Jump to content

wayfaring

Members
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by wayfaring

  1. >So like you believe in viewing Jesus as Savior and that you don;t not have to connect the atonement theory to it? Sort of, Beach. I don't see Him as Savior from a literal hell, but as showing us a way of salvation from self-centeredness. I think He saves us TO God, not FROM God. I still find meaning in the blood of Christ as a symbol of the love that He had for His followers to rather die than see Rome stamp them out. But I don't see His blood as having some kind of magic power that somehow appeases God's wrath against sin. God forgives sin because He is a forgiving God. To think that blood is required is, to me, according to the Law, not according to God's grace.
  2. Steve, I lean Methodist myself but I don't think our will is ever "free" in the sense of being unaffected by God's will. I agree with you about the tree ring being a pretty good analogy. Often times, the conservatives get so focused on "personal" salvation that they seem to forget that salvation should be a social blessing also. God "saved" Abraham so that all the nations would be blessed. Cynthia's post said: "A powerful conversion experience is not an end -- it is a beginning." Those who argue about "once saved, always saved" seem more focused on salvation being an end, not the means to an end (that of knowing and experiencing God). My own salvation, if I could call it that, is best substantiated, not by unassailable verses attesting to the fact that God pulled me out of sure everlasting torment, but by the fruit of His Spirit in my life that, I hope, overflows into the lives of others around me. I know that I am refreshed by their fruit also.
  3. "Saved," in the fundamentalist's paradigm, often means "changed from the destiny of going to hell to the destiny of going to heaven." I find such a viewpoint too narrow and too limited in scope. I think "salvation" is better described as "healing, wholeness, completeness" that is more appropriate to experiences in THIS life rather than a "get in free" card for the afterlife. I see salvation as a process that is lived and worked out rather than as an event or a status symbol. So, for me, the debate over "once saved, always saved" is somewhat of a mute point. The goal of this debate is often an attempt to answer the question as to if one can sin enough to cause God to change the track back from "going to heaven" to "going to hell." I think this whole foundation of salvation being all about going to heaven or going to hell is a faulty construct. If we saw "salvation" for the way that it is most used in the Bible -- as experiencing healing, wholeness, completeness, new life, knowing God -- it would be much more apparent that salvation is, like marriage, a relationship that should continually be enjoyed. I was "once saved" but I am still "being saved" and I don't see the two concepts as being in opposition to each other. Anyone else's thoughts on this? - wayfaring
  4. I haven't read any Crossan or Robison's books. More for my "to read soon" list. But I've read a number of Borg's books and I find that his approach does make room and allowances for the non-historical Jesus (the Jesus of church history). Though a member of the Jesus Seminar (seeking the historical Jesus), Borg has a great deal to say about the post-resurrection view of Christ that I find meaningful. Some on the far left seem to suggest that it is only the historical Jesus (that we know very little about) that has any meaningful. I think Borg does a good job looking for "both" kinds of Jesus - the historical and the sacred. I find his balance refreshing. And I agree that "The Heart of Christianity" is his best book yet. Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll look for it soon. It's ironic that none of the "Christian" bookstores carry my favorite authors. - wayfaring
  5. "What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus." This view of "blood atonement" may have worked well for the early Jewish church who continually saw their sins being "washed away" at the Temple by blood sacrifice, but it can be a hurdle to faith for thinking Christians who would never consider demanding blood from their own children in order to "wash their sins away." Mercy and forgiveness do not require blood, they only require a merciful and forgiving heart, which I believe God has always had. What is the worst sin that someone can do to me? It is not to kill or harm me, it is to harm one of my children. In the death of Jesus, we see this scenario played out as the centerpiece of human history. We see humanity at its worst. Men killed Christ out of fear and out of rebellion against His message of love and justice. God didn't demand Jesus' blood, the Jewish elite (the "religious right" of Jesus' day) called for His death. And what did the Father do about the murder of His Son? "Father, forgive them." Were any greater words ever spoken? What did the Father do to the disciples who all deserted and denied His Son? "Father, forgive them." If there was ever an opportunity for God to display His wrath toward humanity, it was when they killed His Son. But God was merciful. He always has been. The blood of Jesus didn't "buy" God's mercy, it didn't "purchase" God's grace. It simply displayed it. The blood of Jesus proved that God's mercy was real, that grace has always been there. Jesus' death proves that God is merciful to all, that God does not return evil for evil, that God, as Jesus taught, loves even His enemies. Some may believe that God needed to kill His Son. Some may believe that only human blood could quench God's thirst. Some may believe that God's holiness and righteousness are in utter opposition to His love and grace. If all of this works for you, then, "Praise God!" (such as He is). But it doesn't work for me. It just doesn't. The orthodox view says that God had to kill Himself (if you believe that Jesus is God) in order for us to get along with Him, in order for Him to feel good about us. Such a notion just doesn't make sense to me. I don't have to kill myself in order to have a good relationship with my children. Neither do I have to kill one of my children in order to have a good relationship with the other. But orthodox Christianity rests upon this kind of thinking. And that is exactly why I am not orthodox. I find the view of "blood atonement" to be nonsensical and cruel. The way I see it is that God is merciful because it is His character to be merciful, not because Jesus paid Him off to be. God is gracious because it is God's character to be gracious, not because Jesus changed God's wrathful mind. God is forgiving because it is His character to be forgiving, not because Jesus' blood permits God to be forgiving. To me, Jesus' death and blood demonstrate what God has always been like so that we will change our attitudes towards God, not in order to change God's attitudes towards us. - wayfaring
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service