Salvation

[JosephM]

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

[Guest wayfarer2k]

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]

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.

[Guest wayfarer2k]

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.

[Guest wayfarer2k]

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]

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:

 

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

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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).

[Guest wayfarer2k]

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]

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]

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

[Guest wayfarer2k]

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.

[davidk]

Wayfarer2k,

 

In its literal context; Christ's sacrifice, provided a way for sin to be dealt with, for salvation, for the freedom of our Spirit, and for our reconciliation with a holy God. I find negligable differences with:

 

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.

However, in the following, there seem to be some form of misunderstandings of my faith.

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.

A holy God demands payment for (sin) disobedience, otherwise He wouldn't be holy, and all of this would ultimately be meaningless.

 

The sufficient payment was made. Nothing else is needed to saisfy the debt. So do we acknowledge Jesus as the God Messiah/Christ; thereby accepting His gift of satisfying the debt, setting us free and reconciling us with the personal-infinite God? Or do we refuse by rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ and the ulitimate act of His love; His personally making the payment for sin in our behalf?

 

If we believe Jesus is not the God Messiah/Christ, the payment would still have been sufficient, but we would be denying Him and alone we would be unable to satisy our debt without eternal separation from God (hell).

 

Having now completely dealt with sin, Jesus Christ offers this completion to us. We have a choice in the matter. He is not going to force Heaven or Hell on us.

[Guest wayfarer2k]

A holy God demands payment for (sin) disobedience, otherwise He wouldn't be holy, and all of this would ultimately be meaningless.

 

This is an a priori argument on your part, David, one that many atonement theologians hold to, but to which the scriptures themselves do not testify. There are numerous accounts in the scriptures (both Old and New Testaments) where sins are simply forgiven by God with no demand of payment necessary. All that was required was repentance, not a payment.

 

But IF I did hold to the penal, substitutional model of atonement, how would the following scenario work:

 

John has heard that Jesus died for his sins. But he doesn't believe that Jesus is God (for God is not a man) and he doesn't believe that one person could either take the blame or punishment for the sins of another person. He finds such a theory to be unjust.

 

If John died, did God accept Jesus' payment for John's sins? If God did accept Jesus' payment for John's sins, why would God send John (a forgiven person because his sin-debt has been paid) to hell?

 

Does Jesus' payment for sin cover the sin of unbelief in Jesus? If not, why not?

[davidk]

This is an a priori argument on your part, David, one that many atonement theologians hold to, but to which the scriptures themselves do not testify. There are numerous accounts in the scriptures (both Old and New Testaments) where sins are simply forgiven by God with no demand of payment necessary. All that was required was repentance, not a payment.

 

But IF I did hold to the penal, substitutional model of atonement, how would the following scenario work:

 

John has heard that Jesus died for his sins. But he doesn't believe that Jesus is God (for God is not a man) and he doesn't believe that one person could either take the blame or punishment for the sins of another person. He finds such a theory to be unjust.

 

If John died, did God accept Jesus' payment for John's sins? If God did accept Jesus' payment for John's sins, why would God send John (a forgiven person because his sin-debt has been paid) to hell?

 

Does Jesus' payment for sin cover the sin of unbelief in Jesus? If not, why not?

 

If God forgives sin without payment, then none would be needed and there would be no adverse consequence to being disobedient. And if there is no consequence to being disobedient, there would be no need to repent. As a matter of fact, forgiveness itself would not have any real need to exist, it wouldn't have any meaning. The Scriptures testify pretty clearly on our need of Forgiveness.

 

As far as your "John" goes, if you held to the "penal, substitutional model of atonement" you'd know the answer. But since you don't, I shall try to explain.

If John did not believe Jesus was God's visible presence, he would be reasonable in thinking that one persons death would never cover the sins of everyone else.

 

However, individuals do offer themselves for punishment/consequences in the stead of others from time to time. Those are voluntary and could not be considered unjust. I think you see on some level that Jesus' death was voluntary. After all, He said it was going to happen, and went with no resistance.

 

Jesus' payment for all sin is perfectly acceptable, and would be for John's as well. It would have easily covered John's non-belief, but John refused to accept the offer. Therefore, John has to bear the consequences.

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Jesus' payment for all sin is perfectly acceptable, and would be for John's as well. It would have easily covered John's non-belief, but John refused to accept the offer. Therefore, John has to bear the consequences.

 

Let's follow this through, David. If I understand the payment that Jesus made for sin, it was a payment made FROM Jesus TO God. It happened 2000 years ago at the cross, right? The payment was from Jesus to God on John's behalf. John was never part of the payment/receipt equation. There might be an "offer" to John of forgiveness, but regardless of John's acceptance or refusal of the offer, John's sin debt would still be paid. Jesus paid for everyone's sins at the cross. This IS what the bible says in 1 John.

 

If this is true, then how could someone whose sins were paid FROM Jesus TO God ever go to hell? Jesus made the payment without asking us whether we wanted it or not. God accepted Jesus' payment without asking us if the payment was acceptable to us or not.

 

If John's sins are paid for, how could he go to hell?

[JosephM]

It seems to me, When someone else pays my light bill for me. It is paid. The power company demands nothing else from me. If i try to pay it agian myself they will only issue me a credit. The debt has been paid whether I believe it or not. A true gift has no strings attached else it is not a gift but rather a contract.

 

Joseph

[October's Autumn]

If John's sins are paid for, how could he go to hell?

 

Isn't it obvious? Jesus' sacrifice actually wasn't enough! That is the logical conclusion.

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Isn't it obvious? Jesus' sacrifice actually wasn't enough! That is the logical conclusion.

 

That’s a good observation, OA, that’s exactly what it means. Our more conservative brothers and sisters will tell us that “Jesus has done it all” or that “Jesus paid it all”, but, when it comes right down to it, their theology says that what Jesus did is not “effectual” for us personally UNLESS his ACTIONS are combined with our FAITH. I.e. if we don’t have faith in Jesus’ sacrifice, then his death does us no good whatsoever.

 

All of this, of course, lies within two very narrow paradigms:

 

1. The view that salvation is totally about how to get out of the “going to hell line”, about personal destination. In contrast, the bible speaks of salvation primarily as wholeness, about healing, about “being”. It’s not so much about “where we are going” as about “who we are.”

 

2. The view that God cannot forgive sins. In this view, sins must be paid for, not forgiven. But forgiveness that must be bought is not forgiveness. If I wronged somebody, asked them to forgive me, and they responded, “You must pay for wronging me,” that is not forgiveness. It may be some sort of legal justice, but it isn’t forgiveness. It seems to me that God is a forgiving God, simply because that is his nature and we need it. To say that Jesus purchased God’s forgiveness for us, while perhaps lauding Jesus, says some pretty derogatory things about God’s character.

 

Personally, I don’t feel that Jesus’ death changed God’s mind about us, not one iota. Instead, I think that it should change our minds about God – drastically. But his death is far too often cast as a legal transaction, making God a god of requirements and rewards. I think Jesus often went against such a view of God – rain falling on the just and unjust, workers getting the same pay, the father welcoming the sinner home while the older son complained that he wasn’t rewarded enough. As long as we see God as a god of requirements and rewards, we will forever wonder if we have met the right requirements. And even if we believe that Jesus somehow did so in our place, we will wonder if we have the right or enough faith in him. There is never any rest with that understanding of God or that interpretation of Jesus’ death.

 

I believe that we each need a transforming relationship with God, however we define him/her/it. As meaningful as Jesus’ death is, it cannot substitute itself for our own relationship with God. Jesus is, for me, an example, not a substitute.

 

Jesus’ death wasn’t enough. God doesn’t have an “enough” that he requires in order to love us. He just desires that we reflect and spread his love – just like Jesus did.

[October's Autumn]

2. The view that God cannot forgive sins. In this view, sins must be paid for, not forgiven. But forgiveness that must be bought is not forgiveness. If I wronged somebody, asked them to forgive me, and they responded, "You must pay for wronging me," that is not forgiveness. It may be some sort of legal justice, but it isn't forgiveness. It seems to me that God is a forgiving God, simply because that is his nature and we need it. To say that Jesus purchased God's forgiveness for us, while perhaps lauding Jesus, says some pretty derogatory things about God's character.

Never thought of it that way, but you make an excellent point. If God is forgiving, why the need for payment? The god I believe in is able to forgive, no strings attached. Other people's gods may require payment, mine does not.

[davidk]

The payment was from Jesus to God on John's behalf. John was never part of the payment/receipt equation. There might be an "offer" to John of forgiveness, but regardless of John's acceptance or refusal of the offer, John's sin debt would still be paid. Jesus paid for everyone's sins at the cross. This IS what the bible says in 1 John.

 

If this is true, then how could someone whose sins were paid FROM Jesus TO God ever go to hell? Jesus made the payment without asking us whether we wanted it or not. God accepted Jesus' payment without asking us if the payment was acceptable to us or not.

 

If John's sins are paid for, how could he go to hell?

 

You've posited good questions, but I'm confused when you said Jesus died for John with John as not part of the deal. I think I know where you're headed, but what I'm not sure of is how you can play that one out.

Anyway, you had rightfully left John in the mix. We all are.

 

By the way God made man, he left the possibility of man choosing evil. If He had left man without choice, you could speak of man as man and being significant, but it would be meaningless words.

 

All love is bound up in choice. Without choice love would be meaningless.

 

God made the possibility of man's choosing wrongly- possible. God did not make evil. He simply made choice. Notice that God's command to Adam and Eve was not an unmotivated command, not a bare unexplained command. The command was accompanied with a warning about the result, a loss that involved their own best interests. A rational, propositional command and a loving warning. The results of their action is recorded.

 

God's judgement falls against sin. God is holy, and there are moral absolutes, and we live in a moral universe. If God does not hate and judge sin, then He is not a holy God, no moral absolute would exist.

 

If God made us, we have a responsiblity to obey Him. God owes us nothing but judgement. He made us and we have sinned. Because He loves us He provided us with a way to approach Him, a gift based on His love. Because Jesus Christ worked for us, we can come to God through grace. The finished work is Christ's death. Because Jesus died in substitution, there is a moral absolute, and we do not have to come under His judgement. If we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior and trust Him for our Salvation, if we believe on Him and accept His death for us, then we have eternal life. If we refuse, we are under His condemnation and judgement.

---

Through all the ages, before Jesus Christ and after, there is only one way of salvation. All men have sinned. Salvation is available only through faith on the basis of the Messiah's finished work. (Isaiah 9:6,7) He is also God.

 

Salvation is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ, plus nothing.

 

It seems to me, When someone else pays my light bill for me. It is paid. The power company demands nothing else from me. If i try to pay it agian myself they will only issue me a credit. The debt has been paid whether I believe it or not. A true gift has no strings attached else it is not a gift but rather a contract.

 

Joseph

Sounds compelling.

In this, however, our benefactor is doing something we have apparently accepted. For if we did not want to accept the light bill being paid for us by him, we could easily tell the utility not to accept that payment.

If we have no room to decline the generosity of Jesus Christ's payment, our personal responsibility is void. We can now behave in any degenerate manner we wish while suffering no ultimate consequence. Morality would simply cease to exist.

[JosephM]

It seems to me, When someone else pays my light bill for me. It is paid. The power company demands nothing else from me. If i try to pay it agian myself they will only issue me a credit. The debt has been paid whether I believe it or not. A true gift has no strings attached else it is not a gift but rather a contract.

 

Joseph

 

 

 

Sounds compelling.

In this, however, our benefactor is doing something we have apparently accepted. For if we did not want to accept the light bill being paid for us by him, we could easily tell the utility not to accept that payment.

If we have no room to decline the generosity of Jesus Christ's payment, our personal responsibility is void. We can now behave in any degenerate manner we wish while suffering no ultimate consequence. Morality would simply cease to exist.

 

 

 

The fact is the light bill has been paid. There is no nonacceptance. It has already been accepted by the power company as is your original premise, otherwise it would not have been paid. Strings attached to a gift is no longer a gift but a contract instead. Therefor wayfarers premise is solid.

 

Yes, we can behave in any degenerate manner we wish however we do suffer the consequences. The act and judgement are one and the same though to our mind they appear to have no time relationship. You reap what you sow. Threfore morality exists and there is no escape. You are caught in a conundrum because you believe that the act of Jesus forgives you of your sin. When in fact it is your own actions that determines your sin state. Your premise that morality would cease to exist is unfounded. Even atheists have morals.

 

Joseph