Jump to content

Atonement


McKenna

Recommended Posts

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. :)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

McKenna writes -

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :lol: ) - 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 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McKenna writes

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Soma,

[i genuinely fail to see how my last post could conceivably have been bad mouthing anyone. It appears like a rush to judge me. Should I consider your post bad mouthing my faith? Of course not.

While I don't pretend not to have offended anybody, asking questions can only be considered offensive if one allows to be offended. I cannot control anyone being offended. If I have made any incorrect observations, simply correct me. I'm not attempting any personal attacks, but a clear understanding. Much posted here is a "foriegn language".

It's as if I am hard of hearing, and you're getting offended if I ask you to repeat something more clearly.

 

Call me what you will. My being offended is under my control.]

---

In reference to the initial segment of your post: I understand your "red light" analogy. It's entertaining, but it seems insufficient to me. Our human red lights function on bad information from time to time. It has been found on occasion, ones conscience may actually bother them for no reason, or it may not bother others at all.

 

I agree we should ask: what is right from wrong and how do we know the difference? But we are witness to diverse red lights; Stalin vs De Sade vs Hitler vs Mother Theresa vs - the line would be endless. Whose "red light" conscience reflects truly and why should it or why doesn't it? What do we compare against that we may determine a love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith. What are such things and where do we get such knowledge? How do we know what is the "good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." from which we are able to examine ourselves at all?

Of course I acknowledge the Biblical references, but how, in progressive apologetics concerning Biblical unreliability, can any of them be considered reliable? Or can some progressives actually believe what has been written and considered to be "The Word of God"? If it were mere man and his immature intellect, all of Scripture is suspect. Even quotes you may think nice to post.

- Dk

---

Dear Joseph,

 

I agree God does not thrust guilt upon us, we earn it. God loves us. ( are you still sure you're not attributing personality traits to God? You know like, love 'n' teaching?)

 

But at the same time, since God is always happy with us, would there be a need for Soma's 'red light'? If nothing man does can make God unhappy with us, why would there be any guilt for man to remove or a need to repent? Would it matter if Man were either noble or cruel? Could it be considered that good and evil would fail to exist since nothing then would require any forgiveness or repentence? Sin would cease to exist.

 

Like you always say,

Just a few rash and inconclusive thoughts of obvious error for you to consider from your highly opinionated, man centered, progressive throne of superiority, (whew! :lol: )

-Dk

---

I can't offer this any more clearly, but everyone seems to just bristle at rather than contest the content/context of the original statement: "There is no Atonement without the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ." Then later, McKenna asked: "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 responded, "Without original sin, there would be no need for Atonement nor Grace, and the death of Jesus Christ would be irrelevent." Still to date, no one here can explain, without original sin, the truth of any of those needs. They simply would not exist and Jesus death- ultimately irrelevant.' In the context: eternal relevance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(snip)

Dear Joseph,

 

I agree God does not thrust guilt upon us, we earn it. God loves us. ( are you still sure you're not attributing personality traits to God? You know like, love 'n' teaching?)

 

But at the same time, since God is always happy with us, would there be a need for Soma's 'red light'? If nothing man does can make God unhappy with us, why would there be any guilt for man to remove or a need to repent? Would it matter if Man were either noble or cruel? Could it be considered that good and evil would fail to exist since nothing then would require any forgiveness or repentence? Sin would cease to exist.

 

Like you always say,

Just a few rash and inconclusive thoughts of obvious error for you to consider from your highly opinionated, man centered, progressive throne of superiority, (whew! :lol: )

-Dk

---

I can't offer this any more clearly, but everyone seems to just bristle at rather than contest the content/context of the original statement: "There is no Atonement without the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ." Then later, McKenna asked: "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 responded, "Without original sin, there would be no need for Atonement nor Grace, and the death of Jesus Christ would be irrelevent." Still to date, no one here can explain, without original sin, the truth of any of those needs. They simply would not exist and Jesus death- ultimately irrelevant.' In the context: eternal relevance.

 

Dear David,

 

As I said before, Progressive Christianity is not dogma or doctrine so you won't find an agreed upon theology answer here in my view.

 

Secondly, I speak for myself, No God is not a person with personality traits. God is Spirit. I must be abstract because God is beyond definition. Its seems to me Soma's red light may have nothing to do with God beingunhappy or happy with us as you might suppose. God is complete and beyond emotions. The red light is part of the creature structure for our sake, not God's.

There is guilt because it is self-created by the creature. It is built in the design. Since God is all-knowing, all-present and all-powerful, its stands to reason God has no enemies. (Think about it) Since God made the creature subject to the things he (the creature) is subject to and God knows the unlimited possibilities that will be chosen how could God be diappointed? I do not expect an answer because the answer is self-evident, God can't be dissappointed.

 

It seems to me that the need to repent is because man will continue to suffer from his actions until he does. The sufferring is self-created because in truth we are all One and so whatever you do to your brother/sister you do it in essence to yourself. That can only be seen in the spirit. We are many in the flesh but there is only One Life. Repentance is not required by God, it is chosen by man through his suffering which is always self-inflicted. (Yes, I know you can't see this in the flesh with your reasoning mind but nevertheless it is true I have no need to prove it or defend it to you.

 

Glad you put the lol on your last statement. No superiority here except possibly in your flesh mind. lol

People as a rule are very accepting of those who believe differently , however, one must be careful to be respectful of their opinions and be careful to not put words in their mouths when restating their opinions and drawing conclusions that attack progressive Christianity without a clear understanding of what it is. (See the 8 points for details) Its pretty liberal and avoids dogma and theology.

 

With Love in Christ,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Davidk,

 

P.S. Just in case you were wondering what kind of statements you were making that might illicit questions/comments such as you received in Post #38 at the last sentence, Read your Post #30 and tell me if your last paragraph you wrote seems in the least bit dis-respectful to the people who make this site their home. I'm saying this not to chide you or judge you but rather as a possible answer to the question you posed to Soma in #38 that remains unanswered in this thread. You be your own judge. I will not disagree with your findings.

 

With Love in Christ,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original question:

 

there have actually been five different major ways of understanding the Atonement throughout Christian history, substitutional atonement only being the most popular one right now.

 

Any responses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our lives become productive and fulfilling in proportion to the love we exchange so for that reason alone we should learn to appreciate and to feel the greatness of love. Harmony comes when one feels one with all

things. DavidK your mantra is Progressive Christianity is wrong.......................What is your purpose to change progressive or to prove your right. I am here to learn, share, question and exchange ideas and concepts. We are not here to defend Progressive Christianity. We love Christ, but you seem to be at war with the word Progressive. I want to grow in the love of Christ and not get drawn into a war where I have to prove God is on my side and not on the other. I feel God loves us all. The concept of love is taught in the Bible as well as in other writings, but one does not learn how to love from reading, one only gains the spiritual inspiration to love. Love is progressive. It moves and grows as we learn from experience once again experiencing life directly. When someone doesn't know what progressive means, one should learn and not criticize what one does not know. When one knows what progressive means, one works to give people different, yet always acceptable, spiritual insight so their experience with Christ can deepen according to capabilities of their spiritual awakening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original question:

Any responses?

I am assuming there to be expectations to recieve, at the minimum, one. And not wanting to disappoint the writer, I shall respond thusly: I had relied upon the readers knowledge for it to be understood to mean: my original post, which caused so much consternation on this thread, in response to McKenna's query on progressive epistemology. I quoted it again as reference. If it were confusing to some, I'll continue to provide more detailed reasoning in the future upon request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

soma,

 

To be understood, I'll try and rephrase. The progressive philosophy has not articulated any epistemological support for the need of the Atonement via the particular crucifixtion of Jesus.

 

Proposing this concept is not any judgmental attempt to say progressive christianity is right or wrong. It is simply to bring to bare that the progressive christian has not articulated any necessity for Atonement.

 

If the progressive church can explain why man needs the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to pay for his sin. The floor is open.

 

But, if progressive christianity does not need the Atonement, so be it; and the loss of Atonement doctrine should be of no consequence for the progressives.

 

God's Grace,

Dk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

soma,

 

To be understood, I'll try and rephrase. The progressive philosophy has not articulated any epistemological support for the need of the Atonement via the particular crucifixtion of Jesus.

 

Proposing this concept is not any judgmental attempt to say progressive christianity is right or wrong. It is simply to bring to bare that the progressive christian has not articulated any necessity for Atonement.

If the progressive church can explain why man needs the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to pay for his sin. The floor is open.

 

But, if progressive christianity does not need the Atonement, so be it; and the loss of Atonement doctrine should be of no consequence for the progressives.

 

God's Grace,

Dk

 

I don't disagree that this understanding of the Atonement - substitutionary atonement - is probably irrelevant to most Progressive Christians...but that's why I asked in the OP what other interpretations there could be (as minsocal just reminded us in post #44), as well as if there are "any interpretations...that would work within a Progressive Christian epistemological framework."

 

This link may have been offered already in this thread, I can't remember: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement#Ato...in_Christianity

 

I am intrigued by this: "The third metaphor is that of healing, associated with Pierre Abélard in the eleventh century, and Paul Tillich in the twentieth. In this picture Jesus’ death on the cross demonstrates the extent of God’s love for us, and moved by this great act of love mankind responds and is transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. This view is favoured by most liberal theologians as the moral influence view, and also forms the basis for Rene Girard’s “mimetic desire” theory (not to be confused with meme theory)." Perhaps this does not count as "atonement," exactly, but it does provide an explanation of Jesus' death that could fit into a Progressive Christian's theology. Thoughts, anyone? (Again, this may have already been discussed, and if so I apologize for the redundancy.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree that this understanding of the Atonement - substitutionary atonement - is probably irrelevant to most Progressive Christians...but that's why I asked in the OP what other interpretations there could be (as minsocal just reminded us in post #44), as well as if there are "any interpretations...that would work within a Progressive Christian epistemological framework."

 

This link may have been offered already in this thread, I can't remember: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement#Ato...in_Christianity

 

I am intrigued by this: "The third metaphor is that of healing, associated with Pierre Abélard in the eleventh century, and Paul Tillich in the twentieth. In this picture Jesus’ death on the cross demonstrates the extent of God’s love for us, and moved by this great act of love mankind responds and is transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. This view is favoured by most liberal theologians as the moral influence view, and also forms the basis for Rene Girard’s “mimetic desire” theory (not to be confused with meme theory)." Perhaps this does not count as "atonement," exactly, but it does provide an explanation of Jesus' death that could fit into a Progressive Christian's theology. Thoughts, anyone? (Again, this may have already been discussed, and if so I apologize for the redundancy.)

 

McKenna,

 

This is the perspective I noted in Post # 3, and the same source. I chose this perspective for myself because it is linked with both A. N. Whitehead and the prophetic tradition often favored by progressives. While this is known as the "moral influence view", Whitehead (1929) turns the argument upside down when he comments that "love is a bit amoral" (sometimes unconditional). The concept of unconditional Love alters the entire discussion, as far as I am concerned.

 

minsocal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service