Biblical Universalist Discussion Forum
Welcome to my forum. Feel free to post a message.
|
||
| Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Forum |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 8) |
| Author | Comment |
Mike Burke
 Jan 12, 07 - 2:06 PM |
The Nature of the Atonement
Love is thinking of others, sin is thinking only of yourself. Love gave us the Gospel, sin gave us abortion clinics, old age "death watch" homes, the survival of the fittest ideology of Nazi Germany, the ovens of Auschwitz, the labor camps of Stalinist Russia, etc. God said He had no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:32), and He certainly takes no pleasure in the death of the innocent, so why did Jesus have to die? On the night of His arrest, Jesus said: ...for them do I sanctify myself, that they also themselves may be sanctified in truth (John 17:19.) It would appear from this that He expected His act of sacrificial love to have the power to sanctify others, but in what way? Paul later wrote: ...scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:7-8.) I believe Jesus was fully God and fully man, and His sacrifice demonstrated God's love, and how seriously God views sin, as nothing else could have. A friend recently put it this way: Jesus died to show us how much He loves His Father and to show us how much He loves us. If we turn and follow Him we don't have to go to hell. If a person turns from their sins because of Jesus' death He has in effect died in their place. Because He died for me I turned from my sin and began to follow Him. Any thoughts? |
|
Pablo
Jan 12th, 2007 - 2:43 PM |
Re: The Nature of the Atonement
Are we sinful if we place out elder loved ones in a nursing home? Or instead, should the caretakers go bankrupt taking care of their elders? I trust God, but I don't see God operating the way many religious folk preach him. A missionary I know just died of renal cancer after a long, painful struggle, and having given his all for three decades. And many of the most generous still struggle with poverty, and die poor, giving a new view of the idea of what "the law of reciprocity" might mean after all. And just take a look at the life of Deitrich Bonhoffer. And the singles who content themselves in aloneness month after month, "trusting the Lord to bring me that 'special someone' " who end up old and alone after all, after wasting the best years of hope trusting in some kind of flawed theology. I trust God. I don't trust most folks' interpretation of how he operates with us in the here or now. Pablo |
|
Mike Burke
Jan 12th, 2007 - 6:19 PM |
Re: The Nature of the Atonement
[Quote] Are we sinful if we place our elder loved ones in a nursing home? [unquote] Paul wrote: ...if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God...If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1 Tim. 5:4,8.) A sinful culture created nursing homes, and these nursing homes become "death watch" centers because relatives seldom (if ever) visit their elders there. This creates a psychologically lethal feeling of isolation and depression that usually kiils the residents within a year or so (and there have been studies on this.) In previous generations, people took care of their parents, and children grew up with their grandparents, but more selfish generations said "I have a life of my own to live," and we collectively did away with the extended family. Does that do away with God's command to "honor your father and mother"? If the realities of this sinful culture force a believer to place his (or her) elders in a nursing home, I would suggest that they at least make sure that they visit them more regularly than those of the world do. [Quote] A missionary I know just died of renal cancer after a long, painful struggle, and having given his all for three decades [unquote] Sounds like he had a long ministry. Have you ever read "Last Lines," by Anne Bronte (who I believe died at 29 years of age--of the consumption she contracted while caring for her ailing brother)? Here were some of her last thoughts on earth: ...I hoped amid the brave and strong my portioned task might lie, to toil amid the labouring throng, with purpose pure and high. But Thou hast fixed another part, and Thou hast fixed it well; I said so with my breaking heart when first the anguish fell. For Thou hast taken my delight and hope of life away, and bid me watch the painful night, and wait the weary day. The hope and the delight were Thine; I bless Thee for their loan; I gave Thee while I deemed them mine too little thanks, I own. Shall I with joy Thy blessings share, and not endure their loss? Or hope the martyr's crown to wear, and cast away the cross? These weary hours will not be lost, these days of passive misery, these nights of darkness anguish tost, if I can fix my heart on Thee. Weak and weary though I lie, crushed with sorrow, worn with pain; still I may lift to Heaven mine eyes, and strive and labour not in vain. That inward strife against the sins that ever wait on suffering; to watch and strike where first begins each ill that would corruption bring. That secret labour to sustain with humble patience every blow. To gather fortitude from pain, and hope and holiness from woe. Thus let me serve Thee from my heart, whatever be my written fate. Whether thus early to depart, or yet awhile to wait. If Thou shouldst bring me back to life, more humbled I should be; more wise, more strengthened for the strife, more apt to lean on Thee. Should Death be standing at the gate, thus should I keep my vow; But, Lord, whate'er my future fate, so let me serve Thee now. |
|
Pablo
Jan 14th, 2007 - 8:40 PM |
Re: The Nature of the Atonement
Amen. And so certainly God cannot be manipulated by putting faith in our faith in him. I am bothered by theologies that claim that God may be cajoled by formula. I agree that in most cases, elders in a nursing home are going to precipitate into death much more quickly. |
|
Mike Burke
Jan 14th, 2007 - 9:14 PM |
Re: The Nature of the Atonement
Thank you Pablo. |
|
Mike Burke
Jan 15th, 2007 - 12:30 PM |
Re: The Nature of the Atonement
[Quote] certainly God cannot be manipulated by putting faith in our faith in him. I am bothered by theologies that claim that God may be cajoled by formula. [unquote] If you're talking about those who preach "name it and claim it," I tend to agree with you. God Bless. |
|
Ed Smith
Jan 17th, 2007 - 2:05 PM |
Re: The Nature of the Atonement
There are considered to be 3 major theories of atonement, though there are variations within each. There is the satisfaction/penal substitution theory which is put forward by most of the church today. There is the ransom/Christus Victor theory which seemed to be most popular among the early church fathers. Then there is the moral influence theory. The first is concerned about a debt being paid to God. We have earned a penalty for our sin and God is satisfied just as well if an innocent being pays that debt for the guilty. There are problems with it concerning implications regarding God's character. Why, if He can free us from sin and have a sinlessly perfect universe, would he have to have payment? Could He not just forgive, as we are told to do? However, a demonstration of justice and a statement of the seriousness of sin and its effects might be desired, even if not entirely necessary. George MacDonald, in particular, had a real bone to pick with this theory. He would ask why should God be happier to see the guilty go free because an innocent suffered? The second idea was the one he favored. There are significant variations in exactly how that one is described. At its heart, it describes the work of Christ as having the result that we are freed from some power or claim Satan gained over us through Adam and/or our own sins. The third theory basically says that Christ died for us for the emotional/thoughtful effect it would have upon us and to be a fine example. I've never liked that one as a complete explanation because it seems to say that the atonement didn't actually do anything, but that the power of it was only the idea of it. Then why was it really necessary? Statements can be found in scripture which certainly seem to directly support each of these. Thus, I think they must all be involved. I feel that the second is most at the heart of it because it is the only one which seems to be convincing as to the true necessity of the cross. However, I also view the others as secondary, but important aspects of the atonement. But if you subscribe entirely to the currently popular substitution theory, ask yourself the questions: What if God had no way to execute true justice concerning our sin, but could free us all from it so that we became pure, holy beings and He could have a pure, holy, perfect, joyful universe? Do you really think He would destroy us all just because some price had not been paid? Would He destroy us or torture us forever just to make a point? In Lewis' "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" a ransom is paid in an event clearly meant to be analogous to the cross. Before I knew Lewis favored the ransom theory, I thought he did this because something more exactly analogous to substitution in the story would make Aslan come off as a bit of an irrational, unforgiving, judgment automaton. MacDonald's frequent point was that the popular substitution theory of his day made God come across this way and insulted His character, making Christianity less appealing to those not brought up to it and to many who were brought up to it. I think he had a point. I once did a little study on the preaching in the book of Acts concerning this. I found "through Him (Jesus) we are freed from all things." I also found a place in which Christ was said to have made our forgiveness possible. Doing a Greek study on the word translated "forgiveness" I found that it indicated the act of freeing one from bondage. I will certainly take a stand on one thing about the atonement. However the cross may work, our particular belief in the atonement doesn't save us. Christ Himself saves us and our faith or trust in the PERSON of Christ makes the implementation of this salvation possible. Ed |
|
Mike Burke
Jan 17th, 2007 - 9:30 PM |
Re: The Nature of the Atonement
[quote] Statements can be found in scripture which certainly seem to directly support each of these. Thus, I think they must all be involved. [unquote] I think there is truth in all three theories. [quote] The third theory basically says that Christ died for us for the emotional/thoughtful effect it would have upon us and to be a fine example. I've never liked that one as a complete explanation [unquote] It may not be a complete explanation, but I believe it rounds out the true explanation. As you said (regarding the substitution theory): [quote]...a demonstration of justice and a statement of the seriousness of sin and its effects might be desired [unquote] I agree with that too, and what but Calvary could make such a statement (concerning the seriousness of sin and its effects), demonstrate God's love, and at the same time be used by the Holy Spirit to convict the conscience (concerning what "good" is, how far we fall short, and how we could all at least try to do better)? [quote] Could He not just forgive, as we are told to do? [unquote] I believe the sacrifice of Calvary has value even when it comes to forgiving others. How much easier is it to forgive those who have sinned against us, when we think of the price Christ paid for sin (ours, and theirs)? [quote] There is the ransom/Christus Victor theory which seemed to be most popular among the early church fathers...At its heart, it describes the work of Christ as having the result that we are freed from some power or claim Satan gained over us through Adam and/or our own sins. [unquote] I believe there is truth in this too. It may be of tremendous value in the working out of God's plan for the angels (fallen, and unfallen) for the Creator to demonstrate that He Himself operates within some prearranged set of rules--and He may have done just that at Calvary. Here is an interesting quote from St. Gregory of Nyssa: When we of our own free will had sold ourselves, and God in His goodness would restore us again to freedom, there was a kind of necessity for him not to proceed by way of force, but to accomplish our deliverance in a lawful way. It consists in this, that the owner is offered all that he asks as the redemption price of His property. (Gregory of Nyssa, Greater Catechism ch. 22) Thank you Ed, and God Bless. |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Forum |
Next |
Last |
powered by
bravenet.com