God fulfilled his promise by providing the ransom to meet the wages of sin.
Nowhere in it is the concept of punishment…
Phil – Jesus Himself said the Father gave Pilate the power, and even if you dismiss the direct involvement of God he was at least complicit by His allowing it. Would I stand by while my son was being murdered and I could have prevented it?
God was directly involved in the entire gospel narrative.
Rick – we are all products of a combination of scripture and extra-biblical writings. Some just more honestly than others. If what you have been taught of systematic theology was developed 150 years ago (think eschatology) or 500 years ago (think PSA), then it is no less a combination of extra-biblical systems formulated 150-500 years ago than someone reading accounts of the first century church to understand what the ’systems’ were that we in place in the early church…
It is just that one admits that only what is in the Bible is sure and that the ’systems’ that tie it together may be fallible, while the other thinks its systems are part of Scripture…
I continue to submit what the early or later or intermediate church believed is irrelevant. It cannot be a proof of anything except their beliefs.
The wages of sin is death. The soul that sins shall die. We were not saved by anything but the shed blood of Christ which demonstrated in the Lord’s Supper is for the remission of sin.
The suggestion God is a cosmic murderer is placing man’s perspective of the infinite God. His ways are above ours.
Rick,
Well, yeah, in some sense God gave Pilate power. He created everyone with the freedom to choose both good and evil.
I don’t believe the Pilate was predestined to be involved in the death of Christ. I believe he still had the ability to choose, and if he had chosen differently, someone would have taken his place.
Systems is your word that seems to define arriving at a view. All views of the atonement must have the blood sacrifice at their core. If God could extend saving grace to men without the cross then what was His masochismic purpose in Christ’s sufferings and bleeding?
Paul says God purchased us with HIS OWN blood, so in a mystery, it was God Himself on that cross, not God punishing someone else.
I don’t know of any atonement theories that don’t have Jesus death, burial and resurrection included in them (though PSA is actually pretty skimpy at explaining the resurrection).
BtW – had you decided to lock onto Ransom Theory (or CV or any other view), for instance, as the only viable theory, I would have been just as adamantly opposed.
Man, just when I thought I had a disciple…
better luck next time I guess.
iggy
Athanasius answered this question nearly 1800 years ago. It is not so much the “blood” that must be shed but it is a death that must transpire.
I wrote a paper on Athanasius’ On the Incarnation for Duke that I think answers this question well (Athanasius does, at least), which ties in a view of the Ransom Theory of atonement. For those who have never read that work or would like to see how Athanasius answered the question of why God had to become flesh and why he had to die you can read my article On the Incarnation.
As it is one of my favorite books of all time I would love to hear anyone’s thoughts on it. Does his answer satisfy?
peace,
Chad
“Does his answer satisfy?”
No, and to be honest this conversation has become distressing for me since I consider the blood sacrifice for redemption as doctrinally primal and non-negotiable. I had no idea that so many intricate parsings existed as it pertains to the blood of Christ and God’s requirement for atonement and redemption.
And this statement:
seems to echo some things spoken by Brian MacLaren. And it also seems to reveal a surety about being unsure about some doctrinal issues we should be sure about.
I cannot be comfortable with any suggestion that God did not require the blood of His Son as the only means of redemption by grace. I now realize there are many different and confusing views that draw from other professing theologians and even some pagan belief systems. I reject them all.
Sorry.
Rick,
No need to be sorry. Just so you understand that what you are rejecting is thousands of years of thoughtful reflection on this topic not by pagans but by serious Christians, many of whom gave their life for Christ.
Did you read the article I wrote? If so, what exactly do you find so intolerable? Athanasius is not some loon. He has some good things to say, I think.
One last question: What is so scary about the prospect that God does not require bloodshed as the only means of redemption?
grace and peace,
Chad
Again, I do not care what anyone teaches or believes. No one – no one.
The scary part for me is that the Scriptures are an unbroken thread that openly reveals blood as God’s required sacrifice for redemption. So for people to invent other theories that tamper with this core is scary, among other things.
It is important to me and my understanding of Christianity.
Rick, come on. I don’t believe this for a second (even if you do). You can’t possibly mean this. If you really did you would not be here, for one. If you truly do not care what anyone teaches or believes why be engaged in dialog of this sort? Also, by in reading your blog I find you very insightful, well read and extremely poetic and articulate in relating ideas and beliefs you are obviously passionate about. I am sure many others besides myself are edified by your “teachings” and the way you share your beliefs and I have no doubt that you, like me, would pray that be the case (or else, why bother writing anything at all?) Surely you don’t write, talk, interact with others with the hope that they might be edified by the Spirit working in and through you while at the same time maintaining you are impervious to being edified or taught by anyone besides yourself, do you?
I care much about what others who are far more wiser than I have to say about the things of God. I care about what even you have to say, Rick. I hope I am always learning and growing. I certainly don’t want to depend on my own viewpoint – how myopic would that be??! The truth is, we stand on the shoulders of the many saints who have come and gone before us. It is ironic that someone who cares nothing about what someone else teaches or thinks is so adament to defend a theory of atonement that was thought up by a man, and one whom you disagree with on almost every other point!
Show me what I’m missing here, Rick. You seem to smart to really be serious about not caring about what anyone besides yourself thinks.
peace,
Chad
Chad, there are some songs by Metallica I like, but Sandman is a reference to my last name.
Rick – every theory, by definition, is invented to explain what has not been explicitly laid out. I have to say, though, that I am perplexed that you would say “for people to invent other theories” when the theory you espouse is the newest one on the block – which means that it was invented after the others.
Granted you may write off the first 1500 years of Christianity, but if such an understanding as PSA was so “core” to the Gospel, I wonder why Paul would have left it deficient and that his and the disciples’ followers would not have thought it important enough to flesh out as key to theology. You might argue that they already understood it as part of the Jewish culture, but then you would have to accept that even in Jewish theology, it was not the blood that brought forgiveness – it was a symbolic reminder of the promise made by God to man, to forgive and to redeem.
I would also point out that you’ve given quite a strange exegesis of Psalm 50, since this particular Psalm is the basis for Jesus’ story of the sheep and the goats and since the section you dismiss a judgment against the hearts of men is actually one that is positive toward his people. It is things like this – ignoring basic biblical exegesis in favor of eisegesis to support a foregone extrabiblical conclusion – which continue to hammer the point to me that Scripture is the ultimate source of truth and that too many Christians don’t even know when they’re adding to scripture with their own traditional systems, and that I must be careful not to do the same – that I must hold on tightly to what the whole of Scripture says, while holding loosely onto theories and systems which tie together the mysteries God has not fully revealed.
There are many things within Scripture which are sure – that Jesus lived, that he taught, that he died on a cross and was buried and rose on the third day, and that in so doing, He saved all of mankind who would come to his call (whether by predestination or free will). These, I would say, all of us in this discussion agree on.
There are also those things within Scripture – things likely not to be asked by those who lived in that time, or things not answered in that time – which are less clear: the scientific mechanism of atonement, the scientific mechanism of creation, the exact nature of the end of the world, to name a few. These things have underpinnings in Scripture, but their exact nature is not fully spelled out, so man creates explanations to tie them all together. In doing so, man must remember which parts he created and which parts God created and to offer each other charity in differences on what was created by man.
In the matter at hand, the idea of Jesus’ death as transferred punishment is a very new idea, only held within the past 500 years, and created to fit within a system you don’t even accept! If anything is an “other theory” or a “new theory” it is PENAL substitution. While it does explain some things, it is quite deficient in others…
Rick, Chad does have a point.
You’re saying you don’t care what anyone thinks, you’d have no reason to say anything pro or con. You’d be silently satisfied with your own perspective and writing things that may influence how someone may think on a matter.
For the record, I care about what you think.
S
Not meaning to speak for Rick, but I think I understand what he means. I don’t really care what others think as far as doctrines. Meaning I think most people if left to the Holy Spirit will be just fine.
Often it is when we listen to others is when we get mixed up.
Now, I read, listen, and talk to others not to change them… but to sharpen my own understanding.
I know, I know… I am also confrontative at times, yet that is mostly against the attitude that some have… not their doctrine.
To me, Olsten, Hagee, Copeland and the Kansas City Profits, will keep doing what they are doing… why, it is their gig…, and they believe it. I just hope that some will come to know Jesus as the person he is… to know and listen to the Holy Spirit… to gain understanding by His leading…
I confront the injustice of the ODM’s as their teaching has lead many into bondage of fear and deceive them into thinking they are on some higher level of Grace… that they seem to teach that if you are not like them, you are lesser. I see the error that many promote giving fruit not of God. Their actions and words drive people away.
I see that these are like the Pharisees… more proud of their position and title that they are absorbed my selfish ambition.
We are all susceptible… and with the “thing” that has transpired over the last week or so, I see that many of them do not care about their doctrines… they only care they are right… and they will even do what they accuse others of doing just to get the satisfaction of condemning and judging the other person.
If this is their fruit of their belief and doctrine, then I am all for leaving them to their deception.
We all have our weaknesses… and I guess mine is that I just cannot stand to see someone abuse others and misuse Jesus to do so.
iggy
Two things and then I’m off to bed.
Two letters in Revelation (Pergamum and Thyatira) should serve as a warning against compromising the truth, and letting tolerance go to seed. I think the letters can be to the churches and at a personal level, so I can understand being vigilant and discerning from that perspective.
On the other hand, I look at Apollos, who thought he had the “truth as he saw it” until Priscilla and Aquila taught him more completely. Good thing Apollos listened and cared what others thought. It’s not always a bad thing.
About the Apollos issue. A good point, Sands, and an opportunity to place that kind of teaching along side of what I am saying. If I am Apollos, I listen to Aquila but I must see it and be completely onvinced on my own.
After I espouse in part of as a whole or even a broader truth that Aquila shared, it becomes my truth before God. That means even if A and P drift and change it does not affect me, or even if they will always believe what they shared it does not affect men. I need not quote them because I have hopefully become convinced by Scripture which is always a more substantive quote.
But their opinion or interpretation carries no greater weight since they also could be wrong. People may get me to search the Scriptures, but I violently attempt to be unmoved by their opinion until I see it by revelation personally. We are all susceptable to outside influence and must be vigilant regardless of how we feel about the person and their dedication to Christ.
As far as dedication to Christ is concerned, I am ofetn influenced and moved by other’s disclipleship. The Moravians, John Wesley, David Livingston, William Carey, Charles Finney, Jim Elliot, Corey Ten Boom, Joni Erickson Tada, and scores of others have moved me and compelled me to envy as it concerns my dedication and surrender to my Lord. In that I am always wanting and desiring Christ to use their example to exhort and convict me.
But I try not to equate doctrine with dedication since all the ones I mentioned differ in many areas. In fact someone like Finney became a heretic but he was used mightily of God. I am moved by Shane Clairborne but have great reservations about his doctrine. That is the difference.
But the blood issue cannot be compromised. From the slaying of animals by God for Adam to the command to circumcise to the blood on the doorposts to the bloody commands in Moses law, it is clear God required blood sacrifice. Without outside influence you can see it ever so clearly in Scripture and when Jesus is first identified by John as the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, it is more than an inference. A Jew would immediately know what is meant by the Lamb and at Calvary it would become clear by the Holy Spirit that Jesus was the Passover Lamb whose blood was shed to defeat death just as the blood of the earthly lamb had done in Egypt. And there are many Scriptural tie ins and metaphors and types that make this teaching central.
So all the parsings and references to what others believed and pagan rituals and all other “for instances” are nothing to me. When I read the Scriptures God’s demand for a sacrifice WITH blood is clear. I cannot fully explain why, but I do not need to. I will learn all of it someday, but until then the gift of faith will suffice. And when I enter the celestial city, my robe will be white – made white – by the blood of the Lamb. My intellect is not able to soar to any greater height than that.
“”Unless I shall be convinced by the testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear reason … I neither can nor will make any retraction, since it is neither safe nor honourable to act against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. May God help me. Amen”
Rick Frueh circa A.D. 2008
* The great and swelling orchestral arrangement is added for effect. The thunder roaring in the background and the amber lighting adds to the melodramatic ambiance of this moment, and the close up shots of my sweating face enhances the depth of my committment and the sincerity of my heart. Other than that, it’s just a comment on an obscure blog!
John – Amen.
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguilded Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”
God demands a blood sacrifice. He gets to set the standard, and no one gets through the veil without the blood of Jesus Christ. Grace came only through the bloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Of course there are many references to one man’s death and sacrifice and other words that all reference the cross and the blood that was shed. That doesn’t make God a tyrant that demands a bloody death, it makes God – GOD – who not only demands a bloody death, but provides it to Himself by Himself.
You’ve still not given anything which says that Jesus’ death was punishment, which is the core of penal substitutionary atonement.
The Jews did not believe that their sacrifices were being punished in lieu of themselves.
Christians for the first 1500 years of the church did not believe that Jesus was being punished in lieu of themselves.
That he had to die was not a questioned. WHY he had to die – was it as a ransom? was it as punishment? etc, etc, is the disagreement.
But you keep conflating it with other things – things that apparently were compromised by Jesus’ disciples and every Christian during the first 1500 years of the church.
Praise be that Calvin finally got it all right for us! (note – this is sarcasm)
Why?
This is not a “why” of doubt – it is a “why” of explanation. The scripture contains many potential answers to the question ‘why’, but no definitive “here is why – and it is not contradicted anywhere else in scripture”.
This is according to the Law. Now, let’s contrast this with Heb 10 -
John & Rick – when you ONLY quote Heb 9:22 you are only telling half of the truth, which is completed in Heb 10.
The different atonement theories try to answer WHY blood was required – not whether or not it was required. By claiming it had to be because God had to punish someone – and for no other reason – you have now left Scripture and elevated the traditions of men to the Word of God. This is what those who claim exclusivity of PSA are doing.
It is your choice whether or not to join the same twisted chorus…
Who cares what the Psalms say.
Who cares what Leviticus says.
Who cares what Hebrews says.
Who cares what Jesus, his disciples and Paul said that might contradict this.
Calvin got it all right where they were wrong – or we just need to twist their words to fit Calvin’s system that correctly interpreted what Christians during the first 1500 years of the church (who apparently weren’t really Christian since they didn’t believe PSA) totally missed.
Chris L.
With all your brilliant exegesis of the passages above, you also miss the point. The blood of the goats, the scapegoat were shadows of the lamb of God which took away the sin of the world. The blood was required for substitution for our blood. But blood was not enough; it required death. Not if that is not a penalty, I do not know what is.
Iggy earlier blew Psalm 53 off, where it repeadedly says words like crush, pierce, and then an amazing line: It pleased God. Why? The due penalty for sins had been paid, sins power had been broken.
The wages of sin is death- and Christ died, paying the price. He who knew no sin became sin so that we might become the righteousness of God. In doing so, he had victory over death and the grave. Why is that so hard to see?
I can see why people say God demanded blood sacrifice. It does seem there are places where God commands it, but, like Chris L. said, the question becomes one of why. I think a good case can be made that God gave provisions for the Jews that actually limited the amount of blood spilled.
Don’t forget that the Israelites were surrounded by people who regularly sacrificied their children to pagan deities. It seems God is stepping in and attempting to meet the Jewish people where they were to some extent. He was limiting the amount of bloodshed.
Ultimately, to limit violence and bloodshed, God took it all upon Himself at the cross. So, if God demanded bloodshed, it was to point to the fact the only way the circle of violence could be broken was by God offering Himself as the sacrifice. The cross wasn’t a justification of the sacrificial system, but rather it demonstrated the futility of it.
Pastorboy,
Did you miss completely Chris L’s statement:
Do you actually read the people you plan to misrepresent and slander? Or is your course of action such a foregone conclusion you skip all that troublesome reading and research to go straight to condemnation?
You got it, Bo and Phil –
That Jesus had to die in order for us to be saved is not being questioned when the exclusivity of PSA is questioned.
PSA is simply one person’s answer to the question “Why?” that too many since have taken as Gospel. It certainly contains truth, but it is not Truth – the same way that an apple is a fruit, but a fruit is not necessarily an apple.
It is not – nobody is disagreeing with this. It is the stuff that gets piled on top of it and the explanations for “why” that are incomplete.
Note that I say ‘incomplete’ and not ‘wrong’.
For instance, there is also a thread within scripture that teaches that Jesus death was a ransom payment, as prophesied by the prophet Hosea:
carried on into the Gospels:
through the writings of Paul
and the writer of Hebrews, who is quite clear:
So, to pick a verse in the Psalms or Isaiah and say “see – it says he was punished” and then treat ‘punishment’ as the sole “why” behind the atonement is foolish, at best.
Instead, viewing the total of scripture and all of the explanations of “why” Jesus died as parts of the whole is more in line with historic Christianity and maintaining a biblical level of unity within the body.
I am joining late to this thread but what about Isaiah 53?
If someone already cover this I apolgize for the disruption.
PB quoted it in #76 – nobody disagrees that Jesus’ death and resurrection resulted in the forgiveness of sin, and that it was the consequence of the sin of mankind.
Where the disagreement lies is this:
Is “punishment” the only valid explanation (i.e. God had to punish someone, so he punished Jesus), or are other historical explanations (that Jesus death was a ransom payment, the Jesus’ death satisfied the loss of God’s honor, etc.) also valid, biblical views of atonement?
PB,
I never blew of Isaiah 53 ( to correct you) I pointed out that it was bigger than you were saying. Christus Victor is what the Gospel of Mark is about… Please do not assume the worst of me and please do not put words in my mouth.
PB, I have come to you often to clarify your positions, I have asked you questions you either do not want to face or blow off as not important. Either way you deal with people in the most dishonest of ways.
I have written on both positions quite extensivly… I have stated my position clearly. PSA is there… I have repeated stated that, but to say that is it, negates much of scripture.
So, it is you and your position that is nullifying full picture of the Cross. Not me.
Please stop misrepresenting me and stating untrue things.
iggy
PB,
So you only believe half the Gospel?
How about finishing the thought that Paul presented…
The second half contains Christus Victor… again, your theology is lacking much if you are only understanding and presenting half the Gospel…
Do you deny Jesus won victory by his sufferings over death, sin and that He was not the True King of all creation?
That is what you are denying… by stating your position is all there is.
iggy
PB,
Sorry misread what you stated above… so I will say, you are a walking contradiction…
You deny the very thing you profess as true.
iggy
A friend commented on my blog about the paper I wrote about Athanasius. He said something I thought worth repeating here that I had forgotten about:
McLaren, I find, is quite useful
peace,
Chad
Chad,
I agree!
Some who think they have a full grasp and have it all tied up in a neat little bow, miss the richness and great glory that the Cross was… For all their talk about it, they deny the Cross on so many levels.
It is sad… and I fear that some of these are pastors who “teach” others.
iggy
Agreed. I think it is part of our fallen nature to desire to have everything figured out and controlled. We cannot accept mystery left to ourselves. We seem to always want to build Babel all over again. Whenever I sense I may be becoming a bit too smug in my grasp of God I read the last few chapters of Job. That will generally do the trick of putting me back in my place.
I should have ended it with “is” instead of “was”…
I love the book of Job… so many live in the role of Job’s friends and miss the sharp rebuke they get from Elihu…
ODM’s should take note of that…
iggy
Chris L. – nobody says punishment is the only view, but it is a legitimate aspect as taught in places of the Scriptures. What I really take issue with is the idea that the blood is incidental and not required for forgivensess. That has been at the core of redemption since the garden.
Christianity is the only religion which has at its zenith the humiliation of its God.
Here’s probably where ‘parsing’ comes in.
I would agree it was required – but I think that it is up for debate WHY it was required.
Just a couple ‘whys’ that are scripturally supported that do not say that blood was punitive requirement either in the OT or the NT:
As Phil notes, an early Christian view which has regained favor more recently is that the requirement of blood was similar to “an eye for an eye” – it was an upper limit rather than a baseline.
The Jewish view for 2000 years before Jesus, and reaffirmed in Hebrews was that the blood was a reminder of God’s promise – i.e. it was symbolic of their covenant and served to remind man of the awfulness of his sin and to ask God to remember His promised redemption from sin.
“This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
iggy
Perhaps the core but not required. I don’t get the sense that blood was required to be shed for God to provide garments to cover the shame of the first humans. Blood seems almost incidental to the main intent: God provides.
It is hard for me to imagine Adam and Eve before a God who determines the only way to make this situation right is to kill something.
“It is hard for me to imagine Adam and Eve before a God who determines the only way to make this situation right is to kill something.”
Then he could have clothed them in polyester.
BTW Chad – can you imagine a God who murders children sometimes? Entire cities? How about a God who kills someone who was just attempting to steady His ark?
Our imaginations do not define God – He defines Himself.
Don’t be silly Rick – Polyester is highly flammable and they were in the woods.
No, I cannot. My take on those stories is probably a little different than yours.
I probably should have been less enigmatic with my response, Rick.
I can imagine this about as well as I can imagine Jesus taking one of the little children he had sitting on his knee and bashing their head over a rock.
Imaginations notwithstanding, God is who He is and does what He desires. I cannot imagine a God who doesn’t rescue children from the Nazi ovens when it is in His power to do so, but I must uncomfortably and humbly bow to what I cannot imagine and continue to believe and love in the God who cannot be imagined but is love.
I am not sure I can imagine a God who loves someone like me, especially when He knows of my vileness, and yet I receive His love by faith.
Rick,
Each of these are stories that are more than God just arbitrarily killing people.
1. I do not recall God killing children except maybe the time of Noah… or when he wanted the nations that were violently opposing the Hebrews. Yet, in the case of children being killed in Noah’s time, God sent Jesus to preach the Gospel to the disobedient children of Noah’s day. Job’s children were “replaced” yet even deeper in the story is the promise of the resurrection… he never “lost” his children, Job knew he would see them again.
2. Entire cities… If you understand the real story of Sodom and Gomorrah… it was that the Kings of those cities were helped by Abraham, and then paid tribute to Melchizedek (who represents JEsus in the story). So though they were helped by God, and paid homage to Him, they went back and became even more wicked… they denied the God they honored… so God gave them a chance.
3. David disobeyed God as to the placement of the Ark. In this as they moved it, the priests reached out to steady it… the Ark was not to be moved in the manner it was being moved… David sinned and the priests paid with their lives… It was not just some “I am so holy” (which God is) thing… it was punishment for disobeying God…. David was torn up about it if I recall.
To write God off as One who willy nilly kills people… misrepresents Him as He is just and compassionate. There is always compassion before the justice… and grace with in the justice in all the stories of His actions.
iggy
Chad…did those stories actually happen then?
I’d really like to hear your take on it brother. You can email me if you don’t want to talk about it here.
Joe
Joe-
Sorry, I am in the middle of an open house at the moment – short on time. I will post something later on that subject.
peace,
Chad
Joe – While I can’t say this is Chad’s answer, the Jewish answer would go back to the Creation story – where God made everything that exists from chaos.
In the Jewish mind, chaos is the opposite of God. So, the reason that bad things happen in the world is not because God does not act, but because the chaos that exists in the world because of Adam’s sin causes it. So, when random acts kill people, it is because of the chaos that still exists in the world, and when people die because of their own sin, it is a function of justice, not murder.
It is impossible to really discuss these “stories” in a generalized way. Each needs to be taken on their own merit. However, I am outlining below seven mitigating factors that I think should be considered anytime we approach violence in the Bible, particularly in the OT. I’ll post these here and be happy to unpack some or any of them if anyone wishes to delve into it deeper. Or, perhaps this is best left for another discussion?
7 Mitigating Factors with Regards to Violence in the OT:
1. Warfare grows out of Israel’s deep respect for life and death. Because they confessed a single God, death, as well as life, peace as well as war – ALL came from God. (Deut. 32:9) God “I will kill, and I heal, and none that can deliver out of my hand.” 1 Sam 2:6 “The Lord kills and brings to life.” That is to say, God is involved in death in the OT because life was considered so sacred. God was involved in ALL of reality – the alternative was unthinkable – that there was some sort of existence that is secular and apart from God. Israel’s question is not “how COULD God be involved in warfare?” but rather, “how could God NOT be involved in all aspects of life?” So the issue with Israel is not whether God is involved but HOW God is involved. This is yet another way God is present with the people just as they “are” (that is, God addresses us in our present context). In the culture of that day the people are warlike- yet God moves them towards peace.
2. Even with the above, Israel did worry about the compatibility of God and war. Much of the battle had a mediator, like wind, hail, fire or water. God “fights” by withdrawing God’s hand, withdrawing from the created order and allowing chaos to run for awhile. God’s activity is seen as the undoing of creation. This, I think, is what Chris L is alluding to. Certain kinds of judgments are built into the fabric of creation (for a good read on this see Fretheim’s God and World in the OT).
A portrait of a blood thirsty God does exist, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule (Deut 32:41, 42 and Isaiah 63). Notice though that even in these, there has already been a move towards metaphor and imagery. God’s destruction of Edom is likened to a wine press.
3. Israel distanced God from warfare through idealistic rules (Deut 20). There are all sorts of rules that put Israel’s troops at a significant disadvantage. Those who have just been married, built a house, are afraid, etc., then they are to be let go from war. There is even provision to protect the trees in the town attacked.
There is the Herem, or “ban.” All captured soldiers and booty are to be utterly destroyed. The point in the context here is to prevent war from becoming merely a means of gain. Soldiers normally would have been given loot. This keeps Israel’s warriors committed to the cause over profit. This facet of the war motif in the OT is unheard of in the culture of the day. It is worth noting, I think.
4. There is of course the historical question about whether battles actually happened, such as the Jericho story. Some accounts should be read as retrospective ideas of Israel’s faith that have found expression in a historicized form.
The phrase “holy war” never appears in the Bible. The idea that there was a particular type of battle that made it “holy” is not likely. Doesn’t seem to be such a tradition.
5. The idea of warfare had to be held together with those that speak against warfare and speak of peace. Even if only as a future hope. Warfare is a temporary concession.
6. As a general hermeneutical rule, it is a mistake to assume the battle accounts are approved just because OT narrative describes it. That is to say, biblical narrative doesn’t always provide a moral judge of actions. The way we decide if something is “bad” is based on our overall view of Scripture and also on how the event turns out in the end. I lean towards a more canonical (overall) reading of scripture. For instance, how does the war motif in the OT line up with the revelation we have of the unchanging God in the life of Jesus Christ?
7. The conquest presented by the final editor is limited to the one time event, and is non-repeatable. That is to say, God allowed the conquest of the land at a very specific time in history. The need to preserve the people by providing them a land of their own.
The NT provides us with a way of showing the “warlike” aspects of the OT can continue to function as scripture. The NT hears the OT as spiritual realities – spiritual warfare. In the NT, warfare still exists but it is now perceived as a spiritual reality.
• The Cross is a reminder of the violence of life.
• The problem is not Judaism or religion or monotheism or Christianity, but the nation state.
There are countless times that God killed people and doesn’t have to explain Himself. He killed Ananias and Saphira just for lying, he ordered Saul and David to kill all the inhabitants of many cities, God killed the sons of Korah, and many others. This is not “willy nilly” killing, but this should give us pause as we seek to mold God into what we think He should be and how He should act.
And this is not a “blood thirsty” God, this God is love and seeks redemption in everything He does even if it is not clear from our perspective. No one saw the cross as redemptive, and we have difficulty seeing any violence in the context of redemption, but that is best left in faith to God.
And like the six blind men and the elephant, we musn’t over focus on any one particular aspect of our infinite Heavenly Father because what we say may be true but still misrepresent Him in the whole. Many trumpet God’s judgment at the expense of His mercy while some herald His mercy without recognizing His justice and so on.
The New Testament clearly prophecies that Jesus will take vengeance on some level with flaming fire, and it also depicts His coming as glorious. God cannot be completely captured by our finite and subjective definitions, but in the end He can do anything He so desires. But He has not provided a condescending revelation of Himself to us for no reason, but we must not add or enhance His own definition of Himself.
There is a time to kill and a time to heal, a time of war and a time of peace,
What we do know that all things redemptive are only and fully found in Jesus the Messiah who beckons all men to believe and be saved. The particulars of eternity are also seen not with much clarity, but Jesus is the only door to that eternity. Besides Him there is no Savior.
BTW – I believe the church should stay out of wars between nations because we have no stake or mandate from a nation except that which is ruled by the King of Kings. I admire and understand brothers in Christ like Joe C. for their willingness to place their lives on their beliefs, so my stance does not judge or minimize them in any way.
To see a soldier have such love and passion for Christ inspires me.
Not just for lying, but for deceiving the other believers and lying that they had given all when they did not.
But worse it was that they thought they could deceive God himself for no good reason.
They seemed to think that the acknowledgement for doing good was more important than just doing good for its own goodness. If you look at the passage, all the believers were united in one mind… except Ananias and Sapphira… who seemed to have been filled with a devious spirit that led them to lie to God, the Apostle, God’s people and to themselves.
This was not a case of God zapping them for no reason. It was that they lied against the Holy Spirit and dropped dead when exposed… now notice that the passage does not say God killed them. It simply states he dropped dead when he heard it… I suspect it was shock that they were found out. and his wife did also when found out and then seeing her husband had died.
It does not say they were killed by God… I am not saying God was not part of them dying, but I think sometimes this passage is misused to add fear. The believers did have a fear of God afterward…
Yet, this fear was the proof that God was alive and active. It is not about a arbitrary God like Allah, who for no good reason tosses someone to hell and another to Heaven…
Again, though… I do not see God killing them in the passage… I see two people gripped with the fear of being exposed and dropping dead from the shock.
iggy
Wow. Talk about missing the point. The Bible is filled with instances of God killing people. That was my point. And who ever said God has no reason?
God has killed people and claims he will do so in the future. He has His reasons.
Punishment was required for us to have peace with God: The result of the sacrifice of Christ; His punishment brought us peace:
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peacewas upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
Talk about cosmic child abuse: If Christ didn’t have to die for our sins, why did God kill Him?
Lamentations 4:22
The punishment of your iniquity, O daughter of Zion, is accomplished;he will keep you in exile no longer; but your iniquity, O daughter of Edom, he will punish;he will uncover your sins.
Jeremiah 30:14
All your lovers have forgotten you;they care nothing for you;for I have dealt you the blow of an enemy,the punishment of a merciless foe,because your guilt is great, because your sins are flagrant.
Atonement is only found in blood:
Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.
Was Christ’s sacrifice to gain victory soley? NO!
1 John 2:2
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Why was Christ punished? It was the only acceptable payment for sins:
1 John 4:10
In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Do you remember Christ’s prayer at gethsemane? He prayed that this cup, this reality of punishment could be done another way- It couldn’t! He had to take our penalty- Hense PENAL substitutionary atonement.
And it has been around since before the fall, But it was first foretold in Genesis 3:15:
15I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and(A) her offspring;
(B) he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”
Wow PB – where to begin:
1) Isaiah 53 is not the only passage dealing with the suffering servant. I’ve quoted quite a number of passages which describe Jesus’ death as things other than punishment. Nobody is saying that punishment had no aspect of the atonement, but rather it is not the dominant theme.
2) Lamentations 4 is not a messianic passage, but a pronouncement against Israel prior to the exile.
3) Jeremiah 30 is prophecy against Israel in advance of the Babylonian exile. Again – not a messianic prophecy.
4) Lev 17 is dealing with blood laws (murder and eating of blood), and note that God says:
Which goes to the writer of Hebrews who notes that the blood is a reminder, and that it cannot forgive sin. The Leviticus passage says that man was given the blood “to make atonement for yourselves” – clearly for man (as a reminder) and not for God.
5)
Uhm, John, you missed the point, then – everything you listed would fall within the sphere of “victory”. Even so, nobody is arguing against the NT passages you’ve quoted. They’re just saying that they are an incomplete picture when taken as exclusive.
Still, though, you’re arguing against yourself:
6) relative to 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10-
This actually supports Anselm’s theory (Satisfaction theory), not penal substitution theory – because John make it clear that the appeasement is for the sins of the whole world. PENAL Substitutionary Atonement teaches that Jesus’ punishment is only effective for the elect.
7)
You’ve not yet proven that what he suffered was simply punishment, and instead offered evidence for Satisfaction theory, instead.
Additionally, you’ve not demonstrated why “it was the only acceptable payment for sins”.
8 ) Jesus’ prayer from Gethsemane:
The cup was not “the reality of punishment” – it was the reality of his death.
However, you go on to say:
So, basically, you just made it up right there and treated it as the whole of truth.
However, the cup being referred to is the “cup of wrath” (from multiple ref’s in Isaiah and Jeremiah) against mankind, which is something to be appeased, which would again support Jesus’ sacrifice as propitiation (appeasment, satisfaction) and not punishment. So again, you are supporting Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory and not Penal Substitution.
9)
OK, and now you laid out the foundational text for Cristus Victor.
IN SUMMARY: You’re all over the map here, John, and basically your scripture citations have proven my point, not yours, by lending direct support to each of the other theories beyond Penal Substitutionary Atonement, with the exception of Ransom Theory.
Thank you for making my point.
PB,
Chris L pretty much stated even more that what I was going to say.
It is that you seem to miss we agree on the small point you are making, but seem to stand here in wonder how you miss the big point over and over and over… and then state proof for what you are fighting against… It is fascinating… that you cannot see beyond a minor point and see a bigger picture that scripture you quote are pointing out.
I don’t hold it against you… God must reveal the depths and mystery that is scripture and there is much I do not know… but man… you are something else… LOL!
iggy
Actually, I take that last part back – the Genesis passage is also a basis of Ransom Theory – because it indicates that 1) Adam’s offspring (Jesus) will bruise the serpent (Satan) – which is Christus Victor and Ransom Theory; AND 2) the serpent (Satan) will bruise Adam’s offspring (Jesus) – which indicates that Jesus’ suffering was the responsibility of Satan, not God (which supports Ransom Theory).
So – you’ve basically laid out proof texts to support all of the atonement theories, thus proving my point that no one theory explains all of Jesus’ atonement and that to say Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the “True Biblical Gospel” is to deny what the Bible says about the atonement.
Perhaps you should write a letter of correction to C?N…
And Iggy just explained, John, why I use you as the prototypical example of “missing the point”…
PB,
If Isaiah 53 is the linchpin for your entire explanation of the atonement you’ve got some more research to do. The word “punishment” there is used as a noun and is used as a physical descriptor of what Christ endured.
Also, you’ll notice that no other translation other than the NIV uses that term, neither word-for-word translations like the KJV and NASB nor thought-for-thought translations like the NLT use that word.
The word translated as punishment is (transliterated as) “muwcar”, and has with it the sense of correction or discipline which are concepts that are distinctly different from punishment (in fact that particular word is translated as punishment rarely with the KJV never translating it as punishment), which is why the NIV is the only translation that uses the word “punishment” (interestingly enough it also happens to be the translation that does trend towards Reformed theology more than others).
I noticed that you’ve not yet answered the questions about your educational background. If you’re going to be making theological pronouncements like the one you’ve made here which effectively turns most of Christians through out history into heretics of a hellbound degree.
Chad,
Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts on those sections of the OT. I think we agree on plenty there, and what I think we disagree on is only because I’m not sure I understand everything about what you mentioned (hence, it’s hard to form a stance). Thanks for your candid response! ‘preciate it brother.
Joe
Joe-
No problem, man.
To answer your initial question with less verbage
yea, I think the stories happened. But, I allow for them to gain some mythic quality as they became part of the national conscious (of Israel). And when I use the word “myth” I am NOT speaking of fairytales.
grace and peace,
Chad
ChrisL – excellent post #166
Bo-
I too noticed that he had not answered that. I have met a number of people without a formal theological education, some pastors some not, who have impressed me by their breadth of knowledge and understanding of scripture and theological concepts. They are generally VERY well read. With much of PB’s musings I see a lack of both. There are a number of very accessible books out there that would help him or anyone gain an introductory understanding of atonement and the various theories that exist. It seems he has not bothered with any of them.
This article was linked on my blog. It is very good and offers an Incarnational understanding of the atonement (from the East) as well as a balanced critique of the Satisfaction and Penal views of atonement. Worth the read.
ARTICLE
Chad and Bo,
I do not answer to you, especially Bo who chooses to remain anonomyous on this blog.
I do not need to justify my education.
I am pursuing two masters degrees; one in education and the other in Biblical Studies with a minor in Christian leadership.
At the same time, I am pursuing a doctorate at Masters.
In between, with the help of Christ. I am planting a church.
I graduated from St. Paul Bible College with a 3.67 average, and made Magna Cum Laude.
None of this matters; it is a heart for Christ that matters. You bash my theory of atonement, saying it is made by man. Atonement was bought and paid for by God, through the death of Christ Jesus foretold and foreshadowed by the OT prophets, confirmed by the NT writers and by Christ himself.
You claim my theory is by men? Your theories are also by men. You (especially chad) reference human writers.
I cannot understand your problem with the word Penal; Christ paid the penalty through suffering and death. What is not Penal about that? Yes, He had victory over death an the grave, but the victory is only applied to those who believe, those He predestined, those He called. Read Romans 9 and supporting passages.
But of course, Liberal theologians HATE Paul, for this God inspired and taught apostle flies in the face of their theories about how God should have done it….
Oh, by the way, I am also ordained through a two year masters level process.
PB-
You should read the article I referenced above. With your background it shouldn’t be too hard to follow.
For the record, I am neither a liberal theologian nor do I hate Paul. As the article above will show, even Paul would disagree with the penal view of atonement. It is unsatisfactory as it relates to God and His character.
peace,
Chad
PB,
It is responses like the one you just gave that leads us to believe that you are uneducated. You didn’t interact with any of our responses at all.
Instead, the single best argument you responded with is “you do it too”. Well, no kidding, that was our entire point. You’ve come on here acting like PSA is something more than the other Biblical atonement descriptors.
Then you follow up that with an ad hominem attack in which you label us as “liberals” for embracing all descriptions found in the scriptures for the atonement, and for closely examining the scriptures. Oh, and then follow that up by stating that we hate the writings of Paul.
PB,
Your attitude just gets worse and worse. It is truly embarrassing to read what you write. At first I liked you. I thought you genuine and one that could communicate beyond the ad hominem and immature ways of the other ODM’s. Yet it seems you are one of the most immature ones out there.
At one time I thought sitting down with you would be good… then as I realized you like to abuse people and use Jesus and your faith to do that… that you like to stir up division and argue over things that on the surface seem important, yet miss when people actually agree with you… that you are not the type of person I would hang with. You are the type that would invite Jesus over to your house and mock him when the prostitute washed His feet with her hair.
Really I am about to talk to you on the level I talk to Amy who also seems to not get it most the time and keeps on and on about how much they don’t get while still trying to make a point that is already made… already believed and never denied…
This might be my last response to you… which you most likely will state, “Good”… yet that is your problem. You cannot see anything from beyond your own narcissistic view.
My prayers are with you… that you mature in Christ Jesus and forsake your divisive ways.
iggy
PB – that was the point I was making in the OP!!! ALL of the theories are just that – theories. They are all made by men, and none is perfect in its explanation. So, to say that any one theory is the “True Biblical Gospel” is to elevate the musings of men to the level of Scripture.
If you agree, then why are you arguing?
One more passage to consider (which conflicts with PSA):
Most theologians agree that Jesus’ death was analogous to a sacrifice of atonement. The problem this presents for proponents of “penal” substitution is that the heart of their theory – “penal” – is based upon the system of law in the courts, not religious, temple law (a cultural distinction we no longer have in the US and other Western societies).
So, the problem this presents today is that presenting the atonement as a judicial punishment misses the point and creates a picture of a God who is unjust – who punishes an innocent person for the crimes of other people. When presented outside of a penal model, you no longer have this misrepresentation of God.
You might want to read this article by NT Wright regarding atonement, in which he states:
As far as your little tirade on liberals, despite what you may think, my theology is rather conservative, nor is Wright’s (nor many of the theologians who disagree with PSA).
And, if you’re going to hold Paul up as the penultimate, you might what to consider ALL of his writings rather than just prooftexting one passage. For example:
So, Paul makes it rather clear that Jesus’ victory is complete and reconciles ALL THINGS – things on earth and in heaven – not just a segment of things created on earth.
Just for the record I understand what you are saying Chad and Chad and that the concept of the “why” of the atonment is robust enough for there to be many theories. It is interesting to note the various theories are complementary and not necessarily exclusive in nature.
Good discussion.
Amen.
Do I come off as schizophrenic on blogs as I do in real life??!!
I know what you mean
Ok friends, do not crucify me for this, but I want to defend Pasterboy here for a moment. If someone would ask about my education, like Bo and Chad did, I would also get defensive. I think PB is one of the few of the ODM camp (sorry for putting you in a “camp” PB but just bare with me for the moment) that is willing to discuss stuff here on CRN.Info and most of the time he does so respectfully(in my opinion). He is passionate about what he believes and sometimes he does come over a bit harsh but I think that is because he is so passionate for Christ and how he feels about things he sees as nonnegotiable. Give him some room please…
One thing I love about the Incarnational theory that I referenced above is how it focuses on God’s nature of LOVE and God’s desire to be reconciled and united with a fallen world through the Incarnation. As that article points out, the satisfaction and penal theories do little to demonstrate the unification we have in Christ because he lived, died and rose again. Paul says we are IN Christ and that we have died WITH him and rose WITH him. This unity could only be accomplished if God became one of us, Incarnate. It could only happen if God in Christ experienced all that we experience as fallen creatures, even death.
As such, Jesus’ death did not satisfiy some sort of punishement that God had to unleash but rather it is the hallmark of God’s deepest yearning to identify with and unite with His beloved creation. It is only by our being assumed into the divine nature of Jesus Christ that we can experience death and also experience resurrection, thereby sharing in life with God as God intended.
Also, I was reminded in that article about one of the cultural drawbacks of Anselm’s Sastisfaction theory (of which PSA is based). In Anselm’s day punishment or justice was not for justice sake but for maintaining civil law and order. We might think today that mercy or justice is sufficient if your mother pays for your speeding ticket. However, we would not find it sufficient if your mother stood in for you and took your punishment if you killed someone. In our day that isn’t justice. But it was in Anselm’s. Back then, if you killed someone you or even someone else could “pay” a debt of money to the family injured as a way of satisfying the law and thereby maintaining peace and order. For Anselm’s culture it was perfectly acceptable to see Jesus as stepping in to “pay” the dept that they should have but could not.
Obviously, this theory like others arose out of the cultural milieu of the day. The Penal view is really no different at its core.
Both are lacking in the way they approach justice.
peace,
Chad
Let me defend my education.
PB said he made Magna Cum Laude.
I made “ET Call Home”.
Eugene,
I understand and agree, I was tempted to go that direction but realized it does not matter. I have no formal training, I am only now pursuing my assoc. degree in psych.
Yet, I can see why someone would question him over it. It seems he cannot read and comprehend… he contradicts himself all over the place and argues even though he agrees with someone…
The other option is that he has a divisive spirit… the spirit of Jezebel… but that would be the other extreme.
Or he is mentally unstable.
None of that is meant to be unkind… I think he is divisive and likes to argue. I think he is just too proud to see the other’s point of view and being “right” is more important than walking in the righteousness of Christ… which would lead him to seeking the better for the other.
I do wish PB the best though and pray he will overcome whatever it is that is causing this.
iggy
Crucify, Eugene!!
Point well taken. I do give props to PB for at least being one to engage and discuss, even if he seems to bark up the wrong tree far too many times.
I hope I was clear enough in my original question to him about education that I am not trying to be insulting or degrading. I honestly was just curious. Since he is a pastor I attribute to that office a certain amount of theological and biblical education (I am a big advocate of education and disagree with traditions that will simply ordain anyone they deem as “called”). The reason I asked PB about his background is because I am surprised that a pastor does not have at least some working knowledge of atonement theories. That is something that is usually covered in even basic intro courses.
HOWEVER, like I said in post 173, I know many who have foregone traditional education methods but are VERY well read (like you, Pastor Eugene
) and have a deeper grasp on subject that many seminary trained individuals. But again, it is apparent in PB’s posts that he has not read the first thing on atonement theories which strikes me as odd given his passionate defense of his own theory.
But you are right Eugene – no one should ever hold degrees up as a litmus test for how knowledgeable a person might be. The proof usually comes out in the pudding (or blogs).
peace,
Chad
I would echo Eugene’s comments regarding educational background.
I have a BS(Hon) in Chemical Engineering from Purdue and a year and half at Milligan. Most of my Christian studies background came from the church I grew up in (which was heavily into teaching you how to study the Scriptures), from Milligan, and from the church I helped plant a couple years after graduating from Purdue (which was also a very academic-focused church) and a deep interest in theology and the world Jesus lived in, which I have pursued in my free time.
I know some really stupid people who have PhD after their name, and I know some incredibly wise and learned folks who dropped out of school in their youth, so ‘qualifications’ can often be misleading, at best.
I echo Chad’s statement, I’m a little taken aback that there’s not a more comprehensive curriculum involving the Biblical descriptions of the atonement.
I’m also beginning to understand PB’s hang ups a little more. St Paul’s Bible College came out of the Christian and Missionary Alliance which was birthed from Pentecostal Holiness traditions (though eventually it broke away over speaking in tongues), so his mistaking of salvation for sanctification is somewhat more understandable.
The grace that Eugene is extending is admirable. I’ll try to do the same.
I think the whole point of the original post above was to address the fact that the Editor at CRN called PSA the true Gospel… even though he fails to correctly define PSA.
Neil
Neil – my point in submitting this was that the editor suggested all theother views were totally by human works. Talk about your straw men!
Hey, not everyone who graduated from St. Paul Bible College (now Crown College) and pastors in the C&MA is confused. In fact, I just preached about atonement theories last week as part of a series about the story of God from creation to the end. At the end, I actually did an altar call of sorts (something I am generally opposed to…that’s another story), but we had four people respond and commit their lives to Christ.
Praise God, Corey!
Corey and I actually graduated from the same college and look at the atonement differently…and he is quasi-emergent and I am not…WOW! He likes Obama, and I think Obama is the anti-Christ..talk about seeing an elephant differently or taking a brick out of a wall or twisting springs…
But yet, Though I disagree with Corey on a great many things, He is still a brother in Christ and I respect him. Thats what happens when you meet someone outside of this silly thing we call the bloggosphere.
Bo has a good handle with his last statement; But we are not talking about salvation/sanctification here. We are speaking about atonement. And, though I believe that the theory that best describes my view of the atonement would be PSA, I can see the beauty of other theories as well. But what makes PSA beautiful to me is the awareness of the fact that Christ took my punishment that I rightly deserved, making propitiation for my sins. Marvelous grace! Wonderful mercy! I deserved every stripe (and more) I deserved the brutal death on the cross (and more) Christ took my penalty for me.
Other views make me wonder if it is fully understood that a penalty had to be paid. McLaren’s view that somehow this is cosmic child abuse, for example, shows an ignorance of the types and shadows where animals had to die to cover a sin, yet that covering was insufficient. It is the fact that Jesus was fully man that he could die, and take our place, and fully God, that made his sacrifice sufficient for all mankind who would take it as a substitution for our sins and shortfalls (that is, the elect)
Chris L # 180, I like that verse, except when Rob BEll and others interpret to say that all men and creation are reconciled: It does not say that in context or looking at the whole of scripture. Christ came, and his payment was sufficient to reconcile all creation, but only efficient or efficatious to those who would believe.
To close, I believe we can have a favorite view of the atonement, but what is important in our journey is to know that Christ’s death was an atoning sacrifice, the penalty paid was his death, and the proof that God accepted this payment is that He rose again and lives forever to make intercession for us. We must realize that this payment was for us, that we cannot please God or be made righteous without it, and that only by trusting God and putting our faith in Christ are we saved, justified, and have our sins atoned for.
May God bless all who seek Him with an open, honest heart.
A great comment, John.
For the last time, John…
THIS: “McLaren’s view that somehow this is cosmic child abuse”
ISN’T McLAREN’S VIEW!!!!!
Grrrrr….This conversation we’ve actually had face to face. I don’t understand why you can’t hear this.
Obama the antichrist?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The guy practices his supposed Christianity leaps and bounds beyond McWalnuts and his nazi I mean republican kin.
Please, do me a favor, vote Obama and bring us troops home from this #### war.
Joe
PS, you may now return to your regular arguments…sorry to steal the thread.
Joe C. – aside from the verbiage, I agree with you totally. Bring the “police” home. They did their duty and we should be proud of them, not the civilian “leadership”.
Be safe, my brother!
Obama the antichrist? No, it’s Kissinger.
Amen!
Joe, as a former Navy corpsman (8 years) I salute you and what you and all the other men and women have had to do. But I am with you – enough is enough.
Oh for Pete’s sake people we all know Rick Warren is the Anti -Christ. Sheesh.
PB,
I think we are done. I refuse to have anything to do with someone who uses Jesus to abuse others. Jesus did not come to condemn us but to save us. The bulk of scripture teaches that we ARE reconciled thus the ministry of reconciliation.
That is your issue is that you do not understand reconciliation. Go study more dude… then stop misusing Jesus to abuse, judge and condemn others.
My prayer is that you find God’s best and find His grace.
iggy
Iggy
I thought we were done like five OP’s ago. I have been trying not to make you mad or comment about you. And where did I abuse you? Or others? Because I said Obama is the Anti-Christ? That was a joke- sort of
He believes in murdering people (babies that are in the womb are people, especially viable ones)
He refuses to salute the flag at appropriate times
He is a superstar even though he really has not done anything yet, just a freshman senator
He believes there are many paths to God
He is more of a rock star than a politician.
He is extremely popular the world over just by saying the right things, not for substantive stands
Joe,
I wanted to thank your for your candor. I wonder at how those in the military think. Personally I view you all as heroes that are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I think the first part of this war was right on… then as we began to drag on in Iraq and seeing how long our soldiers have to stay there… I wonder if we need to rethink our policies … and do something different.
I have issues with OBama and McCain. I am not sure Obama grasps what a mess it really is and might pander to the liberal side of the Dem party… while McCain might take the Rep money and keep the machine going… which to me is not the answer.
Mostly, my concern is that we need shorter rotation of troops… more that unites go in together and come out together on shorter rotation instead the extended times. I see such hardship on the families at home… fathers not seeing their children born or taking their first step… or learning to talk.
I heard of a story of a soldier whose wife gave birth after he left, he was in Iraq so long his child learned to walk, talk and was about 3 or 4 when he first was introduced to him. That is very sad to me.
Someone needs to do something… and I am not sure who is truly up to the job.
iggy
Our Heroes see it as doing their job, and they take great pride in the fact that they are winning and defending our great country
All so we can sit on our rears and blog without threat- and many other great and marvelous benefits like freedom!
And many of them I know personally cannot stand Obama. They see him as a lefty liberal turncoat who has no military experience and will set back the middle east 50 years if he is elected.
But isn’t this OP about atonement? Obama does not believe in the atonement- he believes all religions lead you to heaven. No wonder Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt like him.
PB,
From all I have read from you, you do not either… in fact you teach against it … you teach judgement and condemnation in Jesus Name.
iggy
For once (on the topic of Obama) I agree with PB’s assessment.
Obama is all smoke and no substance, and his election would be incredibly dangerous. McCain may be a politician, but he’s already proven he’s willing to buck the GOP on a number of issues…
Corey:
From DA Carson’s book:Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church
According to Carson, McLaren simply leaves that objection hanging in the air. Then he quotes a longer passage from Steve Chalke:
Chalke and McLaren? Who said it first? Who believes it? It was written in The Secret Message of Jesus- By Brian McLaren! It was also said by Steve Chalke. I am confused! Does McLaren believe it but just send up a test balloon so he is protected by putting into the mouth of another?
I am sorry if this is attacking others in the name of Jesus by quoting them.
If McLaren didn’t or won’t say it, I will.
That is what happens when we measure God by human standards. In that same line we could say that since Jesus knew He came for the cross He committed suicide.
And Jesus wasn’t the Father’s “child”. Another case of athropromorphic projection upon the Divine.
I guess you could say that. But I don’t see what that has to do with calling PSA what it is – at least as it is so often portrayed. This isn’t about measuring God by human standards, Rick. After all that has been said here I don’t understand why you would still think that rejection of how PSA is so often portrayed (or even rejection of PSA itself) must equate to “measuring God by human standards.” Personally, I think Christian theology would do just fine without PSA in their bag of tricks.
Don’t blame that one on PSA’s detractors. Blame scripture for making that projection for us.
peace,
Chad
The closest human projection would not be a father murdering his son since Jesus and the Father are one. More accuarte would be God throwing Himself on a hand grenade in order to save others. He did not abuse Himself (His Son).
And this would be an analogy I would endorse. In part because you do not say it was because a punishment had to be meated out but because it was “to save others” and in part because it alludes to a destructive force (grenade-sin) that had to be conquered and destroyed else it would wipe out creation.
The “cosmic child abuse” description is not something scripture teaches, as we can all agree. It is, however, the way those who so often preach PSA unwittingly describe it. I can’t count the number of times I heard the courtroom drams scene played out at revivals…..the verdict is issued – we are guilty and God is very angry…but then, in walks the son of the Judge…the crowd goes silent….the son declares, Father, I will take their punishment….and the Father says, let it be so….and the gavel falls….
….or any variation of the above. In the end, they sound like what they are – cosmic child abuse.
God hated the world so much He killed His only son because he was so angry at it. ~ PB bible translation.
I don’t have time to read through all 46 million comments, so I apologize if someone already said something to this effect, but:
WHY do Christians have to make theology so amazingly complicated?! I get a headache just thinking about all this. Child abuse? Suicide? Lol!
I truly believe there are some things our human minds just can’t wrap themselves around, that we won’t understand until we meet God face to face. It’s funny that those things are the topics that splinter and divide Christians the most . . . if God had wanted us to worry about it, it seems to me He would have explained things more thoroughly. Can’t we just accept Jesus’ gift and not worry about 13 million different theories of how it came about?
I personally believe God didn’t HAVE to punish Jesus, but Jesus willingly gave himself out of love. They’re all God, so it’s not like it’s a son that needs disciplining here, ha ha.
I’m really exaggerating with my numbers today, sorry about that.
merry,
I counted the comments and you only had a slight exaggeration. = ) I also like that Jesus gave himself willingly… out of love.
Someone once said, it was not the nails that held Jesus to the Cross, it was His Love that held.
iggy
it was not the nails that held Jesus to the Cross, it was His Love that held Him there.
Sorry didn’t finish…
Merry,
I think its 14 million theories, not 13
You are exactly right. We cannot get our minds around something so vast. Theology is primarily our strained attempts at speaking about something that is so far beyond our language to comprehend. It should not divide us but sharpen us. I hope forums like this serve that purpose, else we are all wasting our time. Having a better focus (though not perfect) of the atonement can and should deepen our understanding of this God whom we all desire to serve with all our heart, soul, and mind. In any event, I take comfort in knowing that those who blog like this and those who read them make up only a very small fraction of Christendom. Thank God for that!
grace and peace,
Chad
PB –
Chalke did write it. McLaren did not write it in The Secret Message of Jesus. It was, as Carson mentioned, stated by a non-Christian character in a fictional book (The Story We Find Ourselves In) as she was trying to figure out why Jesus had to die. The cross seemed like foolishness to her (something we can all agree is probable). But McLaren didn’t just leave it hanging. The three Christians who were there went on to explain the atonement, bringing in these other theories, and eventually leading the woman to faith in Christ. Read it for yourself.
Additionally, McLaren has stated numerous times when confronted about this that it is not his view. At some point you have to take him at his word and stop spreading lies.
Your little quote makes a nice soundbite, but it simply isn’t true and all you are doing is fanning flames of fear and hate through your catchy little accusation.
It’s like saying C.S. Lewis believed that all religions lead to God because at the end of The Last Battle, a soldier of Tash makes it into ‘heaven’ and Aslan says something along the lines of ‘anything good done for Tash was actually being done for me’ (not a direct quote, but I don’t have the book with me). He just left that hanging there without correcting it.
I could run around saying that C.S. Lewis believed that all religions lead to God, based on your same line of reasoning, but it simply wouldn’t be true.
PB,
Have you read the DA Carson book?
Bo,
No, I just quoted from it.
Where is my fly swatter… I keep hearing one of Beelzebub’s flies buzzing…
Thought it was a nice quote as a follow up in hopes to end this thread…
iggy
Rick, et al.,
Regarding your question over at submissions, the book that really jumpstarted my rethinking atonement theory and helped me see PSA in a new light was Recovering the Scandal of the Cross by Mark Baker and Joel Green. It is very accessible and unpacks the various theories, history of them, scriptural arguments and their contemporay uses.
I highly recommend it.
peace,
Chad
Thank you, Chad. But the thrust of my question was in response to an earlier comment by CL when he suggested God did not require blood in the atonement.
I would like to see a complete teaching on that as well as any books that suggest the Scriptural possibility of it.
Rick,
I thought in post #148 Chris L agreed with you that blood was required. The debate, however,is over why it is required. In post 166 he offers what I think is a pretty good “why” based on Hebrews and elsewhere.
Is that not getting at what you are asking? Maybe I am misunderstanding you.
OK – after I reread all the comments I think I see the difference. So whether you believe in punishment or not, you must believe the blood of Christ was required for salvation.
I know I’ve been in and out of this thread, and I’ve kind of skimmed through some of later comments, but I wanted to add this.
For all of you defending McLaren here, I understand and applaud the effort, but you have to understand it’s almost an exercise in futility. I’ve gotten in this argument a lot, and it seems that people refuse to see truth. It seems clear as day to me that D.A. Carson takes McLaren out of context in his book (as well as others). Actually, I have the CArson book, but I gave up on it, since the whole thing seemed to be an ode to a strawman.
Anyway, I dealt with McLaren thing in this article a few months ago.
Hmm. I am generally hesitant to endorse most things that begin with the word “must” but I want to agree with you on this. If by “blood of Christ” we could agree that this is a way of saying that Christ had to die to secure our salvation by being raised from the grave thus defeating death and sin then I would say AMEN!
My hesitancy to leave it just as you have it here is that it trivializes or makes irrelevant the life and resurrection of Jesus. It is as if to say the blood is all that mattered. We just needed God’s blood on a cross and we can all go free. That is not even a portion of the whole story.
I am not suggesting you are saying it is the whole story, but I want to point out why I find statements like “you must believe the blood of Christ was required for salvation” to be incomplete and unsatisfactory.
peace,
Chad
PB -
Thought I’d let you know that I led worship this morning with an old friend of yours from Christ Community Church – a guy named Keith. I referred to you as my internet arch-nemesis
Cahd – I would agree. How can His blood be separated and detached from His life and resurrection?
A man is dying of hunger. As he crawls over a hill he sees one isolated tree. He crawls to it and when he arrives he sees it bears nice, plump, and delicious looking fruit. He eats his fill and his life is saved.
Now even though the fruit (blood) saved him, how could we detach that fruit from the tree (His life) it self which provided the foundation for that fruit to grow? How could we ignore the roots (His reurrection) which kept the tree alive so that fruit may live and give life? He who partakes of the fruit partakes of the entire tree.
I love those words. But of course I am a unity and full, open communion kinda freak
It should’t be, yet so often is portrayed as such. That is one of my issues with PSA – it generally sees the Incarnation and the life of Jesus as a mere means to an end and the resurrection as a footnote. It’s the difference between saying, on the one hand, well of course Jesus had to live or else he could’t have died for me! and saying on the other hand, of course Jesus had to live else God could not have fully entered into our dilemma and all of humanity could not have been assumed into the divine nature and be partakers of not just his death but of his resurrection!
PSA too often deemphasizes what I think are absolute essentials to a more robust view of salvation, namely, Incarnation and Resurrection. Both of those become almost side-shows to the “blood.” Not to mention the focus tends to be on a necessary punishment that had to be meated out rather than a gracious move of God to identify with his beloved Creation and save it in the most radical and loving way imaginable.
peace,
Chad
Everytime I hit refresh on this I have to stare for a moment at the OP and find myself re-reading this ridiculous statement that started all this:
I hope it is pretty obvious by now how retarded such a statement is. Rejection of PSA has absolutely nothing to do with an acceptance of salvation by works. I hope that, at the very least, is clear.
To whomever wrote such silliness, best of luck to you in future endeavors to sound like you know what your talking about.
I will always speak my conscience, I will speak strongly against what I believe is error, and I will confront what I believe is heresy.
However I will not ever lie even if it seems to forward my postion. To suggest the different views of the atonement are soley based on works salvation is a lie. And I assume one that was known to be so.
Corey,
I have gotten to the level of arch-nemesis?
YAY!
Anyway, greet Keith and Elga for me!!
Corey, I see you as a friend and a theological arch nemesis, but a Christian brother. Nothing but the blood of Jesus!
Here is the major difference between emergents and those who hate us…
We believe we are saved by the Person of Jesus Christ. It was He who gave His life for us.
ODM’s believe in their “beliefs”. It is by “right” belief they are saved. This separates Jesus from the picture. Note what he states:
“Any Emergents that deny the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (aka the True Biblical Gospel) will have to try to save themselves based solely on their good works, best of luck to them.”
They do not mention the “Person of JEsus” but the “doctrine they believe”. Their faith is in the doctrine to save them… not in the Person who did the action.
This is a subtle and fatal flaw in the ODM mindset… and one I see common in htem… Placing their own belief over the Person of Jesus and subjecting Jesus to their own belief.
iggy
It’s entirely possible Ig.
But it’s also entirely possible that we ALL have done, or do that at some point. I think it’s human nature to trust knowledge instead of a person.
An interesting point, Iggy. I have suggested that many of them never write themselves devotionally, only through links and pastes. But they seem capable of writing about doctrines and attack posts.
PS, sorry about my bleeped out swear back a bunch of comments ago, if pound signs offended anyone that is
. There are A LOT of us in the armed services who yes, think it is our duty to fight when told, and yes think we are winning (at ‘what’ we’re not so sure), but who really think our war in Iraq needs to STOP and we need to refocus on a not-so-huge-scale on going after the actual people who attacked us (Osama et al), and this is Obama’s position. This posistion is strategically sound. The Iraqi people and our military commanders agree. I for one KNOW this for sure. McCain is clueless about these things and gets his ideas from his friend, El Presidente, who ignores everyone else.
Sorry to say for the anti Obama crowd, that just seems to be the tide of our perspective in the military. I for one support him because McCain is a terrible, terrible, pathalogical liar (in his town hall meetings, interviews, and especially his ads), who doesn’t even understand the difference between sunni and shi’a. Set the middle east back 50 years? Bush did that already. McCain’s going for 100.
All of these are just our own Christian propaganda and right wing talking points. Amazingly, they’re not actually true at face value! It’s just lol…slander actually. ESPECIALLY The flag thing, oh my gosh, people have to stop saying that, it’s just soooooo…false.
I just felt I had to say…
sorry for thread jacking, again.
Joe
Obama not saluting the flag…truth or fiction?
Obama in front of AIPAC said ” Jersualem would not be divided and will be Israel’s Capital” The next day said ” sorry that was a mistake ” after palestinians got angry. The man is the biggest flip flopper I ‘ve seen.
As a christian wether it be propaganda or right wing would not vote for someone who calls himself a christian when there are no fruits to show for.