[Wayseer]

Davidk has a valid point.

If there is no such concept of 'something' we might label 'original sin' then it follows, logically, that there is no need of something to resolve that situtation - something we have labelled 'atonement'. The resultant effect is that Jesus' death means little more than he was yet another martyr fighting for some social cause, worthy as such causes may be. So, we are left with what - following yet another freedom fighter?

I did something dumb the other day - headed off for a Doctor's appointment without taking some reading material. So I dropped into a second hand bookshop and picked up a paperback edition of Matthew Henry's Commentary for a very reasonable price. (Books in Australia are outrageously priced - it is much cheaper for me to buy books from overseas and get them posted here). I settled down in the waiting room and turned to Romans 7: 14.25 - the 'inner conflict' - the conflict between the law of God and the law of sin.

MH comments, '... while we carry this body about with us, we shall be troubled with corruption ...' The 'corruption of the body' is the recognition that as humans, as homo sapiens, we are subject to the laws of nature - not the laws of God. Regardless of our thinking, our body is subject to earthly persuasions. Paul's cry, 'Oh wretched man that I am' echoes our own recognition of that contradiction so; 'Who shall deliver me' from this conundrum? How do we resolve our humanity with our desire to live on a higher plane?

For a long time now I have recognised that 'we' do not belong here - 'our' home is somewhere else. I don't understand why 'we' are here - maybe 'we' stuffed up somewhere out there and this, this 'existence', is the price for such stuff ups. Regardless, it seems that for those who recognise that there is a higher plane, there has to be someway to overcome the inherent contradictions with which we are faced - how to resolve the necessities that enable us to live with the longing for that which is beyond human endeavour. We might label this contradictory existence as 'original sin' for want of a better name - it's not an existence we wish but one we are stuck with - for the present at least.

Overcoming this quandary is facilitated by the concept of the antonement - a circut breaker - stops overloading the mechanism (us humans). Regardless of the historic imperatives surrounding Jesus' death what we, as humans, need is a way out, a back door out of Nature. This is what Jesus' death has come to mean.

I know this is very 'unprogressive' of me - but sometimes we are in danger of throwing out the baby as well as the bathwater. We are in danger of diminishing the death of Jesus to the backwaters of human aspiration. We have invented many quirky techniques - are we not the imaginative animal - of how to avoid this riddle - earth versus heaven - that we often dazzle ourselves with the brilliance of our own argument and debate. We may not like it - being 21st C humans with all this vast technology at our fingertips and yet still have to face death - for we are still the same as Paul - still held captive to the earthly body. Even if Jesus did not die as an 'atonement' then we needed him to die that way otherwise we are forever locked into our own mortality without hope of escape and would continue to echo Paul's word down the centuries, 'Who shall deliver me?

So, has PC a better solution? Probably not. Perhaps then the concept of atonement may be more relevant than we have hitherto suppposed. Maybe we need Jesus death more than we realise.

This post has been edited by Wayseer: 06 June 2008 - 07:21 PM

[Wayseer]

TheGreatWhiteBuffalo, on Jun 7 2008, 09:22 AM, said:

The flaws are in the Bible as it was written and transposed over many thousands of years through several different languages. I was taught that the Bible was pure and holy without error. That was a lie! I could see the errors from cover to cover from beginning to end... The truth is the Bible was written by man and there are many errors in the Bible.

Maybe you are just as guilty of those who taught you the Bible was inerrant. Maybe you are reading the Bible as historical textbook and not as received wisdom of the ages. There is a difference between the word of God and the Word of God.

[davidk]

Bravo, Wayseer.

[davidk]

Dear TheGreatWhiteBuffalo,

McKenna asked an honest question concerning the Christian doctrine of Atonement. She has asked many times for help to recognize the specks and beams.
Your answers to her question merely confirms the argument that "Progressive" Christianity has no need for Atonement.

These two exerpts would have been sufficient for your entire post: "The new question that I created was did Jesus have to die? The answer is no! Jesus did not have to die on the cross. Jesus did not have to be crucified, not at all... "
"Do you need a crucifixion or a Church? Answer: You do not need either, you need leaders that are accountable to tell the truth to establish true justice for ALL!"

This post has been edited by davidk: 07 June 2008 - 07:23 AM

[McKenna]

davidk, on Jun 6 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

Dear Mckenna,
I am having no difficulty understanding your premise, and you did offer these questions presumably for a response: "Are there any interpretations, in your opinion, that would work within a Progressive Christian epistemological framework? How should we, as Progressive Christians, interpret Christ's death and Resurrection? Or is it simply irrelevent?"

I hoped it would have been understood I had responded with an opinion on Atonement, exposing Progressive Christianity as having no answer because Progressive Christianity has no interpretations expressing a need for a reconciliation with God. Progressive Christianity has no answer or need for Atonement, substitutional or not. It has no place in its doctrine. The point is quite moot.
Progressive Christianity has left Christ's death irrelevant.

Okay, thank you for your response.

I think some/many/most (who knows) Progressive Christians would actually agree with you, that Christ's death is irrelevant except as a sort of martyr. I wanted to know if there was a way for his death to still be relevant within the PC epistemology; I am still working out my own thoughts on the matter, I suppose.

[McKenna]

I think you made some good points here, but I wasn't entirely sure what you were saying at the end, so I'm going to read back through it and comment as I go.

Wayseer, on Jun 6 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

Davidk has a valid point.

If there is no such concept of 'something' we might label 'original sin' then it follows, logically, that there is no need of something to resolve that situtation - something we have labelled 'atonement'. The resultant effect is that Jesus' death means little more than he was yet another martyr fighting for some social cause, worthy as such causes may be. So, we are left with what - following yet another freedom fighter?

I agree that's a valid point; I feel iffy about throwing the whole idea out the window though, and I think you agree with me there.

Wayseer, on Jun 6 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

I did something dumb the other day - headed off for a Doctor's appointment without taking some reading material. So I dropped into a second hand bookshop and picked up a paperback edition of Matthew Henry's Commentary for a very reasonable price. (Books in Australia are outrageously priced - it is much cheaper for me to buy books from overseas and get them posted here). I settled down in the waiting room and turned to Romans 7: 14.25 - the 'inner conflict' - the conflict between the law of God and the law of sin.

MH comments, '... while we carry this body about with us, we shall be troubled with corruption ...' The 'corruption of the body' is the recognition that as humans, as homo sapiens, we are subject to the laws of nature - not the laws of God. Regardless of our thinking, our body is subject to earthly persuasions. Paul's cry, 'Oh wretched man that I am' echoes our own recognition of that contradiction so; 'Who shall deliver me' from this conundrum? How do we resolve our humanity with our desire to live on a higher plane?

Okay, I'm with you so far. It's sort of the universal, timeless human condition.

Wayseer, on Jun 6 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

For a long time now I have recognised that 'we' do not belong here - 'our' home is somewhere else. I don't understand why 'we' are here - maybe 'we' stuffed up somewhere out there and this, this 'existence', is the price for such stuff ups. Regardless, it seems that for those who recognise that there is a higher plane, there has to be someway to overcome the inherent contradictions with which we are faced - how to resolve the necessities that enable us to live with the longing for that which is beyond human endeavour. We might label this contradictory existence as 'original sin' for want of a better name - it's not an existence we wish but one we are stuck with - for the present at least.

Agreed. We are still stuck with "original sin" even if we don't accept it as "original sin" as such. Perhaps it was this feeling of being not where we should be that led to the development of the idea of "original sin" in the first place. (Not the doctrine, I mean; the story of the Fall...obviously the doctrine came quite a bit later.)

Wayseer, on Jun 6 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

Overcoming this quandary is facilitated by the concept of the antonement - a circut breaker - stops overloading the mechanism (us humans). Regardless of the historic imperatives surrounding Jesus' death what we, as humans, need is a way out, a back door out of Nature. This is what Jesus' death has come to mean.

I agree. I think perhaps it still can mean that. I think that was what I was trying to say on the salvation thread...that Jesus, as the ultimate revelation (for Christians) of God's Grace and Truth, allows us to be 'saved' or 'redeemed' by giving us that 'circuit breaker.' If that makes any sense. And I see that revelation not only in Jesus' life, but in his death and Resurrection as well. In his death in that I see a God who feels for our pain...who experiences our pain with us...and a God who is humble.

Wayseer, on Jun 6 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

I know this is very 'unprogressive' of me - but sometimes we are in danger of throwing out the baby as well as the bathwater. We are in danger of diminishing the death of Jesus to the backwaters of human aspiration.

I agree with you here, which is partly why I started this thread.

Wayseer, on Jun 6 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

We have invented many quirky techniques - are we not the imaginative animal - of how to avoid this riddle - earth versus heaven - that we often dazzle ourselves with the brilliance of our own argument and debate. We may not like it - being 21st C humans with all this vast technology at our fingertips and yet still have to face death - for we are still the same as Paul - still held captive to the earthly body.

Right, the universal human condition. I'm with you still.

Wayseer, on Jun 6 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

Even if Jesus did not die as an 'atonement' then we needed him to die that way otherwise we are forever locked into our own mortality without hope of escape and would continue to echo Paul's word down the centuries, 'Who shall deliver me?

So, has PC a better solution? Probably not. Perhaps then the concept of atonement may be more relevant than we have hitherto suppposed. Maybe we need Jesus death more than we realise.

I guess this is where I get confused. What exactly are you suggesting? That we should just believe in the Atonement as it has always been anyway because it makes us feel better? Or that we should reinvent the concept of the Atonement to make it relevant to today while still providing us with a means of hope (in which case I suppose I'd agree)? If you're saying the latter, how would you suggest we understand it?

Thanks for an interesting read!

[Wayseer]

McKenna writes -

Quote

I guess this is where I get confused. What exactly are you suggesting? That we should just believe in the Atonement as it has always been anyway because it makes us feel better? Or that we should reinvent the concept of the Atonement to make it relevant to today while still providing us with a means of hope (in which case I suppose I'd agree)? If you're saying the latter, how would you suggest we understand it?

Well, making one feel better is probably not such a bad response.

But the seond point - I would not use the word 'reinvent' - sounds so contemporary. More like a Neotraditional aspect. We cannot 'reinvent' that which is already established but we can make it relevant as you indicate. And that relevancy, as I see it, is just as personal today as it was in the formative years of the Church.

As I look around me I see a host of 'Churches' doing their own thing - catering to some niche demographic. I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with that process - more a natural outcome of our mobile and information driven society. The problem I see emerging is the division and alienation that such movement is causing - each defending their own patch of turf. But, even as I write this I'm alerted to those Churches which, while providing nourishment for a niche community, open their doors and their hearts to others and display a capacity to celebrate diversity within a wider unity.

These are confusing times - there is so much information out there that we are in danger of being drowned by it all. Do we, as the Body of Christ, cater for every contigency and become all things to all people?

Let me give you an example. I was only talking last night to a member of the congregation I attend. She was relating why she did not attend the Sunday service. It was the 'kids' - they were the distracting. My friend, would like to come some 20 minutes early and spend that time kneeling (now how old fashion is that?) in silent prayer. The activities of children running around the church broke these times of silent contemplation and prayer to the point that she just found it better for her spirit to no longer attend. While the great quest for increasing demongraphics may be laudable it is at some expense - do we really need noisy church services? But to keep children quiet and respectful at appropriate times seems no longer political correct. Jesus did 'suffer' the children, but he also withdrew to the deserts. Deserts are hard to find in our comsopolitian cities.

The role for an Neotraditionalist Atonement maker is open - the job description awesome - the renumeration package doubtful - the outcome uncertain. (I wrote that on another thread - it seems well placed here.) But it's also happens to be a job already filled. The problem is how do we assimiliate its meaning to divergent and niche congregations. Is it the same message in each case? Should it be the same message? Are we too sophisticated that we no longer think it necessary to 'feel' good? Do we think we are in need no longer for any act of atonement? I cannot answer but for myself - and Yes, I do need such.

This post has been edited by Wayseer: 09 June 2008 - 08:28 PM

[McKenna]

Wayseer, on Jun 9 2008, 09:28 PM, said:

McKenna writes -

Well, making one feel better is probably not such a bad response.

But the seond point - I would not use the word 'reinvent' - sounds so contemporary. More like a Neotraditional aspect. We cannot 'reinvent' that which is already established but we can make it relevant as you indicate. And that relevancy, as I see it, is just as personal today as it was in the formative years of the Church.

As I look around me I see a host of 'Churches' doing their own thing - catering to some niche demographic. I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with that process - more a natural outcome of our mobile and information driven society. The problem I see emerging is the division and alienation that such movement is causing - each defending their own patch of turf. But, even as I write this I'm alerted to those Churches which, while providing nourishment for a niche community, open their doors and their hearts to others and display a capacity to celebrate diversity within a wider unity.

These are confusing times - there is so much information out there that we are in danger of being drowned by it all. Do we, as the Body of Christ, cater for every contigency and become all things to all people?

Let me give you an example. I was only talking last night to a member of the congregation I attend. She was relating why she did not attend the Sunday service. It was the 'kids' - they were the distracting. My friend, would like to come some 20 minutes early and spend that time kneeling (now how old fashion is that?) in silent prayer. The activities of children running around the church broke these times of silent contemplation and prayer to the point that she just found it better for her spirit to no longer attend. While the great quest for increasing demongraphics may be laudable it is at some expense - do we really need noisy church services? But to keep children quiet and respectful at appropriate times seems no longer political correct. Jesus did 'suffer' the children, but he also withdrew to the deserts. Deserts are hard to find in our comsopolitian cities.

The role for an Neotraditionalist Atonement maker is open - the job description awesome - the renumeration package doubtful - the outcome uncertain. (I wrote that on another thread - it seems well placed here.) But it's also happens to be a job already filled. The problem is how do we assimiliate its meaning to divergent and niche congregations. Is it the same message in each case? Should it be the same message? Are we too sophisticated that we no longer think it necessary to 'feel' good? Do we think we are in need no longer for any act of atonement? I cannot answer but for myself - and Yes, I do need such.

Thanks for your thoughts! I'm still a bit puzzled by the end of your post (sorry ) - you say that "the role for a Neotraditionalist Atonement maker is open" - but then you say "it also happens to be a job already filled." Is it or is it not "filled"? And if so, by whom?

Thanks for bearing with me

[Wayseer]

McKenna writes

Quote

Thanks for your thoughts! I'm still a bit puzzled by the end of your post (sorry ) - you say that "the role for a Neotraditionalist Atonement maker is open" - but then you say "it also happens to be a job already filled." Is it or is it not "filled"? And if so, by whom?

An attempt at a subtle play on words I'm afraid. It appears I missed.

I was trying to draw attention to the idea that PC seem to wish to create something new when it is already been done. Maybe there is room for another Ghandi, a Mandala, even another Jesus - but who would want the job?

[davidk]

McKenna, on Jun 8 2008, 09:14 PM, said:

Okay, thank you for your response.

I think some/many/most (who knows) Progressive Christians would actually agree with you, that Christ's death is irrelevant except as a sort of martyr. I wanted to know if there was a way for his death to still be relevant within the PC epistemology; I am still working out my own thoughts on the matter, I suppose.

Unfortunately, given progressive 'doctrinal' positions, there is no liberal/progressive epistemological support or need for His Atonement nor a martyrdom. It is purely fundamental Biblical evidence that can explain the importance of Jesus' death.
Left with no other source for an answer, progressives may well drop the name 'Christian' from their lexicon, while calling themselves Progressive Arborists would do just as well.

[JosephM]

davidk, on May 31 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

Dear McKenna,

There is no Atonement without the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

"true atonement is a revelation of the truth so illusion passes away and guilt is lifted". JJ Dewey

It seems to me that many years before Jesus known as the Christ was born, died and resurrected .....

By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. Heb 11:5 (KJV)

Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. Gen 6:9 (KJV)

In Jesus's time ...

He said to many... "Thy faith has made thee whole" "Thy faith hath saved thee" This was not faith in Jesus's death and resurrection. Most all didn't even know who he was. This was not faith in a future act.

Atonement is a Christian church theory that was not even widespread until the sixth century.( Wiki) God does not delight in the blood of bulls and goats and neither does God require any blood to forgive. There were just and repented men/women long before the advent of Jesus. Job was a perfect and upright man. The only requirement for your sins to be forgiven is to forgive others their trespasses as Jesus stated. "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: " Luke 6:37 (KJV)
AS you forgive others, you are forgiven. Blood atonement is a theory and is not a requirement except in the mind of barbaric men who liken God unto themselves.

Just a view to consider,
Love Joseph

[October's Autumn]

Quote

Atonement is a Christian church theory that was not even widespread until the sixth century.( Wiki) God does not delight in the blood of bulls and goats and neither does God require any blood to forgive. There were just and repented men/women long before the advent of Jesus. Job was a perfect and upright man. The only requirement for your sins to be forgiven is to forgive others their trespasses as Jesus stated. "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: " Luke 6:37 (KJV)
AS you forgive others, you are forgiven. Blood atonement is a theory and is not a requirement except in the mind of barbaric men who liken God unto themselves.

I thought this needed to be highlighted.

[soma]

Autumn nice post. God in His immeasurable superiority in all areas, does nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, just compassion for us. He doesn't demand atonement. It is for us to remove our guilt. Too bad we make each other feel guilty and not loving.

[October's Autumn]

soma, on Jul 15 2008, 09:29 PM, said:

Autumn nice post. God in His immeasurable superiority in all areas, does nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, just compassion for us. He doesn't demand atonement. It is for us to remove our guilt. Too bad we make each other feel guilty and not loving.

It is JosephM's post... I just wanted to highlight it because it is so important to me.

[davidk]

Pontificate all you wish, but other than Wayseer's post on Jun 6 2008, 08:16 PM, no one has had the intellectual integrity to admit that without original sin, there would be no need for Atonement, nor Grace, nor Salvation, and the life and death of Jesus Christ would be irrelevent. No one can answer to the contrary. Where does that leave progressive Christianity? Perhaps, as some else had suggested, a change of name would be in order, perhaps "... to The Centre for Progressive Religion." or "The Centre for Harmonizing Religion" - Bobd.

[JosephM]

davidk, on Jul 22 2008, 12:50 PM, said:

Pontificate all you wish, but other than Wayseer's post on Jun 6 2008, 08:16 PM, no one has had the intellectual integrity to admit that without original sin, there would be no need for Atonement, nor Grace, nor Salvation, and the life and death of Jesus Christ would be irrelevent. No one can answer to the contrary. Where does that leave progressive Christianity? Perhaps, as some else had suggested, a change of name would be in order, perhaps "... to The Centre for Progressive Religion." or "The Centre for Harmonizing Religion" - Bobd.

David,

It seems to me that you can't see that your statement is rash since your conclusion is incomplete and in obvious error. ONE CAN believe that without original sin there is still a place and need for Grace, salvation, and the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. I can say this because it is true for me. It is you that suggests that it can not be otherwise than you say. This is a result of a highly dogmatic fundamental position which I believe is the very reason many Christians have left their folds for progressive Christianity. Just something for you to consider.

Love in Christ,
Joseph

[davidk]

soma, on Jul 15 2008, 10:29 PM, said:

Autumn nice post. God in His immeasurable superiority in all areas, does nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, just compassion for us. He doesn't demand atonement. It is for us to remove our guilt. Too bad we make each other feel guilty and not loving.

Dear Soma,
What guilt? Why do I need to remove it? Are you saying I need to feel guilty? How can I make sure I get all of it? How much do I need to remove for God to be happy with me?

This post has been edited by davidk: 22 July 2008 - 03:53 PM

[soma]

David, you are driving in a car and the temperature gauge on the dashboard turns red and says your car is overheating? You could stop the car, get a hammer, and smash the gauge. You go on your way. However, you will not get far. You destroyed the red warning light, but did not remove the problem. You simply hide the problem for a little while.

Your conscience is the red warning light. Yes, it tells you when you have a problem that needs attention. Your problem is sin and it will never get better on its own!

"These people will speak lies disguised as truth. Their consciences have been scarred as if branded by a red-hot iron.(1 Tim. 4:2).

When your conscience bothers you because you know you have done wrong, what should you do?

"But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of [that] cup." (1 Corinthians 11:28)

"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" (2 Corinthians 13:5)

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Romans 12:2)

"But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another." (Galatians 6:4)

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3-4).



What is the purpose of our preaching? Paul said, "Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith" (1 Tim. 1:5, NKJV). "But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a sincere faith" (1 Tim. 1:5, Adams). The goal of our preaching is to bring men into a loving conformity to the law of God, and this in turn brings a clean conscience.

David, Why are you here on a progressive forum and all you do is bad mouth progressives?

[JosephM]

David,

It seems to me Guilt is not something God puts upon us. It is self created. It is not necessary. You have got rid of it all when you have forgiven all others including self. Jesus said it well.... as you forgive others it shall be forgiven you. And Paul also... The Gentiles which have not the law are a law unto themselves, the mean while accusing or excusing one another. God is not dissappouinted with you David that you need to remove it for him to be happy. No correlation. God is complete, at perfect peace and loves you just as you are now. Divine Love, complete unconditional acceptance. You need to remove guilt for YOU to be happy, Not God. Just a few things revealed to me that you might consider. I speak only for myself and not others here.

Soma can answer also if desired.

Love Joseph

opps. we were both answering at the same time

This post has been edited by JosephM: 22 July 2008 - 05:00 PM

[soma]

Joseph, you said it perfectly. Thanks