Atonement

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Meh, just a thought.

 

But a good thought!

 

There are some Christians who believe that the atonement, the "at-one-ment", was never an issue of God destroying a barrier that he had made between himself and humans, but, rather, of God demonstrating to us, as the apostle Paul said, that nothing, not even death, can separate us from the love of God in Christ.

 

Or, in other words, Jesus' death was not meant to change God's mind about humans but to change human minds about God.

 

In Jesus' death, instead of God calling for our blood, he allows us to shed his blood (metaphorically speaking, of course).

 

In Jesus' death, instead of God demanding that we die for our sins, he dies to show us his love.

 

In Jesus' death, instead of God demanding a payment for sin, we see the gift of life.

 

In Jesus' death, instead of God vowing to destroy his enemies, we see him willing to forgive them, even though they are unrepentant.

 

In Jesus' death, instead of seeing the sword of an angry, vengeful God toward sin, we see a God dying of a broken heart.

 

It's very possible that the atonement wasn't necessary in order to reconcile some inner struggle that God was having over whether he should save us or destroy us, but rather it showed us that if there ever was a barrier between God and humanity (or God and wo-man-ity), it was on OUR side, not on his.

[minsocal]

Perhaps - and this is not necessarily my opinion, I don't know at the moment - but perhaps it is not God who needs the atonement, but us. In other words perhaps there is no objective need for an atonement - we will be with God eventually anyway, because His Grace overrides any "holiness" that makes Him unable to be near sin (and I do agree with Wayfarer's questioning of this idea) - but rather a subjective, psychological one. Humans may be so guilt-ridden when they think of God that they cannot believe His Grace could cover even them - and so either God sent Jesus to be a demonstration of this Grace, or humans invented the atonement to deal with this psychological need, or something.

 

Meh, just a thought.

 

Speaking for myself, I don't think it is God who needs atonement. There are two views of Grace. In my rather simplistic view, one side views Grace as limited and the other side views Grace as unlimited. The later view seems to be preferred by progressives. The idea that we were created "imperfect" could well be restated as "not yet perfected". I say this because I'm not so sure "time" means much of anything to God. Time is a human necessity and we should not project this concept onto the Cosmos or onto God. So if Grace is unlimited and we are moving towards perfection (a progressive perspective), then atonement expresses a psychological desire to reconcile the difference between ourselves operating in the field of time compared to an Eternal God ( Eternal meaning the absence of time). Guilt would not be necessary if we realize it's origins. In the meantime, we seek our own atonement because we cannot accept the fact that we are "not yet perfected" (a time based concept). As far as I am concerned, we need to join with God and move Creation towards "a more perfect state" and accept that this is the best we can do.

[Realspiritik]

Wayfarer and McKenna, I'd just like to thank you both for your words of emotional support on the loss of my son. That means more to me than you realize.

 

Jen

[soma]

I feel for the parents who have lost their children, you are so strong and your love is stronger than death because it continues to this day.

[davidk]

A small side note: My wife and I lost two children to miscarriage a number of years ago and a couple of "Bible-believing" Christians used the scriptures to prove to us that because our children were "concieved in sin" and had fallen, sinful natures for which they never exercised faith in Christ to have eliminated, our unborn infants were burning in hell. This is the kind of crap that Christians preach when they believe in doctrines like "original sin" and the necessity of the atonement.

 

 

I am familiar with the loss of a child.

 

It is both un-Christian and unbelievable that anyone could believe the Bible teaches that the innocent will burn in Hell. You certainly have my prayers and sympathies for your loss and be comforted knowing that these innocent children are in the infinite loving presence of the true Christian God where there is no pain nor fear.

[davidk]

Dear Jen,

The impact on our lives from the loss of one or own children can and will always penetrate into the depths of our meditations. I want to offer to you my deepest sympathy and the strange weeping of loss and joy in knowing he is forever safe.

 

 

 

God's Grace to you and wayfarer both,

David

[Guest wayfarer2k]

You certainly have my prayers and sympathies for your loss and be comforted knowing that these innocent children are in the infinite loving presence of the true Christian God where there is no pain nor fear.

 

Save your prayers and sympathies, David. Your belief in "original sin" is exactly the kind of framework that leads people to conclude that children as not "innocent", that they are born sinful and are, therefore, burning in hell.

 

Thankfully, there were a couple of very wise Christians who came alongside us in our loss and, rather than offering “spiritual” answers or religious platitudes, they simply cried with us. It helped us, not in getting past our loss, but in getting through it.

[minsocal]

Good thoughts. I've been waiting for more!

 

In the meantime, I think you bring out a good point that has alot of relevance to this conversation: creation is not finished. Despite what the bible might literally say, it is generally believed by most people that we and our universe is evolving. Nothing is static and fixed. Plants and animals continue to change in response to their environment. Galaxies continue to fly away from each other as the universe expands. Stars are still being born in nebulae.

 

If this is true, then there was never a literal time when God rubbed his hands together and said, "Ahh, all done! Perfecto!" Atonement theology rests primarily on the notion that there must be a way for God to get us and our world back to the Garden, back to perfection. Jesus' death somehow does that for those who believe in him. But I don't know any Christians who are morally perfect or who live in Eden, despite the atonement. So, for me, the atonement is a "cure" for a problem that never really existed. I still find alot of meaning and love in Jesus' death, I just don't see it as a means of restoring perfection to humanity or to our world.

 

Post some more, please. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

 

I agree. This is the ancient battle between those who believed the unviverse was created perfect and orderly and those who believed the universe to be truly chaotic. It is possible to see a beautiful order in all of this and at the same time observe jets of plasma shooting out of massive black holes and destroying whole galaxies. It was Whitehead, I believe, that said that order and caos are inseperable.

 

If creation is ongoing, then what is the nature of God's plan? Some, myself included, believe that God’s plan is an ongoing evolution requiring reinterpretation of the Bible in light of new understandings. The emphasis is on evolving revelation and reincarnation of perennial truths and values as we participate in the creation process.

 

The story of the Garden of Eden is about the dawning of consciousness as we know it today. A consciousness that is imperfect and still evolving. In other words, with the dawning of consciousness, there can be no return to the Garden of Eden.

 

My thoughts,

 

minsocal

[Guest wayfarer2k]

If creation is ongoing, then what is the nature of God's plan?

 

Good question and I truly appreciate your insights on this. I have to admit, I don't know what God's plan is or if there is one as we would describe a "plan".

 

The Christianity of my youth said that God's plan was to wisk believers off the earth at some point and have them live in heaven (someplace other than the earth).

 

Some theologians, such as Tom Wright, hold to a view that God establishes an actual kingdom on planet earth and that this kingdom lasts forevermore.

 

Current science and cosmology, however, says that at some in the far future, the earth will be left a charred rock from our sun's red giant status. Our sun isn't big enough to go nova. It will simply shrink to a brown dwarf, leaving the earth a cold planet in our solar system until some event bigger than that introduces more "chaos" into the system.

 

There are a couple of verses in the OT that speak of the earth lasting forever. But this comes out of a very primitive view of the cosmos and I don't put my faith in it.

 

Maybe, and this is just a maybe, it is "God's plan" that we do evolve to the point where we leave this earth. But as to whether we can evolve to the point where we escape a collapsing galaxy, I don't know. I'm not sure what the apostle Paul referred to when he said that, in the "consummation", God will be all in all.

 

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think we can evolve past the "physical" universe, maybe to another plane of existence?

[minsocal]

Good question and I truly appreciate your insights on this. I have to admit, I don't know what God's plan is or if there is one as we would describe a "plan".

 

The Christianity of my youth said that God's plan was to wisk believers off the earth at some point and have them live in heaven (someplace other than the earth).

 

Some theologians, such as Tom Wright, hold to a view that God establishes an actual kingdom on planet earth and that this kingdom lasts forevermore.

 

Current science and cosmology, however, says that at some in the far future, the earth will be left a charred rock from our sun's red giant status. Our sun isn't big enough to go nova. It will simply shrink to a brown dwarf, leaving the earth a cold planet in our solar system until some event bigger than that introduces more "chaos" into the system.

 

There are a couple of verses in the OT that speak of the earth lasting forever. But this comes out of a very primitive view of the cosmos and I don't put my faith in it.

 

Maybe, and this is just a maybe, it is "God's plan" that we do evolve to the point where we leave this earth. But as to whether we can evolve to the point where we escape a collapsing galaxy, I don't know. I'm not sure what the apostle Paul referred to when he said that, in the "consummation", God will be all in all.

 

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think we can evolve past the "physical" universe, maybe to another plane of existence?

 

The apostle Paul may be the source of the theory that in the "end times" Adam and Jesus are united. Symbolically, this could mean that our struggles with the rift between our unconscious nature (Adam) and consciousnes (Jesus) comes to and end. The problem seems to stem from the difference between the terms "everlasting" and "eternal". I believe the correct term should be eternal, which means the absence of time. As it exists today, human consciousness requires the concept of time. Without the concept of time we would have no memory and no consciousness. And, without consciousness we would have no problems. I believe this is why some yearn to return to the Garden of Eden. If consciousness is evolving, then we have little knowledge of just where we are headed. Perhaps the end state of consciousness is when our consciousness becomes "eternal" i.e., no longer trapped in the field of time, and merges with the Eternal Consciousness of God. Certainly, from our perspective today, that would be another plane of existence. A physical death would not matter without the concept of time, would it?

[davidk]

Save your prayers and sympathies, David. Your belief in "original sin" is exactly the kind of framework that leads people to conclude that children as not "innocent", that they are born sinful and are, therefore, burning in hell.

 

Thankfully, there were a couple of very wise Christians who came alongside us in our loss and, rather than offering “spiritual” answers or religious platitudes, they simply cried with us. It helped us, not in getting past our loss, but in getting through it.

 

Something has prevented you from "hearing" what I said,

 

"I am familiar with the loss of a child.

It is both un-Christian and unbelievable that anyone could believe the Bible teaches that the innocent will burn in Hell."

 

There is really no need for you to have been as callous as those morons were in their false claims of God sending innocent children to Hell. We should forgive those two because they did not know what they are doing. The doctrine of 'original sin" does not conclude with the absurdity of the innocent being punished.

 

If you do not wish to accept the sympathies of one who shares a similar loss, that is quite entirely your prerogative.

[Guest wayfarer2k]

The doctrine of 'original sin" does not conclude with the absurdity of the innocent being punished.

 

It certainly does, David. Perhaps you have not studied it?

 

The doctrine of "original sin" says that God punishes ALL of what could have been Adam's "innocent" offspring by imputing to each and every human being a "sinful nature" at the moment of conception. Everyone is born in a "fallen state" and is a "born sinner."

 

To support this notion, theologians reference the verse in the Psalms where David says that "in sin, my mother did conceive me".

They also reference Isaiah's statement, "For there is none righteous, no not one."

And Paul's assertion that "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Paul asserts that because of Adam's sin, we all die. Some say this is physical death, but most conservative theologians insist that this is "spiritual death", that we are born into this world in a state of separation from God.

 

Let's be honest, David, if you believe in the atonement as a literal truth, then you ALREADY believe in the "absurdity of the innocent being punished." You already believe that the "innocent" (Jesus) is punished for the sins of the guilty (humanity).

 

I don't mean to be callous with you, David. But if you believe that children in the womb are fallen creatures, that they have indwelling sin, that they are conceived in sin, that they have an inherant sinful nature, that they come into this world (if they are born at all) "separated from God" then, according to your own theology, they die and go to hell. You have already stated that atonement requires individual faith, something these precious souls never get to exercise.

 

So while I don't intend to be callous, if you hold to the doctrine of original sin and "individual atonement", then your sympathies are as hollow to me as a German guard apologizing to Jews for forcing them into a gas chamber. He may want to seem human by saying how sorry he is, but his belief system in the Furer and the Third Reich won't allow him to examine whether either he or his Furer are doing the right thing.

 

BTW, yes, I am sorry for your loss, whatever or whomever it may be.

[Guest wayfarer2k]

BTW, David, I do want to accept your sympathies as being genuine. I believe your heart has a better understanding of God than your theology allows for.

[minsocal]

I believe Wayfarer is correct.

 

Original sin and the fate of unbaptized infants

 

However, given Augustine's belief that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell, he concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell[10][11] because of original sin. The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages.[12] In the later mediaeval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view, others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. Starting around 1300, unbaptized infants were often said to inhabit the "limbo of infants".[13] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,'[14] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." But the theory of Limbo, while it "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium ... remains ... a possible theological hypothesis".[15]

 

Augustine's formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, and also, within Roman Catholicism, in the Jansenist movement, but this movement was declared heretical by the Roman Catholic Church.[16]

 

Like other traditional church doctrines, original sin has been denied or reinterpreted by various modern Christian denominations (such as the Unity Church) and theologians (such as Matthew Fox). Under such different views, Augustine's example of newborn babies would suffer the temptation to sin from their nature, but would not bear any guilt because of not actually committing sins of their own.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

[davidk]

wayfarer2k,

 

To begin, Jesus' act of sacrifice, while everyone believed it to be a punishmnent, it proved to be otherwise.

---

There was a space-time, historic change in man, a discontinuity in man. He turned by choice from his proper integration point, the absolutely good God, and became something he previously was not. We have a true moral situation: morals suddenly exist. Everything now hangs on the fact that man is abnormal now, in contrast to what he originally was. This moral problem is not intrinsic to man. If it were, there would no hope of a solution. If this problem is abnormal to what we intrinsically are, it gives us hope. In this setting the substitutionary, propitiatory death of Jesus Christ becomes a comprehensible concept.

---

Jesus assured the position and protection of children by Gods grace:

 

When the disciples asked Him who was the greatest in Heaven, summoning a child before He spoke, Jesus set the child before them saying,"Truly' I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one such child in my name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in me to stumble, it is better for him that a milstone be hung around his neck and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea." Matt 18:3-6.

"Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Matt 19:14

"Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." Mk 7:27

"Permit the children to come to me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it at all." Mk 10:14,15

Luke 18:16

Rom 9:11-16

Eph 4:14

I Jn 2:13

-

It is not a sin to be human. It is our sinful nature which is in discontinuity with our intrinsic nature (the moral dilemma) that puts us in this abnormal situation.

 

Men cannot decide whether someone will burn in Hell. It is God who has the full knowledge of guilt, not men. It is God who has mercy and grace. It is by His grace we have been saved.

We are saved by His grace through faith, so then our faith is a gift from God (Eph 2:8). With this gift from God, how do men presume to judge a childs faith?

 

It is an absurdity to consider the innocent being punished by God.

[minsocal]

davidk,

 

Deuteronomy 30:11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

 

minsocal

[October's Autumn]

The idea of an everlasting world comes from a cosmology of a flat earth, with dome over top. Sheol is beneath and God is above the dome. Understanding the ultimate finiteness of the physical earth removes the possibility of an everlasting world.

 

Part of the reason the church has persecuted people like Galileo and Darwin for so long.

[soma]

Every 3.6 seconds another person dies of starvation [borgen Porject]. And Christians waste time attacking others and causing hatred in the world. I feel it is time Christian get off the I am a sinner theme and do something positive. How about I love everyone theme.

[Realspiritik]

Thank you, Soma and Davidk, for your words of support and comfort. It is the children who are the great teachers about love and forgiveness, and they have so much to teach us.

 

Davidk, I honour your grief.

 

My best to you both,

Jen

[davidk]

Every 3.6 seconds another person dies of starvation [borgen Porject]. And Christians waste time attacking others and causing hatred in the world. I feel it is time Christian get off the I am a sinner theme and do something positive. How about I love everyone theme.

I sympathize with where you want to go with this, Love your neighbor; and despise (hate) hypocrisy and starvation. That's truly noble.

 

The only thing a Christian should be attacking is evil, but that especially riles up hatred.

 

(Now when I say Christian, I presuppose it is someone who knows Jesus is the third person of the Trinity. A position which renders Him a target for attack.)

--

The only way we can really love our neighbor is through our surrender to Jesus Christ. Which can't be done unless we recognize an actual need (sinfullness) for Him.

We can't explain any real need to love anyone unless there is an infinite-personal God as our creator.

 

Let's actually help people dying of starvation because we can really know why their life is so important.

[soma]

The only way we can really love our neighbor is through our surrender to Jesus Christ. Which can't be done unless we recognize an actual need (sinfullness) for Him.

 

Are you saying sin for Jesus?

 

I don't have to sin to see the need for Jesus.

 

The get out of jail card is a good selling point, but surrendering to Jesus does not demand that card.

[davidk]

Are you saying sin for Jesus?

 

I don't have to sin to see the need for Jesus.

 

The get out of jail card is a good selling point, but surrendering to Jesus does not demand that card.

 

Sin for Jesus! That's a good one! I can see the posters now... . We could start a new movement. Money will pour in. We'll be rich!

 

 

--

First of all, you're gonna sin. And I would bet you already have, too.

Second, if there is no sin, you've no argument for a Jesus Christ. If there's no sin, there's no argument for morality. If there's no sin you wouldn't need a get out of jail card (Jesus). If there was no sin, there would be no jail!

 

[soma]

You liked that comment here's one. When I lived in Hawaii almost 40 years ago there was a Christian group or cult called the Children of God and they use to hand out pamphlets that said Jesus was a fisher of men so they concluded that women should be hookers for Jesus. They didn't get rich.

[davidk]

Well McKenna, this string seems to have abandoned you with the progressive religion/philosophy/theology/whatever lacking any purpose for Jesus' existence, much less whether His life, death or resurrection is relevant.

 

I have found that to find any real relevance in Jesus you'll have to turn to reasoned Biblical Christianity to find an answer sufficient enough to explain Him. It's not found in how others think He ought to be, that always turns into an endless parade of prancing personalities.

 

You are rare here. You know you have personal spiritual needs and are willing to take the risk to ask the questions.

I can tell by the questions you ask. I spent a long time asking similar ones.

You've seen truth in it but there is a reticence in your tone about "giving in" to what you have considered in the past to be some ancient myths in a book of some strange and peculiar origin.

I can only suggest you to start again at Genesis. Read the first view chapters with a completely open mind. Listen to them, without the noise of my or any other opinion. Meditate on what is really being said. Ask yourself questions Reread them. Find out first hand, truly, why there is such a battle over it, and why others will try and discourage you.

[Joel Troxell]

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.

 

Perhaps not. I think even from a biblical perspective, the doctrine of original sin is sketchy. Had Pelagius had the same education in Roman rhetoric as Augustine, we might be looking at a different Christianity as the majority position. Even if there is no judicial condemnation of humanity before God, there are still fundamental existential problems (boredom, fear, angst, etc) for humanity that require resolution within the human soul. The death and resurrection of Jesus can provide foundational philosophical and spiritual answers for the human existential condition without having to deal with any Augustinian and Lutheran issues about iustitia Dei.

 

I think the reason why some progressives have trouble articulating these issues is because atonement models based on substitution and/or vindication have taken center stage, as opposed to other models possibly derived from Pauline letters and existential philosophers like Kierkegaard and Hegel, and even Neitzsche's notion of the ubermensch.

 

ps - if someone has better answered this post further down, my apologies for being redundant and butting in. I'm a latecomer to this one.

 

Peace,

Joel