Biblical Universalist Discussion Forum

Jim C

Oct 27, 07 - 1:14 PM

Why did Jesus die?

Let me start by borrowing a line copied from a post on this site. I do this only because it seems to be very representative of the views of many Biblical Universalists when asked the question, "Why did Jesus die?"

"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."

Ok. I get that. But it makes no sense to me. No, that's an overstatement - it makes some sense, but it's also illogical, in my view. Let me posit a parable, and I'd love a response.

You are sitting at the beach with a friend. There are people all around, enjoying the sun and sand. A man runs down the beach with a large anchor tied to his back. He's yelling, "I love you! I love you!!" He runs up to you, grabs you by the shoulders, looks you in the eye and says, "I love you!". Then he runs out into the ocean, beyond the breakers, and drowns. You look at your friend and say, "What the heck was that all about?" Your friend replies, "He loved us... I guess."

Logical or illogical? If he loved me, wouldn't it have been MORE loving to hang around?

Love to hear your responses.
jim

Mike Burke

Oct 29th, 2007 - 10:06 AM

Re: Why did Jesus die?

[Quote] Let me start by borrowing a line copied from a post on this site. I do this only because it seems to be very representative of the views of many Biblical Universalists when asked the question, "Why did Jesus die?"

"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." [unquote]

That statement might be good as far as it goes, but Jesus also died to show us what God (He, His Father, and The Holy Spirit) think of sin.

[Quote] Let me posit a parable, and I'd love a response...Then he runs out into the ocean, beyond the breakers, and drowns. [unquote]

Jesus didn't crucify himself (i.e. "run out beyond the breakers and drown") fallen, sinful men crucified him.

He allowed this to show us what sin is, what love is, and how needful it is for us to change (by trusting and following Him.)

[Quote] If he loved me, wouldn't it have been MORE loving to hang around? [unquote]

He didn't stay dead, and He is with us:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matt. 28:18-20, RSV.)

Ed Smith

Oct 29th, 2007 - 11:57 AM

Re: Why did Jesus die?

I'm inclined to agree with you. I've never liked this kind of explanation of the atonement as merely an example or demonstration of some kind. It may be true, but I think there must be more to it than that. For that to be all of it, sure sounds like the cross wasn't absolutely necessary. To be fair, those who adhere to this theory may say that the example of God coming in the flesh and taking the worst that sin could dish out to a human being was, somehow, necessary to affect our minds and hearts toward regeneration.

To borrow from C.S. Lewis, I'd say we don't know exactly how the atonement through the cross works, but we know that it does work. To have a proper faith in the cross of Christ is to say that Jesus won my redemption through that act, regardless of why He had to do it that way. However, I will maintain that Christ Himself is the true object of saving faith. I mean, we should trust the person of Christ that He is willing and able to save us. While I see the Bible is clear that the cross did something real for us, I see it is also clear that our belief is in Christ Himself, not in the things He did.

Google "theories of atonement" and you should find some interesting reading on this topic. Personally, I believe all the standard theories were involved in some way.

Ed

Jim C

Oct 29th, 2007 - 12:28 PM

Re: Why did Jesus die?

Thanks Mike. But still, I'm not finding the logic in:

"Jesus didn't crucify himself (i.e. "run out beyond the breakers and drown") fallen, sinful men crucified him. He allowed this to show us what sin is, what love is, and how needful it is for us to change (by trusting and following Him."

First, you're cutting the issue far too thin to say "Jesus didn't crucify himself" and then say, "He allowed this..." If he allowed it, that implies that he could have prevented it. Was he a victim of sin, or not? Either way, it seems that you have created a logical problem here.

More importantly, you say, "to show us what sin is...". Weren't the 10 Commandments enough? Or the history of Israel's continual rebellion and killing of the prophets, followed by God's loving compassion demonstrated over and over? "To show us what sin is, what love is..." probably has some truth in it but that's quite a stretch to say that this was all that the cross was about, don't you think? I go back to my parable... If Jesus did not HAVE to die, then it really makes no sense to me. If his life was taken against his will, perhaps. Tragic, but there is value in it (like Jim Elliot - he did not intend to die, but God used it). If it was a necessary act, perhaps (like taking a bullet for the President). But intentionally committing suicide for no reason other than to "demonstrate love" (or demonstrate sin)? The logic escapes me still.

"...and how needful it is for us to change (by trusting and following Him." Where does that fit in? Jesus' tragic death says I should change? Why? Two thousand years' worth of humanity says, "So what?" I don't see how it shows how needful it is for anyone to change, especially if it seems like an illogical act.

[Quote] If he loved me, wouldn't it have been MORE loving to hang around? [unquote] "He didn't stay dead, and He is with us" ...great response. You got me there. Well said.

Ed - I appreciate your honesty and humility. I find the answer "I'm not sure how it works" to be far more helpful than "to demonstrate his love". We surely will never know exactly how it works. But at least you seem to be dissatisfied with an illogical answer!

Jim

Ed Smith

Oct 29th, 2007 - 1:40 PM

Re: Why did Jesus die?

Yes, I'll admit I don't quite know how it works. There seems to be no detailed, direct explanation in scripture. There are words like "propitiation" or "ransom" used to describe it. There are also references to what the cross and resurrection has done for us. In reading through the NT the last couple of times, I noticed, in particular, how often the emphasis was on this event resulting in our freedom from the sin to which we were enslaved. Thus, though I was once pretty firmly a penal substitution guy, I've come to lean strongly toward the Ransom/Christus Victor theory.

Penal substitution is currently the most popular theory in the western church, including mainstream evangelicalism, and I still think there is something to it. However, since you mentioned logical problems, let me point some out to you.

Penal substitution is explained by the phrase "God is just," but that doesn't seem to quite make sense of it, at least without further explanation. What kind of justice is it to allow the innocent to pay the penalty for the guilty? Can you imagine any human court doing so? Would you feel satisfied if a serial killer's Mom gave her life so her boy could go free? Why would punishing an innocent being satisfy God's need to punish the guilty? By all the usual concepts of justice, this would actually seem to be less just than just passing over sins. I could see this in terms of showing what would be needed to pay for our sins, but then we are back to thinking of the cross as more of a demonstration of the seriousness of sin.

Also, considering this to be absolutely necessary to satisfy God about our sins makes another problem. I suggest a thought experiment to those who view penal substitution as a complete explanation. What if God had a way to free us all from our sin and make us happy, healthy, holy people forever, but did not have a way to see that some legal-like requirement for justice was satisfied for our sins? Can you imagine that He would condemn us all just to make some point (to whom?) when He could easily enjoy us forever in a universe without sin or suffering? That is hard to imagine.

Additionally, the NT often teaches us to forgive others who have offended us and it seems to never give the impression that we are to forgive them on the basis that Christ has paid for their offense against us. It seems we are just to let it go and let the ugly past not exist in our hearts just as it does not exist in reality. In places, this kind of forgiving attitude required of us seems to be presented as an attitude we would share with God. If I am wrong to think it is presented that way, then it seems strange that God would want us to have a less demanding attitude regarding forgiveness of sin than He has.

Ultimately, I won't say I'm sure how it works, but I'll tell you I very much prefer a theory which makes the cross look like it was absolutely necessary. Penal substitution does so as well as my own current preference of explanations.

Jim C

Oct 29th, 2007 - 2:14 PM

Re: Why did Jesus die?

Great questions, all.

With respect to the "innocent for the guilty" thing, I think at that point you need to keep in view that we are dealing with one God in 3 persons, not 3 different beings. God did not commit, as Chalke is perported to have said, "cosmic child abuse". This is God bearing the penalty for God's judgement. I think that's his option, regardless of how we feel about it. For some reason God has chosen to reveal himself as a just, and even wrathful being (along with loving/forgiving etc.). If that were not so, then the whole sacrifice motif would not make sense at all. But since God reveals himself as such, and since it is reiterated and demonstrated in his initiation of the scrificial system in the OT, I don't see how you can just wish it away by saying we find it unjust or unfair. Could that be the "further explanation" you are seeking? That does it for me!

I am holding two things in tension here as I wrestle through this. On one hand, I certainly don't want to be more stingy with God's grace than God is! That would be arrogant, cruel and sinful. But on the other hand, the issue I take with the Biblical Universalists (Trinitarian, etc - insert your own term here!) is that they tend to, IMHO, "wish away" all that God has revealed about justice, wrath and sacrifice. And, I dare say, their position is not nearly as logical as substitutionary attonement. Logic doesn't make it true, but I don't see why something illogical is to be preferred!

I appreciate your honesty in wrestling with both sides of the issue. Most of the folks I've been reading just chuck one side or the other.

jim

Mike Burke

Oct 29th, 2007 - 2:59 PM

Re: Why did Jesus die?

Ed wrote:

[Quote] I could see this in terms of showing what would be needed to pay for our sins, but then we are back to thinking of the cross as more of a demonstration of the seriousness of sin. [unquote]

I believe it was intended to demonstrat the reality of both sin and love (agape love, the oposite of sin):

For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3.)

...for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. (John 17:19.)

For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps (1 Peter 2:21.)

We love him, because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19.)

Jim C wrote:

[Quote] ...you say, "to show us what sin is...". Weren't the 10 Commandments enough? [unquote]

No they weren't.

...the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. (1 Tim. 1:9-11.)

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, "Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, "You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire..."You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart..."You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. "You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. (Matt. 5:21-28, 38-48.)

This is the spirit of the law (that Christ lived and died by), and goes well beyond the ten commandments.

Ed wrote:

[Quote] I'm inclined to agree with you. I've never liked this kind of explanation of the atonement as merely an example or demonstration of some kind. It may be true, but I think there must be more to it than that....Personally, I believe all the standard theories were involved in some way. [unquote]

I believe the cross is more than an example of God's love, and more than a demonstration of the seriousness of sin, but I believe it provided both of these in a way nothing else could.

I would also agree that there's truth in all the standard theories of the atonement.

Thank you Ed (and G-d Bless.)

Jim C

Oct 29th, 2007 - 3:19 PM

Re: Why did Jesus die?

You had me for a moment, but then you lost me with the smorgasbord aproach to truth. "There is truth in all the standard theories of the attonement". Really? Come on. The Church disagreed on these, and still does today. Some are mutually exclusive. I weary of the breadth of Universal Accomodation (if I may coin the term). Can we all be right, really? I suppose that a radical and new Christology might redeem even logical contradictions!

Ed Smith

Oct 29th, 2007 - 3:23 PM

Re: Why did Jesus die?

From Jim C:

With respect to the "innocent for the guilty" thing, I think at that point you need to keep in view that we are dealing with one God in 3 persons, not 3 different beings. God did not commit, as Chalke is perported to have said, "cosmic child abuse". This is God bearing the penalty for God's judgement.

I entirely agree and would hate to think that you got the impression I was neglecting the unity of the Trinity. Perhaps I should have asked if you'd be more satisfied if the judge took the serial killer's place. In any event, I was certainly thinking of Jesus as God Himself.

I see the point you are making and understand your feelings. Justice, wrath and sacrifice are important ideas and shouldn't be make little of. Also, the OT sacrifices are relevant to this question and the references do sometimes present them as a satisfaction to God for sin. A ransom theory does not exclude that idea. Universalists are by no means the only ones who tend to have some currently less popular views of the atonement. I once thought C.S. Lewis had to use some alternate theory in the Narnian universe because it would have made the reader take a dim view of Aslan's character for not just forgiving Edmund's treachery as any generous forgiving person would (after he fully repudiated his own actions) and as his siblings did. Actually, Lewis favored the Ransom view of the atonement (even in our universe) and what happened in that book was a pretty close approximation of it.

At times in my life, when hearing about a man who had molested and murdered children, I found myself wishing he'd die soon before he came to faith in Christ. It felt to me like he just had to suffer for this and an eternal Hell would be too good for him. Perhaps I was right about that. Perpetual Hell does not require anything of you and I don't think God will let anyone off so easily. I can imagine nothing worse for a child molester than the moment he comes to truly see himself and his actions as you, I, the victim, and the victim's parents see it. He could only hate the person he'd made himself with the greatest of hatreds. He could do nothing but come to God and ask that the person he had made himself be destroyed. I do see sin as the ultimate horror. My concern with mainstream evangelicalism is that Hell, not sin, is often presented as the ultimate horror. I would rather have perpetual Hell than perpetual enslavement to sin. Far from being easy on sin, the proper Christian universalist believes that God will hound the sinner forever until they are forced to see themselves and their sins as God does: there will come a time when this "hounding" is always great misery without rest and that will be a permanent sentence for that person. As long as the person they have made themselves still exists, that misery will go on.

I thank you for your very cordial attitude here and admire your very civilized nature. Consequent to that nature, you were subtle about it, but I think you were expressing some concerns about whether many universalists may have proper saving faith, perhaps due to faulty ideas about the atonement. I very much know where you are coming from and once felt much the same about that particular issue. However, my concern about the proper faith of others now has a different emphasis. I am now much more worried that I see an ever present danger in the evangelical world of substituting mental assent to a list of facts about Christ (or what He did) in the place of trust in the PERSON of Christ Himself. I can't see mental assent to any facts, no matter how true and important they may be, as saving faith. That is just religion; what saves us is Christ Himself and our very personal relationship with Him is our salvation. I don't think a person has to know anything about the atonement itself so long as they know that Christ Himself is both willing and able to save them from their sins. If that person has heard about the cross, I'm sure they understand that He had His reasons for going through that and it was done for them. However, the cross does not identify Christ the person in a uniquely definitive way. The only thing I can see that identifies Christ absolutely, so that we know our faith is in the right person, is the fact that he is the one being in the universe who is both God and human. I believe the God man can save me and desires to do so. I believe the God-man will save me in spite of myself. I don't have to worry about what to do or what to learn in order to be saved; He will do it. My faith is in Christ the person not in details about His life or my own.

Best regards,

Ed

Ed Smith

Oct 29th, 2007 - 3:35 PM

Re: Why did Jesus die?

From Jim C:

"You had me for a moment, but then you lost me with the smorgasbord aproach to truth. "There is truth in all the standard theories of the attonement". Really? Come on. The Church disagreed on these, and still does today. Some are mutually exclusive. I weary of the breadth of Universal Accomodation (if I may coin the term). Can we all be right, really? I suppose that a radical and new Christology might redeem even logical contradictions!"

I don't think that is quite what is going on here, but I can understand your reaction. That is not what we are trying to do. I certainly do understand the idea of contradiction and recognize it when I see it. Perhaps I shouldn't have put it quite the way I did; I don't actually go for all the theories, especially since the theories usually claim to be complete explanations. Taking out the complete explanation part, I can take a few, not all of them, as having truth in them. For example, while you don't feel it is a complete explanation of the purpose of the cross, you agree that the cross does make a good example we can follow and testimony to us. The problem you have with that kind of theory is when it is THE purpose of the atonement to the exclusion of substitution. Thus, you see truth in at least two ideas of the atonement. We are much like you in that respect and I can assure you that neither of us are the kind of good liberals who like to idolize tolerance (or acceptance) and say that everyone is right. In fact, both of us are sickened by that particular aspect of modern liberalism.

Ed

Mike Burke

Oct 30th, 2007 - 1:13 PM

Re: Why did Jesus die?

Ed (to Jim):

[Quote] Perhaps I shouldn't have put it quite the way I did; I don't actually go for all the theories, especially since the theories usually claim to be complete explanations. Taking out the complete explanation part, I can take a few, not all of them, as having truth in them. [unquote]

When I spoke of "the standard theories," I was speaking of the Penal Substitution theory, the Moral Example theory, and the Ransom/Christus Victor theory (as I know you were), and if you take out "the complete explanation part" I don't believe they're at all mutually exclusive.

How could they be when they all have scriptural support?

The Christus Victor Theory:

Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? (Romans 6:16.)

Now the judgment (crisis) of this world is coming on [sentence is now being passed on this world]. Now the ruler (evil genius, prince) of this world shall be cast out (expelled). (John 12:31, The Amplified Bible.)

And you, being dead in the deviations and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all the deviations, blotting out the handwriting in the ordinances against us, which was contrary to us, even He has taken it out of the midst, nailing it to the cross; having stripped the rulers and the authorities, He made a show of them in public, triumphing over them in it. (Col. 2:13-15, Green's Literal Translation.)

Since, therefore, [these His] children share in flesh and blood [in the physical nature of human beings], He [Himself] in a similar manner partook of the same [nature], that by [going through] death He might bring to nought and make of no effect him who had the power of death--that is, the devil (Heb. 2:14, The Amplified Bible.)

The Moral Example Theory:

This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. (John 15:12-14.)

Sanctify them [purify, consecrate, separate them for Yourself, make them holy] by the Truth; Your Word is Truth. Just as You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And so for their sake and on their behalf I sanctify (dedicate, consecrate) Myself, that they also may be sanctified (dedicated, consecrated, made holy) in the Truth. (John 17:17-19, The Amplified Bible.)

For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps (1 Peter 2:21.)

We love him, because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19.)

The Penal Substitution Theory:

And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. (Eph. 5:2.)

Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. 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. (Isa. 53:4-6.)

Observations:

1.) Without Christ's sacrifice, wouldn't we all be preaching "Cheap Grace" today?

It could be argued that a penal substitute satisfied justice precisely because it demonstrated the seriousness of sin.

2.) Without Christ's sacrifice, wouldn't human history be lacking it's most outstanding example of loving self-sacrifice?

It could be argued that creation needed this example.

3.) If there is any sense in which man has freewill, did he not sell himself to Satan?

If Satan has some legal claim on this earth, and our fallen race, it could be argued that God was unfair if He hadn't paid our ransom.

BTW: This is particularly true if angels were the first to have dominion over the earth (Heb. 2:5), if these angels fell (Jude 6), If Satan is their prince (Mark 3:22-23), and if our first parents (who were to have dominion over this earth--Gen. 1:26) willingly placed themselves under Satan's dominion (Gen. 3 and Rev. 12:9.)

See http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com/RuinRestoration.html

When rightly understood, I believe all these theories overlap, and contain some truth.

Jim C wrote:

[Quote] Some are mutually exclusive. [unquote]

Israel was given two reasons to keep Sabbath.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Ex. 20:8-11.)

And:

Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. (Deut. 5:12-15.)

If these reasons are not contradictory--but complimentary, could there not be more than one reason for the atonement?

Exactly how are the theories I've discussed "mutually exclusive"?

Ed:

[Quote] ...what saves us is Christ Himself and our very personal relationship with Him is our salvation [unquote]

Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. (Romans 5:9.)

Ed (to Jim):

[Quote] ...while you don't feel it is a complete explanation of the purpose of the cross, you agree that the cross does make a good example we can follow and testimony to us. The problem you have with that kind of theory is when it is THE purpose of the atonement to the exclusion of substitution. Thus, you see truth in at least two ideas of the atonement. We are much like you in that respect and I can assure you that neither of us are the kind of good liberals who like to idolize tolerance (or acceptance) and say that everyone is right. In fact, both of us are sickened by that particular aspect of modern liberalism. [unquote]

Amen! (and thank you Ed.)

G-d Bless.

Author	Comment
Jim C Oct 27, 07 - 1:14 PM	Why did Jesus die? Let me start by borrowing a line copied from a post on this site. I do this only because it seems to be very representative of the views of many Biblical Universalists when asked the question, "Why did Jesus die?" "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." Ok. I get that. But it makes no sense to me. No, that's an overstatement - it makes some sense, but it's also illogical, in my view. Let me posit a parable, and I'd love a response. You are sitting at the beach with a friend. There are people all around, enjoying the sun and sand. A man runs down the beach with a large anchor tied to his back. He's yelling, "I love you! I love you!!" He runs up to you, grabs you by the shoulders, looks you in the eye and says, "I love you!". Then he runs out into the ocean, beyond the breakers, and drowns. You look at your friend and say, "What the heck was that all about?" Your friend replies, "He loved us... I guess." Logical or illogical? If he loved me, wouldn't it have been MORE loving to hang around? Love to hear your responses. jim Email: jimcunningham1@comcast.net
Mike Burke Oct 29th, 2007 - 10:06 AM	Re: Why did Jesus die? [Quote] Let me start by borrowing a line copied from a post on this site. I do this only because it seems to be very representative of the views of many Biblical Universalists when asked the question, "Why did Jesus die?" "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." [unquote] That statement might be good as far as it goes, but Jesus also died to show us what God (He, His Father, and The Holy Spirit) think of sin. [Quote] Let me posit a parable, and I'd love a response...Then he runs out into the ocean, beyond the breakers, and drowns. [unquote] Jesus didn't crucify himself (i.e. "run out beyond the breakers and drown") fallen, sinful men crucified him. He allowed this to show us what sin is, what love is, and how needful it is for us to change (by trusting and following Him.) [Quote] If he loved me, wouldn't it have been MORE loving to hang around? [unquote] He didn't stay dead, and He is with us: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matt. 28:18-20, RSV.) Email: admin@biblicaluniversalist.com Website: http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com
Ed Smith Oct 29th, 2007 - 11:57 AM	Re: Why did Jesus die? I'm inclined to agree with you. I've never liked this kind of explanation of the atonement as merely an example or demonstration of some kind. It may be true, but I think there must be more to it than that. For that to be all of it, sure sounds like the cross wasn't absolutely necessary. To be fair, those who adhere to this theory may say that the example of God coming in the flesh and taking the worst that sin could dish out to a human being was, somehow, necessary to affect our minds and hearts toward regeneration. To borrow from C.S. Lewis, I'd say we don't know exactly how the atonement through the cross works, but we know that it does work. To have a proper faith in the cross of Christ is to say that Jesus won my redemption through that act, regardless of why He had to do it that way. However, I will maintain that Christ Himself is the true object of saving faith. I mean, we should trust the person of Christ that He is willing and able to save us. While I see the Bible is clear that the cross did something real for us, I see it is also clear that our belief is in Christ Himself, not in the things He did. Google "theories of atonement" and you should find some interesting reading on this topic. Personally, I believe all the standard theories were involved in some way. Ed Email: packcover@hotmail.com
Jim C Oct 29th, 2007 - 12:28 PM	Re: Why did Jesus die? Thanks Mike. But still, I'm not finding the logic in: "Jesus didn't crucify himself (i.e. "run out beyond the breakers and drown") fallen, sinful men crucified him. He allowed this to show us what sin is, what love is, and how needful it is for us to change (by trusting and following Him." First, you're cutting the issue far too thin to say "Jesus didn't crucify himself" and then say, "He allowed this..." If he allowed it, that implies that he could have prevented it. Was he a victim of sin, or not? Either way, it seems that you have created a logical problem here. More importantly, you say, "to show us what sin is...". Weren't the 10 Commandments enough? Or the history of Israel's continual rebellion and killing of the prophets, followed by God's loving compassion demonstrated over and over? "To show us what sin is, what love is..." probably has some truth in it but that's quite a stretch to say that this was all that the cross was about, don't you think? I go back to my parable... If Jesus did not HAVE to die, then it really makes no sense to me. If his life was taken against his will, perhaps. Tragic, but there is value in it (like Jim Elliot - he did not intend to die, but God used it). If it was a necessary act, perhaps (like taking a bullet for the President). But intentionally committing suicide for no reason other than to "demonstrate love" (or demonstrate sin)? The logic escapes me still. "...and how needful it is for us to change (by trusting and following Him." Where does that fit in? Jesus' tragic death says I should change? Why? Two thousand years' worth of humanity says, "So what?" I don't see how it shows how needful it is for anyone to change, especially if it seems like an illogical act. [Quote] If he loved me, wouldn't it have been MORE loving to hang around? [unquote] "He didn't stay dead, and He is with us" ...great response. You got me there. Well said. Ed - I appreciate your honesty and humility. I find the answer "I'm not sure how it works" to be far more helpful than "to demonstrate his love". We surely will never know exactly how it works. But at least you seem to be dissatisfied with an illogical answer! Jim Email: jimcunningham1@comcast.net
Ed Smith Oct 29th, 2007 - 1:40 PM	Re: Why did Jesus die? Yes, I'll admit I don't quite know how it works. There seems to be no detailed, direct explanation in scripture. There are words like "propitiation" or "ransom" used to describe it. There are also references to what the cross and resurrection has done for us. In reading through the NT the last couple of times, I noticed, in particular, how often the emphasis was on this event resulting in our freedom from the sin to which we were enslaved. Thus, though I was once pretty firmly a penal substitution guy, I've come to lean strongly toward the Ransom/Christus Victor theory. Penal substitution is currently the most popular theory in the western church, including mainstream evangelicalism, and I still think there is something to it. However, since you mentioned logical problems, let me point some out to you. Penal substitution is explained by the phrase "God is just," but that doesn't seem to quite make sense of it, at least without further explanation. What kind of justice is it to allow the innocent to pay the penalty for the guilty? Can you imagine any human court doing so? Would you feel satisfied if a serial killer's Mom gave her life so her boy could go free? Why would punishing an innocent being satisfy God's need to punish the guilty? By all the usual concepts of justice, this would actually seem to be less just than just passing over sins. I could see this in terms of showing what would be needed to pay for our sins, but then we are back to thinking of the cross as more of a demonstration of the seriousness of sin. Also, considering this to be absolutely necessary to satisfy God about our sins makes another problem. I suggest a thought experiment to those who view penal substitution as a complete explanation. What if God had a way to free us all from our sin and make us happy, healthy, holy people forever, but did not have a way to see that some legal-like requirement for justice was satisfied for our sins? Can you imagine that He would condemn us all just to make some point (to whom?) when He could easily enjoy us forever in a universe without sin or suffering? That is hard to imagine. Additionally, the NT often teaches us to forgive others who have offended us and it seems to never give the impression that we are to forgive them on the basis that Christ has paid for their offense against us. It seems we are just to let it go and let the ugly past not exist in our hearts just as it does not exist in reality. In places, this kind of forgiving attitude required of us seems to be presented as an attitude we would share with God. If I am wrong to think it is presented that way, then it seems strange that God would want us to have a less demanding attitude regarding forgiveness of sin than He has. Ultimately, I won't say I'm sure how it works, but I'll tell you I very much prefer a theory which makes the cross look like it was absolutely necessary. Penal substitution does so as well as my own current preference of explanations. Email: packcover@hotmail.com
Jim C Oct 29th, 2007 - 2:14 PM	Re: Why did Jesus die? Great questions, all. With respect to the "innocent for the guilty" thing, I think at that point you need to keep in view that we are dealing with one God in 3 persons, not 3 different beings. God did not commit, as Chalke is perported to have said, "cosmic child abuse". This is God bearing the penalty for God's judgement. I think that's his option, regardless of how we feel about it. For some reason God has chosen to reveal himself as a just, and even wrathful being (along with loving/forgiving etc.). If that were not so, then the whole sacrifice motif would not make sense at all. But since God reveals himself as such, and since it is reiterated and demonstrated in his initiation of the scrificial system in the OT, I don't see how you can just wish it away by saying we find it unjust or unfair. Could that be the "further explanation" you are seeking? That does it for me! I am holding two things in tension here as I wrestle through this. On one hand, I certainly don't want to be more stingy with God's grace than God is! That would be arrogant, cruel and sinful. But on the other hand, the issue I take with the Biblical Universalists (Trinitarian, etc - insert your own term here!) is that they tend to, IMHO, "wish away" all that God has revealed about justice, wrath and sacrifice. And, I dare say, their position is not nearly as logical as substitutionary attonement. Logic doesn't make it true, but I don't see why something illogical is to be preferred! I appreciate your honesty in wrestling with both sides of the issue. Most of the folks I've been reading just chuck one side or the other. jim Email: jimcunningham1@comcast.net
Mike Burke Oct 29th, 2007 - 2:59 PM	Re: Why did Jesus die? Ed wrote: [Quote] I could see this in terms of showing what would be needed to pay for our sins, but then we are back to thinking of the cross as more of a demonstration of the seriousness of sin. [unquote] I believe it was intended to demonstrat the reality of both sin and love (agape love, the oposite of sin): For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3.) ...for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. (John 17:19.) For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps (1 Peter 2:21.) We love him, because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19.) Jim C wrote: [Quote] ...you say, "to show us what sin is...". Weren't the 10 Commandments enough? [unquote] No they weren't. ...the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. (1 Tim. 1:9-11.) "You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, "Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, "You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire..."You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart..."You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. "You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. (Matt. 5:21-28, 38-48.) This is the spirit of the law (that Christ lived and died by), and goes well beyond the ten commandments. Ed wrote: [Quote] I'm inclined to agree with you. I've never liked this kind of explanation of the atonement as merely an example or demonstration of some kind. It may be true, but I think there must be more to it than that....Personally, I believe all the standard theories were involved in some way. [unquote] I believe the cross is more than an example of God's love, and more than a demonstration of the seriousness of sin, but I believe it provided both of these in a way nothing else could. I would also agree that there's truth in all the standard theories of the atonement. Thank you Ed (and G-d Bless.) Email: admin@biblicaluniversalist.com Website: http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com
Jim C Oct 29th, 2007 - 3:19 PM	Re: Why did Jesus die? You had me for a moment, but then you lost me with the smorgasbord aproach to truth. "There is truth in all the standard theories of the attonement". Really? Come on. The Church disagreed on these, and still does today. Some are mutually exclusive. I weary of the breadth of Universal Accomodation (if I may coin the term). Can we all be right, really? I suppose that a radical and new Christology might redeem even logical contradictions! Email: jimcunningham1@comcast.net
Ed Smith Oct 29th, 2007 - 3:23 PM	Re: Why did Jesus die? From Jim C: With respect to the "innocent for the guilty" thing, I think at that point you need to keep in view that we are dealing with one God in 3 persons, not 3 different beings. God did not commit, as Chalke is perported to have said, "cosmic child abuse". This is God bearing the penalty for God's judgement. I entirely agree and would hate to think that you got the impression I was neglecting the unity of the Trinity. Perhaps I should have asked if you'd be more satisfied if the judge took the serial killer's place. In any event, I was certainly thinking of Jesus as God Himself. I see the point you are making and understand your feelings. Justice, wrath and sacrifice are important ideas and shouldn't be make little of. Also, the OT sacrifices are relevant to this question and the references do sometimes present them as a satisfaction to God for sin. A ransom theory does not exclude that idea. Universalists are by no means the only ones who tend to have some currently less popular views of the atonement. I once thought C.S. Lewis had to use some alternate theory in the Narnian universe because it would have made the reader take a dim view of Aslan's character for not just forgiving Edmund's treachery as any generous forgiving person would (after he fully repudiated his own actions) and as his siblings did. Actually, Lewis favored the Ransom view of the atonement (even in our universe) and what happened in that book was a pretty close approximation of it. At times in my life, when hearing about a man who had molested and murdered children, I found myself wishing he'd die soon before he came to faith in Christ. It felt to me like he just had to suffer for this and an eternal Hell would be too good for him. Perhaps I was right about that. Perpetual Hell does not require anything of you and I don't think God will let anyone off so easily. I can imagine nothing worse for a child molester than the moment he comes to truly see himself and his actions as you, I, the victim, and the victim's parents see it. He could only hate the person he'd made himself with the greatest of hatreds. He could do nothing but come to God and ask that the person he had made himself be destroyed. I do see sin as the ultimate horror. My concern with mainstream evangelicalism is that Hell, not sin, is often presented as the ultimate horror. I would rather have perpetual Hell than perpetual enslavement to sin. Far from being easy on sin, the proper Christian universalist believes that God will hound the sinner forever until they are forced to see themselves and their sins as God does: there will come a time when this "hounding" is always great misery without rest and that will be a permanent sentence for that person. As long as the person they have made themselves still exists, that misery will go on. I thank you for your very cordial attitude here and admire your very civilized nature. Consequent to that nature, you were subtle about it, but I think you were expressing some concerns about whether many universalists may have proper saving faith, perhaps due to faulty ideas about the atonement. I very much know where you are coming from and once felt much the same about that particular issue. However, my concern about the proper faith of others now has a different emphasis. I am now much more worried that I see an ever present danger in the evangelical world of substituting mental assent to a list of facts about Christ (or what He did) in the place of trust in the PERSON of Christ Himself. I can't see mental assent to any facts, no matter how true and important they may be, as saving faith. That is just religion; what saves us is Christ Himself and our very personal relationship with Him is our salvation. I don't think a person has to know anything about the atonement itself so long as they know that Christ Himself is both willing and able to save them from their sins. If that person has heard about the cross, I'm sure they understand that He had His reasons for going through that and it was done for them. However, the cross does not identify Christ the person in a uniquely definitive way. The only thing I can see that identifies Christ absolutely, so that we know our faith is in the right person, is the fact that he is the one being in the universe who is both God and human. I believe the God man can save me and desires to do so. I believe the God-man will save me in spite of myself. I don't have to worry about what to do or what to learn in order to be saved; He will do it. My faith is in Christ the person not in details about His life or my own. Best regards, Ed Email: packcover@hotmail.com
Ed Smith Oct 29th, 2007 - 3:35 PM	Re: Why did Jesus die? From Jim C: "You had me for a moment, but then you lost me with the smorgasbord aproach to truth. "There is truth in all the standard theories of the attonement". Really? Come on. The Church disagreed on these, and still does today. Some are mutually exclusive. I weary of the breadth of Universal Accomodation (if I may coin the term). Can we all be right, really? I suppose that a radical and new Christology might redeem even logical contradictions!" I don't think that is quite what is going on here, but I can understand your reaction. That is not what we are trying to do. I certainly do understand the idea of contradiction and recognize it when I see it. Perhaps I shouldn't have put it quite the way I did; I don't actually go for all the theories, especially since the theories usually claim to be complete explanations. Taking out the complete explanation part, I can take a few, not all of them, as having truth in them. For example, while you don't feel it is a complete explanation of the purpose of the cross, you agree that the cross does make a good example we can follow and testimony to us. The problem you have with that kind of theory is when it is THE purpose of the atonement to the exclusion of substitution. Thus, you see truth in at least two ideas of the atonement. We are much like you in that respect and I can assure you that neither of us are the kind of good liberals who like to idolize tolerance (or acceptance) and say that everyone is right. In fact, both of us are sickened by that particular aspect of modern liberalism. Ed Email: packcover@hotmail.com
Mike Burke Oct 30th, 2007 - 1:13 PM	Re: Why did Jesus die? Ed (to Jim): [Quote] Perhaps I shouldn't have put it quite the way I did; I don't actually go for all the theories, especially since the theories usually claim to be complete explanations. Taking out the complete explanation part, I can take a few, not all of them, as having truth in them. [unquote] When I spoke of "the standard theories," I was speaking of the Penal Substitution theory, the Moral Example theory, and the Ransom/Christus Victor theory (as I know you were), and if you take out "the complete explanation part" I don't believe they're at all mutually exclusive. How could they be when they all have scriptural support? The Christus Victor Theory: Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? (Romans 6:16.) Now the judgment (crisis) of this world is coming on [sentence is now being passed on this world]. Now the ruler (evil genius, prince) of this world shall be cast out (expelled). (John 12:31, The Amplified Bible.) And you, being dead in the deviations and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all the deviations, blotting out the handwriting in the ordinances against us, which was contrary to us, even He has taken it out of the midst, nailing it to the cross; having stripped the rulers and the authorities, He made a show of them in public, triumphing over them in it. (Col. 2:13-15, Green's Literal Translation.) Since, therefore, [these His] children share in flesh and blood [in the physical nature of human beings], He [Himself] in a similar manner partook of the same [nature], that by [going through] death He might bring to nought and make of no effect him who had the power of death--that is, the devil (Heb. 2:14, The Amplified Bible.) The Moral Example Theory: This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. (John 15:12-14.) Sanctify them [purify, consecrate, separate them for Yourself, make them holy] by the Truth; Your Word is Truth. Just as You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And so for their sake and on their behalf I sanctify (dedicate, consecrate) Myself, that they also may be sanctified (dedicated, consecrated, made holy) in the Truth. (John 17:17-19, The Amplified Bible.) For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps (1 Peter 2:21.) We love him, because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19.) The Penal Substitution Theory: And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. (Eph. 5:2.) Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. 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. (Isa. 53:4-6.) Observations: 1.) Without Christ's sacrifice, wouldn't we all be preaching "Cheap Grace" today? It could be argued that a penal substitute satisfied justice precisely because it demonstrated the seriousness of sin. 2.) Without Christ's sacrifice, wouldn't human history be lacking it's most outstanding example of loving self-sacrifice? It could be argued that creation needed this example. 3.) If there is any sense in which man has freewill, did he not sell himself to Satan? If Satan has some legal claim on this earth, and our fallen race, it could be argued that God was unfair if He hadn't paid our ransom. BTW: This is particularly true if angels were the first to have dominion over the earth (Heb. 2:5), if these angels fell (Jude 6), If Satan is their prince (Mark 3:22-23), and if our first parents (who were to have dominion over this earth--Gen. 1:26) willingly placed themselves under Satan's dominion (Gen. 3 and Rev. 12:9.) See http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com/RuinRestoration.html When rightly understood, I believe all these theories overlap, and contain some truth. Jim C wrote: [Quote] Some are mutually exclusive. [unquote] Israel was given two reasons to keep Sabbath. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Ex. 20:8-11.) And: Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. (Deut. 5:12-15.) If these reasons are not contradictory--but complimentary, could there not be more than one reason for the atonement? Exactly how are the theories I've discussed "mutually exclusive"? Ed: [Quote] ...what saves us is Christ Himself and our very personal relationship with Him is our salvation [unquote] Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. (Romans 5:9.) Ed (to Jim): [Quote] ...while you don't feel it is a complete explanation of the purpose of the cross, you agree that the cross does make a good example we can follow and testimony to us. The problem you have with that kind of theory is when it is THE purpose of the atonement to the exclusion of substitution. Thus, you see truth in at least two ideas of the atonement. We are much like you in that respect and I can assure you that neither of us are the kind of good liberals who like to idolize tolerance (or acceptance) and say that everyone is right. In fact, both of us are sickened by that particular aspect of modern liberalism. [unquote] Amen! (and thank you Ed.) G-d Bless. Email: admin@biblicaluniversalist.com Website: http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com

	Biblical Universalist Discussion Forum Welcome to my forum. Feel free to post a message.
Return to Website