During Passion Week leading up to Easter there was a lot of discussion on religion blogs about the nature of the atonement. What exactly happened in the death of Jesus? Tony Jones had a good series on the subject leading up to Easter.Here are some of my thoughts on this topic.
It think it's clear in the biblical narrative that there was some sort of "blockage" between God and humanity. We generally call this blockage "sin," though I think that is overly simplistic. Regardless, on our own humanity could not bridge the gap. So God, in Christ, makes a sacrifice on our behalf in an act of loving self-donation. This sacrifice is "atoning." That is, in the sacrifice of Jesus God and humanity are reconciled.
The most important aspect of all this is how the sacrifice at the heart of Christianity is a grand reversal of paganism. In paganism humans made sacrifices to appease a wrathful god. But in Christianity it is God who makes the sacrifice. Humans call out for blood--"Crucify! Crucify!"--and God hands Jesus over to appease us. The significance of this reversal cannot be overstated. In Christianity God is handed over to humans in an act of sacrifice. In Christianity God is killed. God isn't demanding the sacrifice. God is the sacrifice.
This is why the crucifixion is considered to be an act of love. The cross represents the self-donation of God, God being given to us, God suffering on our behalf. And this act of self-giving signals that the rift between God and humanity has been eradicated. In the gift of Jesus God reaches out and grabs hold of us.
This, as best as I can describe it, is the meaning of the atonement. And most Christians, liberal or conservative, would likely agree with my description.
So from where does the controversy come?
The controversy comes when people try to describe the machinery and mechanisms at work behind scenes. The most common machinery in conservative Protestant circles is penal substitutionary atonement. According to this machinery God is compelled to punish a sinful humanity. God requires a blood sacrifice, the death of the sinner. But wanting to save us God kills Jesus as a replacement.
The problem I have with this particular machinery and machinery generally is that God is not free. The act of self-donation is compulsory and, thus, not a free act of love. God must punish a sinful humanity. God has to have a blood sacrifice. God can't forgive without a death.
It's these must's, can't's, and have to's, that are the problem. They signal that God is no longer God, that a theological system--the machinery--is above God and that God must follow the rules of the game. These rules compel God to do this or that or block God from doing this or that.
In these theological systems God has to follow, like a computer program, an algorithm of salvation. But the question arises, if God has to execute the program who wrote the computer code? If God wrote the code then God doesn't have to do anything. God doesn't have to kill or punish. God can do whatever God wants to do to save or forgive. God is God and doesn't have to follow an algorithm of salvation. God's the programmer, not the program.
This, it seems to me, is the root problem. The grand strokes of atonement are largely agreed upon. God loves us and make a sacrifice to save us. The trouble comes when we posit some mechanism of atonement--an algorithm of salvation-- and then insist that God must follow the program. By doing so we make the cross an act of compulsion rather than an act of love. More, when we insist that God must be in obedience to an algorithm of salvation we engage in an act of idolatry. And idolatry is sin.
These are good thoughts. Thanks, Dr. Beck.
ReplyDelete"It's these must's, can't's, and have to's, that are the problem. They
signal that God is no longer God, that a theological system--the
machinery--is above God and that God must follow the rules of the game.
These rules compel God to do this or that or block God from doing this
or that." <-- Exactly!
I tend not to think anymore that the crucifixion of Jesus was symbolic of or prompted by God's wrath toward sinful humanity; I think that it was more indicative of humanity's sinful wrath against God and fellow man. It's pretty amazing that, Jesus understood as God in the flesh, allowed himself to become the object at which humanity's sin/wrath was directed, in order to demonstrate that nothing -- no thing -- can kill God or separate us from His love. That at least helps me not to worry so much about what kind of God...?
As for understanding mechanisms and algorithms, I began to wonder (after about 2 years of running in circles with theological systems and their distinctive doctrines) whether it was really important anymore? The pursuit of such rationalizations didn't make me a better person or give me any more spiritual peace. The opposite, actually, I think. I have been reading some more about Universalism, and maintain that as far as explanations (mechanisms, algorithms) go, the tenets do not, at least, present a host of double binds and false equations. Better!
Hi Susan,
ReplyDelete"The pursuit of such rationalizations didn't make me a better person or
give me any more spiritual peace. The opposite, actually, I think."
I agree completely!
As always your thoughts are very interesting to me. I tend to think that this is great theology if you believe that God
created humans rather than the reverse. Looking at it from the other
perspective, the Easter story is simply a continuation of the mythology
of humanity (blood sacrifice/atonement/appeasement) going back before the beginning of recorded
history.
As to Universalism, I liked the idea when I first read "Love Wins", but after living through the personal horror of the past three months I now would much rather spend eternity as a permanently extinguished soul rather than ever again having to deal with certain people on any level, in any heaven. There is no way that I can imagine ever willingly having to deal with these people ever again. Transformed or not, from my admittedly limited perspective here, that would not be Heaven, but rather a continuation of Hell.
Great explanation of the subtleties of this particular conversation! You always put to words, with clarity, what I can't seem to focus clearly into thought.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add that these underlying mechanisms bring with them a sort of possessive and defensive attitude by those who ascribe to them. It's almost as if because we have put so much time and effort into constructing these mechanisms, that we feel a sense of ownership rather than pure discovery.
I like to think of the simplicity of faith, especially and exclusively terms of salvation, as looking at a cIlock and believing the time it tells. Complications arise when we doubt the clock. I don't think it is a bad thing to doubt at all, I actually think doubt is a helpful thing as it is often the seed of the desire to know and understand. But maybe we become too possessive and egotistical in our pursuit of understanding when we attempt to own these underlying explanations or mechanisms of how the clock (universe) works. In a sense we are trying to build the clock ourselves simply by looking at its face.
In owning our beliefs in such a way, I think we are holding on to them with the certainty and stubbornness of a closed fist rather than the humility and wonder of an open hand.
"I have held many things in my hands and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess." - Martin Luther
I just finished reading "I saw the devil fall like lightning" by Rene Girard and he contends that the key difference between the passion and mythology is that the passion doesn't hide the innocence of the victem. I'm at work so I can't spend much time on a reply but I thought it was interesting.
ReplyDelete“More, when we insist that God must be in obedience to an algorithm of salvation we engage in an act of idolatry.”
ReplyDeleteWE ... God MUST ... idolatry ??? God was freely being God when He said “the wages of sin is death” or “whosoever (living human beings) believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” Any particular faulty human understanding of the crucifixion or, love, for that matter does not put God in a box or compel Him to do anything. However, when universalists say that God MUST save ALL humans or He is not worthy of our ‘love’ . . .
One more thought on reconciliation. God did His part in reconciliation at the cross by reconciling Himself to us. But, in true reconciliation, both parties have a role. Until man (a physically living one at that) reconciles himself to God by accepting the work of the cross the loop of reconciliation is not closed. Oh, did I just create a MUST???
"Until man (a physically living one at that) reconciles himself to God by
ReplyDeleteaccepting the work of the cross the loop of reconciliation is not
closed." Totally agree with that. We might, however, disagree about what "accepting the work of the cross" looks like. But we are in agreement that humans have a part to play. Though some from the Reformed tradition would say that is an Arminian position positing a role for the moral effort/choice of humanity in the act of salvation. Which I'm comfortable with. I'm just surprised to here you argue for an Arminian position.
"when universalists say that God MUST save ALL humans or He is not worthy of our ‘love’ . . . " I hope you can see that this sentence has nothing to do with positing a mechanism of salvation and then asserting God must save this way rather than that way.
Also, universalism is an eschatological hope. It posits no algorithm of salvation. It is the biblical expectation that God will reconcile all things in Christ but never sets up an idolatrous system that says God must accomplish the New Creation in this way rather than that way.
Interesting. I'll remember this as I continue to read about various atonement "formulas." Great post!
ReplyDeleteLet me apply this post to something like a Girardian view of the atonement.
ReplyDeleteFor example, God isn't compelled to send Jesus into the scapegoating system. Yes, historically speaking that is what God did, it represents how God concretely acted in history and we may, in response, explain how it "worked." But that's not positing an algorithm of salvation that God must slavishly follow, making a claim like one you often hear that God must kill a sinner.
In short, attempting to explain how salvation "worked" isn't an example of what I'm talking about in this post. What I'm speaking to is any theological system of atonement that explains how salvation worked by positing a rule that God must comply with.
Examples of this abound. For example, people often say "God cannot be in the presence of sinners." Such a claim is both idolatrous and biblically false. God can do whatever God wants to do. Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. Satan hangs out with God in the book of Job.
"The wages of sin is (sic) death"? "Perish"? How can I exist in Hell after I "die" or "perish"? I believe the answer is -- I cannot. Hence these endless verbal loop-dee-loops.
ReplyDeleteHi Sam, I'm glad to "see" you here. Did you see any comments from me at your blog awaiting moderation? I read your recent post about 'Dad.' It would be so good just to sit down and talk with you in person. Know that I am at least listening (via reading your blog-thoughts), and not fleeing from you, my friend. This grief is "hard material." Hard to reconcile, hard to sit with...What to do? We carry on as best we can, hopefully together (vs. alone in our struggles).
ReplyDeleteToday, I can sympathize entirely with the feeling of not wanting to deal with certain people eternally, even in a transformed heavenly state. But, the alternative I suppose is that we will be stuck together with them in a hell where we can't avoid them!?!
I am (still) drawn to Universalism, as long as I don't have to argue or defend myself anymore. I'd rather practice being kind than being right. Even thinking "centered set" (inclusivism) vs. "bounded set" (exclusivism), with a particularity on Jesus Christ as the center of atonement / redemption / reconciliation is a healthier view, imho. I can rest in that for the time being, you know?
Sam, I've just begun reading 'Allah' by Miroslav Volf. I'm not too far in yet, and it is dense reading (some church and political history, plus theological comparisons put forth). The central question is whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God? And, from a Christian standpoint, is God revealed and understood through the person of Jesus Christ? Coincidentally, I ran across a recent blog post by Peter Enns ('The Evolution of Adam') in which he suggested a similar quandary: Do Christians who espouse opposing theological "views" of God essentially worship the same God? To my mind, it's all philosophical, really, because I do believe that God *is* regardless (or in spite of) our projections of Him, "biblical" or not, but from a human relations standpoint, we're really talking past each other when the views (systematic theologies) are so diametrically opposed. I also continue to believe in and love Jesus. What it all means? I'm about as clueless as those first twelve "Duhsciples" were, who at least had the advantage of face time instruction with the Good Doctor. :-) Beyond that simple faith, all the church dogma and traditions...meh. It has ceased to be of major urgency for me to sort out. I do go to church, and I'm happy (as a sick soul / winter Christian can be anyway) with the denomination (UMC), the pastor, and my local faith community. A few people are especially wonderful. I'm grateful for the blessings of the present; no guarantees about the longterm, I realize. As in, the outcome of the 2012 General Conference make me nervous........
Thanks for commenting, Sam. I've been missing your voice and presence here, and feeling kind of lonely lately. ~Peace~
God says "believe" is "accepting the work of the cross." (Of course, we still have to define 'believe' for communication on this to take place.) Nevertheless, I am at a loss as to how you get an Arminian position out of that. Believing now what one did not believe previously is not a work, moral or otherwise.
ReplyDelete"I hope you can see . . ."Yes, I was just taking the opportunity to point out that 'rules' and 'musts' are part of all of our non Scriptural views; not just with regard to the mechanisms of salvation.
"universalism . . . is the biblical expectation that God will reconcile all things in Christ ..."I'll agree that universalism does not deal with the how; but, rather the what. You seem to agree that man has some part in reconciliation? God has already done His part in reconciliation; He gives man a lifetime to do his part (not work!). And, if he doesn't; well, we know what happens. So, why does universalism hope for or expect to see what we have already seen in the crucifixion. Putting the finishing touches on the new creation is sort of a detail for God, no?
The problem is for each of us to figure out the sense in which God meant 'death' and 'perish' etc. when He inspired the Bible writers to put 'pen to paper.' Of course, some of us just know without much effort. Those are blessed indeed.
ReplyDeleteGod didn't scapegoat Jesus... I was commenting in my Sunday morning adult study group that maybe Jesus didn't so much divinely "know" that he was going to / had to die, so much as he saw the writing on the wall after his cousin John the Baptist's beheading. Even up to the night before the crucifixion, in the Garden, Jesus prayed for a way out of the death sentence. It makes me wonder if He, having "emptied" at last some of his divine knowledge in taking on human form, didn't exactly plan to die for the "cause." The crucifixion really connects in my mind to issues of theodicy. If God knows the future, he certainly anticipated what would occur (that Jesus would be killed). Does God knowing equate to God "planning?" At any rate, I think God planning the resurrection as a counter-move to the crucifixion is the focus I need to keep in view. I also think the fact that God condescends to enter into suffering *with* us, and as evidenced by the resurrection, transforms our suffering into something of eternal value is a hopeful thought, to which I cling. I'm probably as selective and idolatrous in my self-fashioned god as the worst Christian you can imagine, but that's where I be -- at the present time. :-)
ReplyDeleteHey Dr. Beck, great thoughts, and I appreciate you mentioning Tony Jones' series before Easter. I read that entire series and actually thought of you as I did. It seemed to me (and I could have misread) that this algorithm complaint was a part of Tony's dislike of Christus Victor theory of atonement. In fact, his explanation of Christus Victor seemed someone different (or at least highlighted a different aspect) of the theory than what I've read and known, including here on your blog. Did you have any thoughts on this?
ReplyDeleteNo, God didn't scapegoat Jesus. We did. God allowed him to be scapegoated on our behalf. And having scapegoated God--in a perfectly innocent human being--our trust in our ability to do violence to others has been eternally called into judgment.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I don't know what you are saying or asking.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the role of belief, you may want to read more closely to see how it functions in Arminian systems and how many in the Reformed tradition consider belief itself a work. For example, if you can be blamed for not believing why not have your belief credited to you? It's the symmetry of the situation and the role of belief in the saved versus the damned, how what a human does--believe or not believe--effecting salvation/damnation. Which is why the Reformed posit election over an act of human-initiated belief.
Also, I have no problem with God putting a must on our side of the ledger. What we are speaking to here is positing some internal compulsion in the psychology/nature of God (e.g., God must killed to have justice satisfied).
Yes, the problem with classic ransom theory is that God has to do a deal with the Devil to ransom captive humanity (we all here think of Aslan and the White Witch). That there is some sort of cosmic law of exchange that God has to submit to. So, yes, if the Christus Victor frame is positing a mechanism that God must submit to or comply with then we have the problem I note in the post.
ReplyDeleteBut if we step back and think of Christus Victor more generally and abstractly--seeing the main predicament of humanity as captivity to death and evil--than we don't have much of a problem. That is, it seems pretty clear to me that humans are caught up in some pretty evil/satanic dynamics, most of which, it seems to me, have to do with a fear of death. Thus salvation comes when God liberates us from those dynamics. Broadly, that's a Christus Victor frame but it isn't positing some sort of mechanism of ransom that God must submit to.
So my thought is in general...Why should an ALL KNOWING ALL POWERFUL ALL LOVING GOD have to follow any order or box or algorithm we humans have created...including things written in the bible (by humans). Could the bible just be written by men, much like ourselves but who lived thousands of years ago and ultimatley GOD can do whatever he wants? Suggestions about what GOD may or may not want or suggestions about who GOD is or how he operates etc are one thing, but to actually make concrete claims about the mystery of GOD seems a little arrogant! I can say GOD told me this...or GOD did this...but really? I am only an imperfect human just like the rest of us! What do I know? Anticipated answer: The bible tells us so..right? Well have humans not proven time and time again, we make mistakes and at different times have differences in interpretations? Isn't this why there are over THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND (38,000) different denominations/different groups of christians and still growing at an alarming rate!!! Then to add to that number there are other religions who "strongly" believe in there version of GOD from other time periods in history, different cultures and regions of the world not just ancient Israel!
ReplyDeleteHi Susan,
ReplyDeleteIf you have posted comments at my blog, I do not see them. Blogger keeps insisting on updates to its templates and settings, and I have tried to keep up. More than one person has complained. I have taken off every single type of filter, and still people are having trouble. I think I shall try to return to the "moderate" button, even though I don't see the need for it. At least I will get a head's up that someone has posted.
Evil comes in many forms, as does, ultimately, death. Just now in the lives of myself and my sisters and our families, it has taken the form of an 81 year-old great-grandmother. She is a cheat, a lair, and a complete fraud and manipulator. All this after I went way out of my way to do only good unto both her and her family. She is the epitome of selfishness and greed, yet claims to be both a Christian and a pillar of her church community. My father's worse sin was not in abandoning his family. It was his abominable choices in partners and spouses, who did nothing but leave carnage in their wake.
Sorry, but just now for me there is no understanding, and no peace.
That's basically where I ended up - that the theory was taken to a place it didn't necessarily have to go. Don't get me wrong, I still love Tony's stuff, but for a minute I was thinking, "Wait, that's not the CV I know or hold to." Thanks for your thoughts!
ReplyDeleteI returned to the "old" Blogger interface just now. However, feel free to email me if you like at dib101@live.com whenever you like. Thanks for your care and concern.
ReplyDeleteHi Susan,
ReplyDeleteI love this: "I'd rather practice being kind than being right." Makes it so much easier to love your neighbor when you don't feel compelled, for their salvation's sake, to try to convince them of theological positions, nor having to constantly defend or answer demands on where you are. It also makes possible friendship with those of other belief systems (where there is mutuality and respect), such as with my Mormon neighbors. Sweet family, btw.
Sam, I'm so sorry. I've been in similar situations with relatives, but don't claim to know exactly how you feel. Only that I know it's awful, and that there seems to be no human way of reconciling the situation. And, God, for whatever reason? chooses not to intervene to relieve the pressure and grief. Being in that "place" of unresolved grief and being hard-pressed with troubles on all sides -- so difficult. Ugh. Sam, my mother was married (and divorced) 5 times. My dad remarried only once, but my stepmother was the scariest individual I've ever known. I think I can imagine some of your frustration and grief...
ReplyDeleteThe blog comment issue is on my end, I think. When I tried Internet Explorer (vs. Firefox), I at least got a pop-up message that my comment was awaiting approval from the moderator...and would appear after being approved. Our browser settings are disabled for activex, javascript, etc., etc., for airtight security (with a pre-teen and a teenager on the Net). That might be the problem... I do not want to post my e-mail address here -- not that brave! I'll keep trying to comment at your blog periodically. You write so beautifully; I enjoy reading. (Sorry for this rabbit trail, Dr. Beck.) ~Peace~
Thanks, Patricia. Good to see you too. :-) I want to cheer, "Like-Like-Like!!!"
ReplyDeleteMy daughter took sewing lessons from a wonderful Mormon woman in her home for over a year, whom we adored. She invited me to several women's group functions, as we were "churchless" at the time. We used to talk casually during the sewing lesson, very openly. At the end of that year of lessons, my friend invited us to visit her church (temple?) While I admitted that the Mormon beliefs were not ones that I could "hang" with, I expressed a unity with her in our common belief in the same God, and Jesus Christ. We hugged, and both shed a few tears of mixed joy/sadness. I still miss seeing her every week! Such a lovely person. And, their family values were impressive.
Our dearest neighbors (my son's best friend) are Jewish. My son is asked by his friend fairly regularly about Jesus and what we believe. Most recently, he asked why we believe in Jesus, and how do we know that he really rose from the dead, was the Son of God, etc. My son was recounting the conversation to me, questioning how he might answer in a more helpful way. Apparently, another neighbor-friend who is Catholic had told mutual Jewish friend that we believe in Jesus as our Savior so that we go to heaven, and not to hell. I have a problem with that, and feel inclined to take that sweet child aside and tell him not to worry about this heaven/hell business. (Now a few blog readers are probably wishing for the chance to roast me at the stake! Sorry again, Dr. Beck!) It just greatly disturbs me that this young child, who clearly has a curiosity about Jesus is being told such a negative story about him and the Christian faith!! This boy is so bright and inquisitive. I could easily see him opening up to faith in Jesus Christ some day. But not if the soterian gospel (Protestant *and* Catholic) keep dumping on him. Dear God, "Helphelphelphelp!"
We would have fun, the two of us, being neighbors, I like to imagine. So nice to know you, Patricia. I have hope! ~Peace~
Good stuff. Really, really good stuff.
ReplyDeleteHave you read or listened to any C. Baxter Kruger? This is a very large part of what he is "on about". As an example, he totally blew me away when he made a statement to the effect that the High Priest at the time of the crucifixion of Christ was the only High Priest in the history of Israel who completely fulfilled his purpose (hint: he sacrificed the lamb).
Thanks, Sam. You brave soul! E-mail just sent your way...
ReplyDeleteI agree, girl friend, we could have a lot of fun. It would be so nice to have coffee and talk books, theology, life experiences, our kids ... as theological and educationally oriented as Abilene is, I don't know any other women here who share our interests and perspective. And one dares not say much, given the theological climate here. I haven't gotten to spend much time with my neighbor yet. This whole last year was pretty much a bust because of the accident. But she's sweet, and we've helped each other out on occasion.
ReplyDeleteWell, three cheers for the blessed. You would probably condemn me for having "relativistic" ideas about good and evil, right and wrong, etc. Yet it is you who do violence to words and language, making meaningful dialogue impossible. Words are tools, but when you reserve the right to make them mean whatever YOU think they mean, you lose both your credibility and your moral high ground. And you are being relativistic.
ReplyDeleteDid somebody say algorithm? You know how to get the computer science guys excited. From my time reading this blog, I'm guessing the apostle John's algorithm "God is love" is one of the few we might all agree on. Maybe the mystery of the incarnation is that God himself can be the programmer, the algorithm, and the program? Maybe when it looks like Jesus is just the atonement program following the algorithm of God, it isn't that way because he is also the programmer?
ReplyDeleteWhat better way to make human beings the very heart and center of the Universe? Funny how many people simply blind themselves to this simple thought. Someone recently said to me that "the reason that we were created in the first place was in order for God to set right the revolt of the bad angels in Heaven". That is, we are his answer to angelic revolt. I honestly had no response. How can you possibly process that?
ReplyDeleteGreat explanation of the subtleties of this particular conversation! You always put to words, with clarity, what I can't seem to focus clearly into thought.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add that these underlying mechanisms bring with them a sort of possessive and defensive attitude by those who ascribe to them. It's almost as if because we have put so much time and effort into constructing these mechanisms, that we feel a sense of ownership rather than pure discovery.
I like to think of the simplicity of faith, especially and exclusively terms of salvation, as looking at a cIlock and believing the time it tells. Complications arise when we doubt the clock. I don't think it is a bad thing to doubt at all, I actually think doubt is a helpful thing as it is often the seed of the desire to know and understand. But maybe we become too possessive and egotistical in our pursuit of understanding when we attempt to own these underlying explanations or mechanisms of how the clock (universe) works. In a sense we are trying to build the clock ourselves simply by looking at its face.
In owning our beliefs in such a way, I think we are holding on to them with the certainty and stubbornness of a closed fist rather than the humility and wonder of an open hand.
"I have held many things in my hands and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess." - Martin Luther
I very much enjoyed this post - the clarity and simplicity with which you describe atonement and then penal substitution. I wish my theology professors in seminary could have been as clear. But...I wanted more. At the end of the post I thought, "where's the rest?" What are the leading alternatives to penal substitution? What is your alternative? Or ought we simply rest on "simple atonement"? I was raised as a penal substitution Metho-Baptist, but have a number of issues with it now, of which you tactfully touched on in this post. I just wanted to read further...what's the next step, the alternative? More please!
ReplyDeleteRight so who is the authority to say if this persons "theory" about why God created humans (answer to angelic revolt) is right or wrong? Whos to say that is the reaon..or not the reason...the next man will say no we were created because of this xyz and the list goes on! The people of Israel/ Hebrews have there take on it clearly depicted in the bible which happened to be handed down to americans but what about the billions/trillions born in India or China or Africa or South America or native American Indians? They all have very firm beliefs and stories about why we are here and who God is or how Gods did this etc. Some of these other ancient texts date back before the bible I've heard? I'm just saying who's right, and how do we know? Who can answer for GOD?
ReplyDeleteSam,
ReplyDeleteSorry, for apparently upsetting and also confusing you. I'll try to clarify.
"Well, three cheers for the blessed."
My take is that you think I include myself in this group of people. I most certainly do not. I was using sarcasm and I ought to know better.
"You would probably condemn me for having "relativistic" ideas about good and evil, right and wrong, etc."
I would never do that. You are entirely entitled to your views, whatever they may be. If you agree, then I guess I too am entitled to my views? On the other hand, for any kind of meaningful dialogue to take place it seems to me some explanation of what and why one believes as he/she does is helpful, no?
"Yet it is you who do violence to words and language, making meaningful dialogue impossible."
Well, that sounds like a bad thing and one which I try to avoid. Can you give me an example or two of this sin of mine?
"you reserve the right to make them (words) mean whatever YOU think they mean,"
Sorry you see me doing this; for this is most assuredly not my intent or desire. I do have my dictionary; do you too have your dictionary? Possibly you think I should use some other dictionary than the one I now have? If you will give me a copy of yours then I'll try to use it.
"you lose both your credibility and your moral high ground."
I have neither credibility nor moral high ground to lose. I have opinions. Is that wrong???
"And you are being relativistic."
Wow, that sounds bad. Would you be so kind as to explain what you mean by that?
"To be honest, I don't know what you are saying or asking."
ReplyDeleteSorry for speaking in a foreign language; but, since I only really asked one question, I'll camp there for a while.
The question was: "So, why does universalism hope for or expect to see what we have already seen in the crucifixion."
My assumptions: God has already done His part in the reconciliation process. Man can decide to do his part or not and he/she has a lifetime to make this decision. BTW, regardless of what any reformed may say, I don't think believing is a work.
You say you : " Totally agree with that." (i.e., until man reconciles himself to God by accepting the work of the cross the loop of reconciliation is not closed.)
But, you follow this with: "universalism ... is the biblical expectation that God will reconcile all things in Christ . . ."
How can it be up to man to now close the loop of reconciliation through faith and yet also be up to God (who has already done His part) to reconcile 'all things' at some later time? The only solution that comes to mind is that universalism holds that God MUST give faith to ALL humans. Wouldn't that be an example of "positing some internal complulsion in the psychology/nature of God?"
You wrote the following: "The problem is for each of us to figure out the sense in which God meant
ReplyDelete'death' and 'perish' etc. when He inspired the Bible writers to put
'pen to paper.' Of course, some of us just know without much effort.
Those are blessed indeed."
I apologize to you for not recognizing your sarcasm. I read those words the same way I read the Bible -- taking the words at face value. That is, "death" means "to be dead". The same with "perish". The same for being "blessed". The same for "some of us just know without much effort". Not some OTHER meaning. To give the words themselves some alternate meaning is to engage in interpretation for the sake of relevancy, or perhaps some other agenda, such as sales.
I have always been wary of anyone who wants to explain to me how to interpret the words in the Bible. Due to the way and manner in which it was created, it is not possible to decipher its meaning in many of its passages.
It's because God is Holy that He punishes sin. God can't go against His Holy nature. He cannot lie. Since He is Holy and just, He does not sweep sin under the rug of the universe. The wages of sin is death. Not to punish would be unjust. A lie would reign at the core of reality if He did not punish sin.
ReplyDeleteI recommend you study a little about the ancient Persians, and specifically Zoroastrianism. (You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism). There you will read about a monotheistic religion which pre-dates Abraham by 1,500 years. Many of the same concepts are found there, all of which have now been incorporated into the three major monotheistic faiths.
ReplyDeleteDifferent note, but you've got me curious. So you don't believe, when God elects someone, that God gives them faith as a gift? You think the act of faith is something the human being does to become saved? It's not a trick question, because that's what Arminians believe and roughly what I believe. Would we agree on that? Again, just curious.
ReplyDeleteAs to God MUST give faith to ALL humans. No, God doesn't have to give faith to everyone. God could do that if God wanted. God being God and all. Or God could have infinite patience to wait out a finite human being. Or God could punish to bring about repentance like how God did with Israel so many times. In short, God, being God, could do any number of things. There's nothing in universalism that says God must do X and not Y to save humanity.
I try not to say this since it is offensive to unbelievers (and to some who profess belief) but since you are curious here goes:
ReplyDeleteOne more thing; this is just my opinion, based, I believe, on my understanding of Scripture.
God's purpose in creating is to be seen for who He really is by His creation (including humanity).He decided that the best way to accomplish this is the following:
He elected/chose individuals whom He will ultimately save before the beginning of time.
As a corrolary, there are those who will not be treated as elect.
The elect go through life as sinful unbelievers since they, just like all others, will not choose to believe God.
God believes that all humans have the ability (not desire) to believe Him and thus He holds all accountable for NOT believing Him.
At some point in these elect individual's lifetimes, God gives them saving faith.
At that point, they choose to believe Him.
God completes the transaction by declaring them righteous, et al.
All non-elect will not choose to believe Him and thus are eternally separated from Him.
As to universalism and musts, I guess if you posit that God might wait for an eternity for any particular individual to come to faith on his/her own, you could have ALL saved. Sorry, but that sounds a lot like a wishful fantasy to me and I can find no Scripture that might support this view.
I really like this way of looking at God's atonement. However, I'm having difficulty finding scriptural support: In Romans 8:32 Paul writes "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all" -- that preposition "for" has the alternate translation "instead of", which seems to me to support the penal-substitution-atonement teaching. Do you have any thoughts / other verses to consider?
ReplyDeleteI am most assuredly an "unbeliever," because I do find your view of the "good" news to be most offensive. That is a fascinating contrast isn't it, that the "good" news is offensive to most of mankind. "Glad tidings of great joy?" Apparently not. Well at least it's good news for the "elect," people like you David, who apparently don't really care what God does with the rest of humanity. As long as YOU are saved, the rest can all just go to hell. And I thought you were my friend... please forgive me for ever thinking so. Your claims of loving me and all your fellow man are just lip service. "Election" is such a wonderful notion -- as long as you are elect and don't care about anyone who isn't, of course. I pity you in that. What's it like to NOT care? Please don't answer... I don't want to know.
ReplyDeleteSo now that we know what you believe, what is your point in stating it? You have already said that you try not to, so why do you give in and offend all of us unbelievers now? Are you merely gloating in your election? But what purpose would that serve, for you did nothing to deserve it did you? You are a piece-of-shit human like all the rest of us, aren't you?... totally depraved, wicked, evil, and worthy of nothing but eternal torment... a junky piece of broken pottery molded by a potter who "righteously" judges us based on how HE made us. And is he really stupid enough to BELIEVE that we all have the "ability to believe him" when he himself KNOWS that not a single one will ever do so? And how would our creator KNOW that none of us would ever believe him? The same way that Toyota would know that a Corolla will never go 200mph --- because they designed and built it that way. But let's not let reason get in the way of religion.
But we can't expect the creator to hold himself responsible for his creation can we? No, that would apparently be blasphemous, unjust, and idolatrous. To place God as the creator and sustainer of all things.... utterly ridiculous. But it is a "tradition of men" to give the creator the credit for anything good that happens and blame the created for anything bad... so let's just go with it. After all, it can't be the potter's fault that the vessel is broken. The potter has no authority over the pots - he just breaks them if he wishes and demands that they fix themselves. It's called being "holy," or "just," or "loving," or whatever other random word you choose to use and define at your leisure.
Again David, just what the hell is your point in all of this? Do you take some great pleasure in telling us non-elect that God does NOT love us.... that He predestined us to be burned as trash in His glorification bonfire? And what would be the point in even opening your mouth? If we non-elect are never going to believe God we're certainly not going to believe you! You are wasting your breath.
I do kind of like the idea of a "wishful fantasy" though - one which I do see supported in scripture and in the person of Christ. To actually believe that our creator loves all of us; that we actually have infinite worth to Him; that there is actually NOTHING that can separate us from His love; that we are ALL His children, and that we have a Father worthy of our love and worship. Now THAT is a "fantasy" I would LOVE to share with my fellow man.
Unlike the "god" you believe in, and your hesitance in sharing your "truth" about him, I would actually WANT to introduce my neighbors and my children to THAT God. As to yours, well, you can have him. I reject him. I want nothing to do with him. Enjoy eternity David. And try not to shed any tears for the rest of us... but I know you won't.
ALWAYS your friend, Jim
(The sarcasm and unconditional love are free... I charge for neither and expect nothing in return.)
Thanks for the answer about belief and election. This part made me curious:
ReplyDeleteGod believes that all humans have the ability (not desire) to believe
Him and thus He holds all accountable for NOT believing Him.
If people are able to believe in God does this ever happen outside of God's election? That is, could a non-elect person come across a bible, read it, and say, "I'm convinced by this story. I believe Jesus was the Son of God." Just like, say, a person might become convinced by another world religion and convert to it. In your view, could this ever happen with Christianity? Could a non-elect person become a believer in Christianity the way they might become convinced of, say, Buddhism? Or is the non-elect person in some way prevented from looking into Christianity and becoming convinced by it?
Interesting you mentioned this...I just recently compiled a list of wiki links to every religion I could find and Zoroastrianism stood out to me, gonna check it out soon!
ReplyDeleteI was hoping to hear back from Dr. Beck and hear his thoughts on this?
ReplyDeleteNot much to say, other than this is a very real possibility, and that God might not even exist. It goes to the issues of presuppositions. The post assumes that something Divine is being communicated through the Christian story. If that premise is questioned or rejected then, yes, the Christian view of atonement is set aside.
ReplyDeleteGod is free to act with or without my approval. God acted decisively in Jesus to reach out to us. His resurrection is what differentiates Jesus from a sincere but misguided fool. In a world where might and violence seem so powerful, God's willingness to be vulnerable, even killed, and then resurrected is a powerful reminder not only that violence and power are finite, but that love wins :)
ReplyDelete"If people are able to believe in God does this ever happen outside of God's election?"
ReplyDeleteI don't find it in Scripture. Is there a passage that seems to say otherwise to you?
"That is, could a non-elect person come across a bible, read it, and say, 'I'm convinced by this story. I believe Jesus was the Son of God.'"
Sorry; but I have to say something about the meaning of belief before answering. As I understand it, belief has three elements. True knowledge; True understanding; Trust in that understanding. So, just acknowledging that Jesus is the son of God is not a sign of 'belief.' When belief includes trust in what Jesus has done as all that is asked of them, then saving faith is likely present.
"Just like, say, a person might become convinced by another world religion and convert to it."
Humans can become convinced of almost anything, including religion X, all on their own. Saving faith is not required for a person to believe human wisdom.
"Could a non-elect person become a believer in Christianity the way they might become convinced of, say, Buddhism?"
If by a 'believer in Christianity' you mean a person who Trusts what God has actually revealed about Jesus and His work, then no. Only by God providing the saving faith, which He only does for elect individuals, will a person believe Him.
"Or is the non-elect person in some way prevented from looking into Christianity and becoming convinced by it?"
While it is a proof text, I think 2 Cor. 3-4 [And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world (satan) has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (NASB)] is the most straightforward answer to that one. BTW, while an elect person is an unbeliever, this passage includes them also.
As always, these are my opinions and not at all provided as THE TRUTH. Thus, if you have Scripture which you believe contradicts any of these views, I would be very appreciative of your sharing them and your interpretation.
Hey Jim,
ReplyDeleteFirst, sarcasm and vitriol duly noted and ignored. Honestly, I have not taken offense at any of the many ad hominems.
"like you David, who apparently don't really care what God does with the rest of humanity."
What have I ever said, Jim, which leads you to make such a ridiculous statement?
"You are wasting your breath."
For the time being I seem to have plenty of breath, so no need for any concern in this regard. I have no idea who is or who is not elect. Further, I am not able to convince anybody of anything regarding God. So, I share my views for God to use as He sees fit. In this particular case, I was responding to a direct question from Dr. Beck.
I believe that one of your major mistakes in reading me is to think that just because I state a view, that I must agree that it is 'good.' In a billion, billion years I would not have come up with this plan. It really makes no sense to me. Based on this plan my mother, father, sister and brother are all going to the lake of fire. For me to think that that is good outcome while I bask in New Jerusalem would make me a despicable person, no? But, I believe it to be the truth. Of course, YMMV.
"Again David, just what the hell is your point in all of this?"
Have you ever considered why a person, a stranger (me), stating their opinion as I have causes you such angst? Isn't this a place of tolerance and acceptance of 'all' views, regardless of how screwy they may appear to you? Please, get a grip and start dealing with what I actually say rather than some erroneous interpretation of what I have not said.
To David,
ReplyDeleteI have no right to ask you to leave any blog. You have more right to be here than I do.
I know exactly what I believe, and I do not need to argue with you to prove it to myself or anyone else. And I need to take my own advice to my daughter and stop spending so much time on the internet.
To all of you here at ET, including you David, thanks so much for all that you have shared with me and taught to me. I have nothing but good thoughts for, and beautiful impressions of, all of you.
Bless you all. I'm outta here. ;)
"In these theological systems God has to follow, like a computer program, an algorithm of salvation. " And like a computer program, its theological minutia are systems that take a theological version of Bill Gates to follow. And yet these "applications" of Jesus' death and resurrection aren't found in his teachings and life example. So, if it's really as complicated as all that, it seems Jesus would said something, instead of reducing all the law and prophets to a singular command to love.
ReplyDeleteGod answers for God, homes!
ReplyDeleteTrue, Patricia. But Jesus's command was not to love God and your neighbor as yourself. That was, as you say, the law and the prophets. It was stuff the Jews were already supposed to know.
ReplyDeleteJesus's NEW command is "Love one another AS I HAVE LOVED YOU." The "as I have loved you" is the new part. :)
That's a bad alternate translation.
ReplyDeleteSo there is a Divine Justice and a Holy Nature that precede the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible?
ReplyDeleteThe idea of atonement comes from the Old Testament, Leviticus 16. Since then, sin sacrifice is almost always required in the Old Testament nation of Israel. In Hebrews 9:22, "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Hebrews 9:26 goes on to say: "he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself."
ReplyDeleteThat is where the Protestantism gets their theology. That's the connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Every move by God, from choosing Abraham to Levitical rituals, that has been set up in the Old Testament, has a significance that relates to the new Testament.
(Sorry for the format, copy and paste from Biblegateway is wonky.)
Jeremy
Also, I would like to add a note:
ReplyDeleteGod is not a computer program. But He keeps his Word and promises. Unchanging everlasting to everlasting. So what He says he will do, He will do. But He's also omnipresent that he knows what he says will not compromise the future history He has seen or already knows.
Look at the prophecies in the Old Testament, even the prophecies about the Kings of Israel made by Isaiah and Ezekiel. Look at Jericho.
Saying God is a computer program is saying that God and theology has to add up. Not just Calvinism, but even universal salvation. To assert any of these theoLOGY would be complying to the computer program.
"The most important aspect of all this is how the sacrifice at the heart
ReplyDeleteof Christianity is a grand reversal of paganism. In paganism humans made
sacrifices to appease a wrathful god. But in Christianity it is God who makes the sacrifice. Humans call out for blood--"Crucify! Crucify!"--and God hands Jesus over to appease us. "
I believe the technical term is "bullshit." A tempermentally wrathful God comes out of Judaism and is picked up in Christianity when convenient. See, for instance, Jonathan Edwards.
In Greco-Roman Paganism, Gods are generally pretty easy-going. One might honor his/her household diety, visit a local shrine, and engage in a more broadly-based mystery cult. (Early Christianity should be understood as one mystery cult among many in the Roman era. St Augustine chose Christianity not because of some particular attraction to its message, but because the there was no membership fee.) The relationship was of a patron and a client. One observed the forms and made the expected sacrifices, and the favors naturally followed. Apuleius' The Golden Ass is very instructive of this relationship.
In the Greek era, an individual might get on the wrong side of a deity, but that was the exception rather than the rule. Odysseus is of interest because of his long-standing feud with Poseidon. Keep in mind that Odysseus fought the Gods on the plains of Troy, and kicked some divine asses. Who in the Judaism or Christianity can make such a claim? Likewise all the subjects of Greek tragedy. Pride, as the good book says, goeth before a fall. Various manifestations of pride lead to the tragic end of many, if not most, Greek tragic heroes. Only in late Euripidean tragedy do the gods become arbitrary and vindictive.
Even earlier, it's instructive to note that the most violent goddesses - Anat, Istar, perhaps even Asherah -- were also goddesses of love and procreation. Devotion, indeed, reverence, to these continued in the face of quite drastic official condemnation through the era of the patriarchs, through the era of the Hebrew Bible, and quite likely well into the Christian era.
That being said, the notion of God as responsive to some larger impulse pervades middle eastern / Greco-Roman theology. Yahweh did not "create the heavens and the earth" ex nihilo - He sorted out a sloppy mess created by some larger entity. Yahweh did such a bad job of it that Gnostics proposed quite an elaborate schema to explain it all.
All the theological gimcrackery in the last two millenia fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the necessity for salvation theology.
I'm
ReplyDeleteI've
ReplyDeleteIt's
ReplyDeleteNo Secret, The Christians Guide to God's Law of Attraction
There are four basic areas in life that all must remain in
balance. Those four areas consist of your Spiritual life, your Physical life,
(fitness), your Relational life. And your Financial Life. It is important to realize that we are never
in perfect balance. We will always be leaning one way or another what I am
getting at here is that in today's world we tend to be tilted more than is
healthy. That is the purpose of this website aIt's No Secret, The Christians
Guide to God's Law of Attractionnd my mission to help people gain a sense of
balance in their live's…........
Go To:>> http://www.jamespatrickwatson.com/