[davidk]

minsocal, on Jun 9 2008, 04:46 AM, said:

Some other time. You are not the author of this thread. You are not the host of this website. If you do not intrude, your answer will develop in front of your eyes, if they are open. But, as you so aptly point out, conservative doctrine is a closed ontological system without dispute.

Dear minsocal,
It was abundantly clear the post was not about my beliefs. My hope for disagreement from someone was about the progressive position not being able to defend a salvation doctrine. If I summarized incorrectly about progressive theology, please counter with a theological defense for the need that will answer McKenna. It shouldn't take more than a few sentences from anyone to provide. Do the progressives have one, or not? I simply observed, they did not.
--
(By the way, if you care to aptly review the 'open', 'closed' discussion, I aptly pointed out Christian theology relies on the uniformity of natural causes in an open system, while the liberal/progressive position relies on the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. No more here, please)

[soma]

Jesus is a role model to be holy, to live a freely flowing and flourishing life because Christ is whole; there is no blemish, disease or death in his consciousness. Christ consciousness is our salvation and supports our health and salvation so to achieve it is healing for our body, mind and soul because just striving after it makes health and wholeness. The more we seek the perfection that makes men and women like Jesus, the better we are as people. The more whole we get the more holy we get as we become healthy in body, mind and soul, for holiness is health.

[davidk]

McKenna, on Jun 1 2008, 05:48 PM, said:

How should we, as Progressive Christians, understand Salvation?

Does Jesus' death have anything to do with it? Or his life? Or his Resurrection? Does Jesus have anything do to with it at all?

What is Salvation, to a Progressive Christian?

Autumn was closest to answering your question in referring to "salvation from death" (which, by the way, is the traditional definition and by extension; from Hell); and redemption as 'being purchased'. Unfortunately her thought should be considered incomplete by it not tying into Jesus' involvement.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Jun 28 2008, 12:38 PM, said:

Dear minsocal,
It was abundantly clear the post was not about my beliefs. My hope for disagreement from someone was about the progressive position not being able to defend a salvation doctrine. If I summarized incorrectly about progressive theology, please counter with a theological defense for the need that will answer McKenna. It shouldn't take more than a few sentences from anyone to provide. Do the progressives have one, or not? I simply observed, they did not.
--
(By the way, if you care to aptly review the 'open', 'closed' discussion, I aptly pointed out Christian theology relies on the uniformity of natural causes in an open system, while the liberal/progressive position relies on the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. No more here, please)

Yes, indeed. No more here, please. By your command!!!! (sarcasm intentional)

This post has been edited by minsocal: 22 July 2008 - 08:27 PM

[Russ]

There are many good points made here concerning this important aspect of Faith. Vital to my understanding of redemption or salvation is my own personal relationship with God. Jesus was a Messenger, not the Message. To me, the idea of Jesus' death on the cross being the saving act for the sins of the world is Christian mythology written decades after Jesus' execution. It has nothing to do with Jesus the Messenger. To turn Jesus into God is to claim human knowledge of God. Who here in this life or in the past has or has had such concrete knowledge of God? Who among us can say with certainty and authority that God is this or God is that based upon what was written? It is not what is written that leads me to my own personal relationship with God and my understanding of God, it is my own personal experiences with God that I base that relationship on. Yes, I have committed sins in my life, but God is Compassion, Peace, Love, and Forgiveness. I know that I have been Forgiven...I have personally felt that Forgiveness in the moments of my own confession to God. To me, it is never a question of what has been said, but what we, as people of Faith, have felt.

[JosephM]

Russ, on Jul 23 2008, 09:17 AM, said:

There are many good points made here concerning this important aspect of Faith. Vital to my understanding of redemption or salvation is my own personal relationship with God. Jesus was a Messenger, not the Message. To me, the idea of Jesus' death on the cross being the saving act for the sins of the world is Christian mythology written decades after Jesus' execution. It has nothing to do with Jesus the Messenger. To turn Jesus into God is to claim human knowledge of God. Who here in this life or in the past has or has had such concrete knowledge of God? Who among us can say with certainty and authority that God is this or God is that based upon what was written? It is not what is written that leads me to my own personal relationship with God and my understanding of God, it is my own personal experiences with God that I base that relationship on. Yes, I have committed sins in my life, but God is Compassion, Peace, Love, and Forgiveness. I know that I have been Forgiven...I have personally felt that Forgiveness in the moments of my own confession to God. To me, it is never a question of what has been said, but what we, as people of Faith, have felt.

Wonderfully put.... Thanks Russ,

I'll ditto that.

Love in Christ,
Joseph

[billmc]

McKenna, on Jun 1 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

How should we, as Progressive Christians, understand Salvation?

Does Jesus' death have anything to do with it? Or his life? Or his Resurrection? Does Jesus have anything do to with it at all?

What is Salvation, to a Progressive Christian?

To me, salvation is a journey of learning to live, learning to love, and learning to be all that God intends for me to be. My understanding of salvation has very little to do with the afterlife -- being saved from the going-to-hell-line and being put into the going-to-heaven-line. That understanding, for me, is an egocentric view that implies that all God cares about is where I spend eternity, to the neglect of everyone else's well-being and the care/responsibility for our world.

Salvation is not a one-time event that happens when we say a "sinner's prayer". Salvation is, as Grampawombat said, a process of becoming whole, of maturation, of becoming more and more "in God's image", his character, especially as seen in Christ.

Where I think conservatives go wrong in their understanding of salvation is they make it entirely about escaping guilt and punishment. I think salvation is so much more.

A short analogy may explain: Let's say a criminal goes before a judge for crimes he had committed. The judge says, "I declare you not guilty and you have no sentence to serve". This is the conservative view. The sinner is declared (but not really made) not guilty and he is let off scott-free. He is left essentially unchanged because his sole goal was to escape guilt and punishment.

But let's say that the judge says: "If you really are repentant, you need to do community service and change your lifestyle." The criminal now has to go beyond being declared "not guilty" and escaping his sentence to actually exhibiting a change of character, a growth that makes him a better person -- for himself and for society.

So I see salvation as more than the removal of guilt and punishment. I see it as going beyond being declared "not guilty" to actually doing and being righteous.

When Jesus first began to talk about salvation, it didn't have to do with making a way for people to get to heaven. It had to do with good news for the poor, healing the sick, setting captives free, proclaiming God's favor toward humanity. These things, to me, are ways that we "work out" and work in our salvation. It's not about getting earth to heaven, it's about bringing heaven to earth.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Jesus is my savior in that he has come to set me free. With His power I follow His teachings and he frees me from old patterns of behavior that enslave me in a place that is egocentric. I believe early Christians understood Jesus' death as the perfect sacrifice for our sins because they came from a society where a sacrificial system was practiced for atonement reasons. God was forgiving people long before Jesus came. We, as humans, have a tendency to hold on to guilt for so long, and Jesus is representative of God understanding we need to feel forgiveness in order to move on. Since I do not have a traditional understanding of "salvation" many don't consider me to be a Christian, but I am an avid follower of Jesus.

[davidk]

wayfarer2k, on Aug 14 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

To me, salvation is a journey of learning to live, learning to love, and learning to be all that God intends for me to be. My understanding of salvation has very little to do with the afterlife -- being saved from the going-to-hell-line and being put into the going-to-heaven-line. That understanding, for me, is an egocentric view that implies that all God cares about is where I spend eternity, to the neglect of everyone else's well-being and the care/responsibility for our world.

Salvation is not a one-time event that happens when we say a "sinner's prayer". Salvation is, as Grampawombat said, a process of becoming whole, of maturation, of becoming more and more "in God's image", his character, especially as seen in Christ.

Where I think conservatives go wrong in their understanding of salvation is they make it entirely about escaping guilt and punishment. I think salvation is so much more.

A short analogy may explain: Let's say a criminal goes before a judge for crimes he had committed. The judge says, "I declare you not guilty and you have no sentence to serve". This is the conservative view. The sinner is declared (but not really made) not guilty and he is let off scott-free. He is left essentially unchanged because his sole goal was to escape guilt and punishment.

But let's say that the judge says: "If you really are repentant, you need to do community service and change your lifestyle." The criminal now has to go beyond being declared "not guilty" and escaping his sentence to actually exhibiting a change of character, a growth that makes him a better person -- for himself and for society.

So I see salvation as more than the removal of guilt and punishment. I see it as going beyond being declared "not guilty" to actually doing and being righteous.

When Jesus first began to talk about salvation, it didn't have to do with making a way for people to get to heaven. It had to do with good news for the poor, healing the sick, setting captives free, proclaiming God's favor toward humanity. These things, to me, are ways that we "work out" and work in our salvation. It's not about getting earth to heaven, it's about bringing heaven to earth.

Dear Wayfarer,

If you've learned from conservative Christians that Salvation is entirely about escaping guilt and punishment, you've been poorly instructed.

Salvation means rescue (deliver, make whole). Man can't rescue himself, and it's only after recieving the rescue (saved) that there can be repentence (turn away from).

In your analogy above, you've left out the truly important element of Atonement, Jesus Christ. He stands in as our defender before the Judge by saying He will be the one to pay for our crimes. That does not remove our conviction of guilt, the crimes (sins) had been commited. But it does remove the punishment from us. In our love and appreciation for Christ's selfless act of redemption, we (sinners) voluntarily and eagerly repent (do the 'community service, care for widows and orphans, etc.'). If the Judge is convinced that there has been refusal to repent, Jesus payment will not cover those sinners and they must pay the price themselves.

To me, repentance is the journey of learning to live, learning to love, and learning to be all that God intends for me to be.
---
And, yes AITNOP, the early Christians (Jews) understood Jesus' death as this perfect sacrifice for our sins.

[billmc]

Thanks for the feedback, David, but your reply is replete with illogical inconsistencies. Allow me to demonstrate from your own words:

You said: "If you've learned from conservative Christians that Salvation is entirely about escaping guilt and punishment, you've been poorly instructed."
I think I have a pretty good handle on it. It is almost entirely about escaping hell. It is, to be blunt, about saving one's own butt from God's wrath.

You said: "Man can't rescue himself."
Then you stated: "If the Judge is convinced that there has been refusal to repent, Jesus payment will not cover those sinners and they must pay the price themselves."
In your scenario, man DOES rescue himself by repentance. No repentance, no rescue. Repentance = rescue. No repentance = no rescue.

This is the great inconsistency in the evangelical message: "There is nothing you can do...but you must believe." Believing is something you do.

Traditional Christians put great stress on belief in the atonement of Jesus. But the OT sacrifices upon which the atonement is modeled did NOT rely on "personal faith". The offering was accepted or rejected, not upon belief or faith of the average Israelite, but upon whether the high priest made the offering correctly. Personal faith was not involved. In traditional Christianity, Jesus' sacrifice doesn't "take" unless people put personal faith in it. If that is your understanding, fine, but don't say that it works just like OT sacrifices -- because it doesn't.

Besides, if we want to get literal and technical, no one truly repents. If you still sin, David, then you have not fully repented. That's the bottom line.

And, if the wages that everyone must pay if they don't repent is hell, everlasting separation from God, then Jesus never DID pay those wages. At best, according to traditional Christianity, he was only in hell 3 days.

[billmc]

davidk, on Aug 20 2008, 09:12 AM, said:

And, yes AITNOP, the early Christians (Jews) understood Jesus' death as this perfect sacrifice for our sins.

David, I’ve had enough interactions with you to know that you and I are probably not going to see eye-to-eye on the atonement-of-Jesus issue. That’s okay. Christians have disagreed about many things down through the centuries. But I would like to offer a couple more thoughts for your consideration.

IF I still believed the only way for God’s wrath against human sin was for Jesus to die, and that Jesus’ death is the quintessential sacrifice pointed at in the Old Testament, then I would expect the writers of the bible to be CONSISTENT about it and they certainly are not. Jesus’ own disciples rebuked him when he said he was going to die. While the New Testament writers do see Jesus’ death within the sacrificial paradigm, they can’t agree as to whom the sacrifice was for. Some felt it was for the Jews only. Others felt that it was for whoever believed in Jesus. And still others felt that it was for the whole world. There never was a consensus as to exactly whose sins were taken away by the “lamb of God” who, according to some scriptures, takes away the sins of the world.

Being modernists, we place a huge amount of stress upon the notion of individual faith. But the OT sacrificial system did not. God’s acceptance of the sacrifice depended on two things: 1) the purity of the sacrifice and 2) the qualifications and correct rites of the high priest making the offering. Within that system, the high priest represented ALL the people, the WHOLE nation. Individual faith was not a factor. If the sacrifice was pure and the high priest offered it correctly, the sacrifice was accepted by God. It had nothing to do with whether an individual in the camp had faith in it or not.

Yes, the New Testament presents Jesus within that paradigm, as both the high priest AND as the offering. I’m not denying that. The book of Hebrews tells us that Christ was perfect as BOTH the high priest AND as the offering. Do we agree?

If so, then your and my faith in Jesus’ sacrifice is irrelevant. Within that paradigm, he did what he did and said, “It is finished.” It was a transaction between God and Christ and we had absolutely no say in it. Therefore, whether we believe in Jesus’ death as a sacrifice for our sins or not is a mute point. God believes it. Jesus believes it. There is nothing you or I can do about it.

And if this is true, if Jesus was/is the perfect high priest who offered himself to God as the perfect sacrifice for everyone for all time, then EVERYONE is saved by that one act. It matters not if you believe in it, it is still true.

The book of 1 John says that Jesus died, not only for believers, but for the whole world. So within the sacrificial paradigm, there is no other option, given the role of high priest and the purity of the sacrifice, except to conclude that Jesus’ death saved everyone.

Now, if we want to modify this doctrine of atonement and say that God doesn’t accept the payment or the sacrifice until/unless someone puts their personal faith in it, let’s at least be honest and admit that the OT scriptures don’t support that view. The NT might. But that just proves, once again, that there is no consensus as to exactly HOW the atonement works.
We even see the same thing today. Calvinists believe that Jesus’ death is effectual only for the elect. Armenians believe that his death applies to whoever chooses to believe in it. Universalists, probably those closest to the scriptures, believe that Jesus’ death took care of the sin issue ONCE and FOR ALL. So, if I was a believer that hemoglobin could somehow remove evil and that God demands the death of an innocent before he could forgive the guilty, I would be a universalist.

Again, the main problem that I have with those who shove atonement theology down our throats is that they have picked only ONE interpretation of Jesus’ death on the cross and made it the ONLY interpretation. In so doing, they make Jesus out to be nothing more than a stupid animal who had nothing to teach us except that God cannot forgive sin, he must make somebody “pay” for it. And I don’t believe in that kind of God.

The way I feel about Jesus’ death is much the same way I feel about Santa Claus. There is a historical truth to be found in the story. But people have forgotten the historical truth and, instead, made up fairy tales they can use to threaten people with everlasting chunks of coal or reward people with everlasting toys. At least in the Santa tale, Santa doesn’t have to kill little Johnny in order to give little Susie toys.

[davidk]

wayfarer2k, on Aug 20 2008, 12:51 PM, said:

Thanks for the feedback, David, but your reply is replete with illogical inconsistencies. Allow me to demonstrate from your own words:

You said: "If you've learned from conservative Christians that Salvation is entirely about escaping guilt and punishment, you've been poorly instructed."
I think I have a pretty good handle on it. It is almost entirely about escaping hell. It is, to be blunt, about saving one's own butt from God's wrath.

You said: "Man can't rescue himself."
Then you stated: "If the Judge is convinced that there has been refusal to repent, Jesus payment will not cover those sinners and they must pay the price themselves."
In your scenario, man DOES rescue himself by repentance. No repentance, no rescue. Repentance = rescue. No repentance = no rescue.

This is the great inconsistency in the evangelical message: "There is nothing you can do...but you must believe." Believing is something you do.

Traditional Christians put great stress on belief in the atonement of Jesus. But the OT sacrifices upon which the atonement is modeled did NOT rely on "personal faith". The offering was accepted or rejected, not upon belief or faith of the average Israelite, but upon whether the high priest made the offering correctly. Personal faith was not involved. In traditional Christianity, Jesus' sacrifice doesn't "take" unless people put personal faith in it. If that is your understanding, fine, but don't say that it works just like OT sacrifices -- because it doesn't.

Besides, if we want to get literal and technical, no one truly repents. If you still sin, David, then you have not fully repented. That's the bottom line.

And, if the wages that everyone must pay if they don't repent is hell, everlasting separation from God, then Jesus never DID pay those wages. At best, according to traditional Christianity, he was only in hell 3 days.

I see where that might be confusing. May I say you have filled in the blank with faith (or belief). It, "our love and appreciation for Christ's selfless act of redemption", may be read as evidential of our faith in being 'rescued'.

To explain further, faith is a gift from God. You are a man with free will, made by God to be capable of accepting or refusing that gift. God will not force it on you, nor anyone else.

First you 'see' the light, then you can acknowledge it as light with the equipment God gave you with which to do that. And you begin behaving in response to it. Man can still stumble, but stumbling in the light will not throw him into the darkness. That is man's assurance.

Or, as the light shines you can 'close your eyes', denying the light and behaving as if it isn't there. That does not change the light from still being really there. But if you don't open your eyes you will have chosen to behave as if the light does not exist, stumbling in the darkness, and you will be escaping- Heaven.

Just because God has a "corporate plan" of Atonement, the OT does not take anything away from relying on an individuals faith being recognized as critical elements.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

I love the idea that salvation is not about getting to heaven, it is about bringing heaven to earth!

[soma]

I also like the idea of bringing heaven to earth. God planned for us to have peace and and a happy life now. The Christians hurting and angry inside will always object to philosophies and any spiritual steps to peace with God.

[davidk]

First, please allow this short follow up to:

wayfarer2k, on Aug 20 2008, 12:51 PM, said:

It (Salvation)is almost entirely about escaping hell. It is, to be blunt, about saving one's own butt from God's wrath.....

God has provided all the evidence of Himself right in front of our eyes. We are given our faith to see it and it is then by our own effort that we refuse to acknowledge God. It is in non-belief that man expends his effort!
Jesus Christ is our mediator, our perfect priest. If we refuse to accept His perfection, His perfect act, individually, we have refused to be saved. Even though He is telling us it is for everyone, some will continue to refuse to accept it.

Repentence may never be exhaustive, but that is not the need. To repent willingly to God is the point. Being humble to God and accepting that His plan is sufficient.
Thanks

wayfarer2k, on Aug 20 2008, 02:46 PM, said:

IF I still believed the only way for God’s wrath against human sin was for Jesus to die, and that Jesus’ death is the quintessential sacrifice pointed at in the Old Testament, then I would expect the writers of the bible to be CONSISTENT about it and they certainly are not. Jesus’ own disciples rebuked him when he said he was going to die. While the New Testament writers do see Jesus’ death within the sacrificial paradigm, they can’t agree as to whom the sacrifice was for. Some felt it was for the Jews only. Others felt that it was for whoever believed in Jesus. And still others felt that it was for the whole world. There never was a consensus as to exactly whose sins were taken away by the “lamb of God” who, according to some scriptures, takes away the sins of the world.

My above "follow up" touched on this a bit.
The Bible consistently exposes man as he really is. It doesn't shy away from showng us our doubts and confusion, but neither does it shy away from personally telling us of God's answers, Trust in Him!

Quote

Being modernists, we place a huge amount of stress upon the notion of individual faith. But the OT sacrificial system did not. God’s acceptance of the sacrifice depended on two things: 1) the purity of the sacrifice and 2) the qualifications and correct rites of the high priest making the offering. Within that system, the high priest represented ALL the people, the WHOLE nation. Individual faith was not a factor. If the sacrifice was pure and the high priest offered it correctly, the sacrifice was accepted by God. It had nothing to do with whether an individual in the camp had faith in it or not.

I agree with you up to the point of saying individual faith was not a factor. The entire Old Testament stresses the individual and the corporate. It hints at the unity and diversity of all creation.

Quote

Yes, the New Testament presents Jesus within that paradigm, as both the high priest AND as the offering. I’m not denying that. The book of Hebrews tells us that Christ was perfect as BOTH the high priest AND as the offering. Do we agree?

If so, then your and my faith in Jesus’ sacrifice is irrelevant. Within that paradigm, he did what he did and said, “It is finished.” It was a transaction between God and Christ and we had absolutely no say in it. Therefore, whether we believe in Jesus’ death as a sacrifice for our sins or not is a mute point. God believes it. Jesus believes it. There is nothing you or I can do about it.

And if this is true, if Jesus was/is the perfect high priest who offered himself to God as the perfect sacrifice for everyone for all time, then EVERYONE is saved by that one act. It matters not if you believe in it, it is still true.

The book of 1 John says that Jesus died, not only for believers, but for the whole world. So within the sacrificial paradigm, there is no other option, given the role of high priest and the purity of the sacrifice, except to conclude that Jesus’ death saved everyone.

Very good except for 2 little bits. I'd like to explain.
Jesus' sacrifice was indeed sufficient for all men to be saved. 1 John also says not all men will be saved because some will continue to deny Jesus Christ. This comes with a warning, we are not in any position to judge whether anyone is or is not saved.

Quote

Now, if we want to modify this doctrine of atonement and say that God doesn’t accept the payment or the sacrifice until/unless someone puts their personal faith in it, let’s at least be honest and admit that the OT scriptures don’t support that view. The NT might. But that just proves, once again, that there is no consensus as to exactly HOW the atonement works.
We even see the same thing today. Calvinists believe that Jesus’ death is effectual only for the elect. Armenians believe that his death applies to whoever chooses to believe in it. Universalists, probably those closest to the scriptures, believe that Jesus’ death took care of the sin issue ONCE and FOR ALL. So, if I was a believer that hemoglobin could somehow remove evil and that God demands the death of an innocent before he could forgive the guilty, I would be a universalist.

The Sacrifice is perfectly acceptable for everyone, which allows us to be perfectly and personally liable if we deny Jesus Christ.
From the time of Adam it was for us to do it God's way- not ours. The sacrifice is God's plan. Without Hemoglobin where is life?

Quote

Again, the main problem that I have with those who shove atonement theology down our throats is that they have picked only ONE interpretation of Jesus’ death on the cross and made it the ONLY interpretation. In so doing, they make Jesus out to be nothing more than a stupid animal who had nothing to teach us except that God cannot forgive sin, he must make somebody “pay” for it. And I don’t believe in that kind of God.

Well, of course, with Jesus being God, He was able to provide, make, and be the perfect sacrifice, creating the way, based upon His own law and not mans, to forgive man's sin. Jesus' resurrection was His victory over death.

Quote

The way I feel about Jesus’ death is much the same way I feel about Santa Claus. There is a historical truth to be found in the story. But people have forgotten the historical truth and, instead, made up fairy tales they can use to threaten people with everlasting chunks of coal or reward people with everlasting toys. At least in the Santa tale, Santa doesn’t have to kill little Johnny in order to give little Susie toys.

Hmmm. I think it would be a better analogy if you had said Santa would sacrifice his toys for both Johnny and Susie to recieve their toys. You could substitute 'life' for toy(s).

[billmc]

The point is, David, that some Chritians make salvation entirely about the priestly/sacrificial paradigm i.e. solely about the forgiveness of sins. The bible contains at least two other great "stories" of salvation.

The first is the enslavement/bondage story. We see this primarily in Israel's slavery in Egypt. The Hebrews didn't need forgiveness of sins, they needed freedom from bondage and oppression. In the NT, we see this story reflect in Jesus' death setting us free from the power of sin.

The second great story is return from exile or home-coming. We see this primarily in Israel's return from Babylon, her return to Jerusalem and her return to God. Again, their need was not primarily the forgiveness of sins, but a restored relationship/reconciliation with God. Jesus' death also reflects this kind of reconciliation.

There are wonderful truths to be explored in both of these other interpretations of Jesus' death -- freedom and reconciliation. But many Christians, especially those of the conservative flavor, focus only on the sin/forgiveness story of Jesus' death. There is really much more to it. It is not that the priestly/sacrificial story is wrong, it is that it is only ONE aspect of Jesus' death and, unfortunately, it is about the only story we hear from our pulpits.

We need more than the forgiveness of our sins, as important as that may be. We need freedom from those sins and we need a return to a life-giving relationship with God. A forgiven prisoner is still a prisoner. And a forgiven exile is still in exile. Humans need more than forgiveness. We need transformation, something forgiveness cannot give.

[davidk]

wayfarer2k,

Sin enslaves us. Sin is what seperates us from God. Israel brought sacrifices for forgiveness of sin, and by our knowing Christ's sacrifice has since eternally paid our sin debt, we have been given His eternal forgiveness. This is God's plan for freeing our Spirit and reconciling us back to Him. That knowledge from the Word of God is what transforms us.

[October's Autumn]

AllInTheNameOfProgress, on Aug 26 2008, 01:58 PM, said:

I love the idea that salvation is not about getting to heaven, it is about bringing heaven to earth!

Salvation from the Hebrew Bible is about literal physically being saved from harm/death.

To me it is about heaven on earth in the here and now.

[JosephM]

davidk, on Sep 19 2008, 04:21 PM, said:

wayfarer2k,

Sin enslaves us. Sin is what seperates us from God. Israel brought sacrifices for forgiveness of sin, and by our knowing Christ's sacrifice has since eternally paid our sin debt, we have been given His eternal forgiveness. This is God's plan for freeing our Spirit and reconciling us back to Him. That knowledge from the Word of God is what transforms us.

Davidk,

It seems to me it is repentance that Jesus preached, not sacrifice. Only men delight in the sacrifice of bulls and calves and turtle doves. Only men/women delight in the physical sacrifice of other men or women which will never take away sin which includes the flesh of Jesus. Only by (repentance) turning away and thinking differently will one return to freedom. Where is your logic and reason in this sacrifice thing and sin debt premise?

Joseph

[billmc]

davidk, on Sep 19 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

wayfarer2k,

Sin enslaves us. Sin is what seperates us from God. Israel brought sacrifices for forgiveness of sin, and by our knowing Christ's sacrifice has since eternally paid our sin debt, we have been given His eternal forgiveness. This is God's plan for freeing our Spirit and reconciling us back to Him. That knowledge from the Word of God is what transforms us.

Yes, David, sin enslaves us. From that context, if we are enslaved by sin, we don't need forgiveness, we need freedom.

In the other two salvation stories I have shared above, if Moses had gone to the Hebrews and said, "God has forgiven your sin", they might have replied, "That's great...but we are slaves here, we need freedom." There is nothing in the scriptures that says the Hebrews were slaves to Egypt because of Israel's sin. It was simply that Egypt was a domination system. The kingdom of the gods and goddesses were built upon the backs of slaves. Slaves didn't need forgiveness, they needed freedom.

Likewise with the Hebrews in Babylon. If the prophets had said, "God has forgiven your sin", they might have replied, "That's great...but we are captives in this foreign land. How can we sing the songs of Zion so far from our home?" While the scriptures, in this case, do imply that they were captive for their unfaithfulness to God, what they needed was return to God i.e. repentance, not strictly forgiveness.

I know from my interactions with you (and from my own background) that your faith is largely shaped by the sin/forgiveness paradigm of God/humanity. I understand that paradigm. But even according to your own theology, Jesus' "payment" was not enough to pay our sin debt -- it must be coupled with personal faith in order for that payment to take. So even those who make much of Jesus' death as a payment for sin admit that what he did was not enough, that God still requires repentance or personal faith in that payment for God to process it and allow it to go through. Even for "atonement theologians", what really makes forgiveness active or effectual is NOT the blood of Christ, but FAITH in that blood. For many Christians, it is not faith in Christ that saves them, it is faith in their FAITH.

IMO, forgiveness is part of a package, not the sole element of salvation. Salvation is about MORE than forgiveness. It is about freedom, it is about return to God, it is about forgiveness. But it is about all of these things that we might be transformed into the kind of people that God has always intended for us to be. Forgiveness is important. But when we make salvation ONLY about the forgiveness of sins, it is like making the life-long experience of marriage only about the wedding ceremony.