Yes - I see what you mean. I’m sure this is so. It would be very interesting to look at Universalism and other options in Rabbinic Judaism at the time of Jesus. I know that lots of work has been done suggesting that the Reformers misunderstood St Paul because they had no understanding of his roots in Rabbinic Judaism - and that this new perspective has informed the writings of Nick (N.T.) Wright - the evangelical scholar. But I don’t know of any studies that particularly address the question of eschatology in New Testament period Judaism and the light that this may shed on Christian eschatology. Let me know if you hear about any studies of this nature!!!
Excellent thoughts, Dick
You (Sobornost) said:
I think this probably describes my earlier and rather unformed ideas about the nature of the atonement. I’d read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, which (apart from Methodist hymns) was probably my first direct exposure to theories of the atonement. And that was in my mid twenties! So I had that image in my mind. But I was also attending an AoG church, in which I also heard allusions to the Ransom theory and the Penal Substitution theory. I just didn’t think it out, you understand. I had two little kids and a husband who was cheating on me (and who, Thank God, finally left us) – I just didn’t spend a lot of time theorizing about theology. I do remember kind of mentally shoving the inconsistencies of PS off into some corner of my brain to figure out later.
So yes, I believe you’re right to give people some leeway and listen carefully to see just what it is they truly believe. Or whether they even know what they truly believe. Many times they feel an obligation to believe what the wise man in the pulpit is telling them is true. (And when the message is inconsistent, they may not be thinking things through enough to notice.)
I didn’t finish reading it (just couldn’t make myself – it seemed too ridiculous to bear), but the only thing I find funny about Dante’s work is that anyone takes it seriously. If you think it’s worthwhile, maybe I’ll give it another go. 
It’s a great curiosity to me that different ages seem to specialize in their own particular virtues and faults. In medieval European society, it seems to me that even great cruelty was seen as warranted and acceptable, but that loyalty and honor and chastity and many other very good things were a great deal more important than (alas) they seem to be to us today. And yet we have a FAR lower tolerance (in the west, at least) for cruelty.
Your point that Dante walked among the damned with pity is a good observation. I hadn’t noted it because it seemed to me the only natural response he could have had – but in his time I expect it WAS surprising to his readers. The surprising thing to me is that I failed to see for so long that God would never be less compassionate toward the condemned than I would be, and I felt so miserably bad for them. It never fails to amaze me how I can be so blind to so many things just because I’ve always been taught a certain way. It’s right there in Jesus’ own words, yet somehow we fail to take it in.
PS is yet another example of that – except, as I say, I never really took the time to process that one until recently. I liked too much the picture of the knight in shining armor (Jesus) riding in and sacrificing Himself in mortal combat with the enemy, and then against all apparent possibility, winning all in the end – to spend much time mulling over PS. 
That is the story that everyone loves to tell, whether they recognize who the hero really is or not.
A couple of things prompted my recent questions about atonement. First, that the PS theory just didn’t seem to fit with UR. To me, the two just didn’t dance well together. And, that I began to see that to many unbelievers, the PS theory wasn’t just offensive for the reasons the cross is offensive, but rather on some rather reasonable moral grounds. They were right, imo, that the idea of the Father being satisfied to see His Son brutally murdered was not comforting or reasonable, but rather horrifying. It seems a great pity that our false doctrines have alienated many from the true and loving Father. We have slandered Him and failed to truly glorify (reveal) Him to the world. But He is greater than our failures, and I rejoice to know that He knew all this and has it well in hand. All shall be well! 
Blessings, Cindy
Hi Cindy –
That’s a really good response – and I’m glad you liked my thoughts (because in a way they were a response to a searching question you asked me in December and that I just couldn’t answer at the time - it’s often good to have a ponder before rushing into print!!!).
Sounds like you’ve had your hands well and truly full in your life– and you’ve done brilliantly sorting your thoughts out. I’m a Humanities teacher so I’ve had an excuse to read about a lot of things that have bothered me, but I’m only just making sense of things regarding the balance of my faith in early middle age!!
I always thought that Aslan ‘s death was to do with penal substitution, and only recently realised that its actually about the payment of a ransom. I’ve read about theories of atonement – but I find it hard to juggle them in my mind because my main love is history – yes I love a good story. I understand there is an atonement theory titled ‘narrative Christus Victor’ – I think I should explore it sometime.
Would I recommend Dante? I’d be a real pseudo intellectual to pretend that I’d read the Divine Comedy from cover to cover. I’ve read key passages (in translation, may I add) and I know what goes on in it and a lot about its historical context. I guess I learnt about it because I needed to know the scope of it to understand a lot of English Literature (the first instance was C.S. Lewis’ ‘Great Divorce’). But I’d be a complete charlatan to recommend it to you as such.
It is remarkable to think that it was a new thing for Dante to walk with pity amongst the damned – but I believe this is the case, and perhaps can be viewed as a preparation for belief in UR. There are notorious passages in Tertullian (Origen’s Latin contemporary) where he delights in the thought of scoffing at the damned in hell with raucous mockery. You can also find passages like this in Luther, Jonathan Edwards and Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas imagined a moderate and serene laughter by the company of the blessed at the spectacle of the damned (but that almost makes things worse because it’s kind of smug).
Laughter has always been taboo in the Christian tradition because the crowd laughed at the foot of the cross – but it is the laughter of scoffers at victims that should be taboo, not a good old belly laugh at the joy of things.
Interesting what you say about different ages having their different virtues and vices. When I was younger I used to love the writings of the Russian Orthodox Universalist Nicolai Berdyaev (although I must revisit him because I’m not sure I understood him). I remember he talked about the final restoration as not only a passive event for us to wait for in anticipation, but also an active event in which we participate. Therefore all that is good, beautiful and truly creative in human history will be taken up into the End/Escahton – even if these things have been snuffed out within historic time. I reckon that the concern about cruelty in our current times is good, beautiful and truly creative and is rooted in the vindication of the victim in the cross of Christ.
All manner of things shall be well 
Dick
The thing about all good things being preserved – it’s very interesting to learn it was in Berdyaev (I only just learned about him in “All Shall Be Well”), as this idea is also in Lewis’ “The Last Battle.” It’s amazing how many references one misses, out of not having had a classical education. 
I’m working on the deficit, but I’m sure I’ll never catch up to people a couple of hundred years ago. Just reading what those guys wrote makes you smarter, I think – even if all you manage to do is work out the vocabulary and sentence structure! 
But you can only do what you can do. It’s good we have to the ages of the ages.
Blessings, Cindy
Och – there are many clever fools (people who spend their formative years relating to books and never quite make it connecting to other people . But I’m glad there are many people with awesome scholarship in the Bible and Church dogmatics here - who are also good eggs - for me to learn from . I think that historical imagination is another way in - helping us to understand our fragmented and often underground history as Universalists: ‘know your roots’, as they say. And I’m a teacher and like to share historical imagination around
Do tell about what Lewis says in ‘The Last Battle’ (which I’ve not read). Sounds very interesting indeed.
Just realised something about your previous Email
You are in good - if mixed - company here! Luther sometimes wrote of the atonement in these terms – of Christ entering the lists ‘for me’. I’m no great fan of Luther but do find him fascinating. I also remember that after one of the early Church debates/diets in which he set out his reforming agenda he emerged with outstretched arm and open hand in a gesture meaning – ‘I have come through’ given by the triumphant knight in a tournament. (If Luther had failed to get support he would most likely have been killed). And Julian of Norwich addressed Christ as her ‘full courteous lord’.
Blessings
Dick
Will be on site again later next week to find out about The Last Battle.
So cool, Dick! I did not know that.
You would enjoy The Last Battle, I think. There are things quite pertinent to today which Lewis probably witnessed at least the beginning of. But the thing I was referring to was how the Professor’s house, which had been razed, had been preserved in the “real” England – toward the end of the book. Maybe I’m easily impressed, but the depth of Lewis’ children’s books has always amazed me. Yeah, they’re kids’ books, but much more than I’d expect. He managed to tuck a lot of interesting things in there.
Blessings, Cindy
Hi everybody
Cindy, bless you, you say some wise and lovely things. And I’m sorry for your pain with the family problems you cite. I pray your and your children’s lives are are as happy now as you all deserve.
I feel precisely the same way about this great mystery we call the atonement. My early thoughts about it were all pretty orthodox - in my place he stood etc - although something didn’t quite jibe, something felt wrong. God is love, and yet he demands a blood sacrifice in order to forgive. You know what I mean.
But of course, my thinking has moved on from there. And I guess the most important truth I have learned - and this from my master, George MacDonald - is that the Bible gives no systematic theology of the atonement. All this stuff about PS, ransom theory, Christus Victor, the moral influence view; it’s all *our *interpretation! And ergo, by definition, none of it is “**the **truth”.
If you haven’t read MacDonald’s sermon on the atonement - it’s called Justice, and is freely available on the net as part of his Unspoken Sermons series - I urge you to do so. In it, he too rails against the idea that many will have been alienated from the saving love of God because of the false image of him propagated by the proponents of penal substitution. PS seems offensive to us, because it *is *offensive! And with MacDonald, and with you, I reject it utterly.
Now Lewis, I’m not so sure about. I’m not sure what he *truly *believed about the atonement, but then I’ve only read Wardrobe, not any of the other Narnia books. (I’ve read pretty much all of his ‘grown-up’ books.) In Mere Christianity, he seems to reject PS, and then at the last moment rein back and say maybe it’s not such a bad view of the atonement after all. And then he definitively declares that if PS (or any other atonement theology, for that matter) doesn’t work for us, we should simply ‘drop it’ and move on. An unusually fence-sitting position for one so forthright about the faith once given, and all that.
But what do I know? I’m just a dumb sinner, and praise God that’s all I *need *to be for God to save me!!!
Shalom
Johnny
I recommend the following article by Derek Flood concerning the penal substitution view:
Thanks, Johnny
And don’t worry – it was all a very long time ago. But of course there are always challenges. I’m now happily married and all the children are grown and on their own. All these things – these oh-so-hard things – God really does use for our good and to form us into the image of His Son. It’s hard to impossible to see it at the time, especially when we ourselves are at least partly to blame for ever being in that situation to begin with, but He is (beyond all reasonable expectation) truly able to restore ALL the years the locusts have eaten.
Thanks for the tip on MacDonald’s sermon. I have his collection on my Kindle, and now I know where to look! I’m still a long ways from having read it all.
Good point to keep in mind. Maybe God gives us so many pictures in the hope that we’ll at least get the flavor of the thing. I definitely don’t get a PS flavor, and I’m very glad of it.
Blessings!
Cindy
Thanks so much, Paidion. I’ll check it out!
Blessings, Cindy
Aha Cindy - the Professor’s House. That’s the same Professor as the one in ‘The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe’ (which I have read ). Now that makes complete sense – and chimes exactly with what Berdyaev says (in a rather more highfalutin and less digestible way I might add). I too am very fond of Jack Lewis (the very human, the all too human, and the still marvellous Jack Lewis). He did have a wonderful imagination and I know he saw the imagination as somehow sacramental (I remember him referring to the experience of reading George MacDonald’s ‘Phantasies’ as the baptism of his imagination, and he had a lot of other things to say about imagination and spirituality). I think he was right – and it puts me in mind of something that Jeff the Agnostic was saying on another thread about finding inspiration in writings other than scripture. (Maybe one day we should all start a thread on Universalism and views of Culture and the Arts? - although I’ve got my work cut out for me with something else currently).
My discussion here is only marginally related to penal substitution – but once PS has gripped your imagination it is hard to have a second baptism and shift to another view. And it is all about letting something different grip your imagination and not just about accepting a new theory intellectually. The same goes for the shift from ETC.
I too am so glad that all has turned out well for you (you couldn’t that cheerful if things were still quite bad!!!). Look forward to future chats Cindy (although I must ‘fast’ from this site for a few days now - my resolve broke today)
Blessings
Dick
Okay then, you have your fast, Brother. The net CAN take over your life you know, if you don’t watch out.
That is because it is referring to those who are under the Law and therefore only relates to those who are under the Law, a mistake in which many Christians do not recognize and a major flaw in many theological teachings of their ‘pastors’, unless you are a Hebrew who still thinks he submits to the Mosiac Law and still sacrifices sheep, goats and bulls.
Shoot me if I post again before Wednesday -
That’s a brilliant and really accessible article Paidon - thank you so much It’s funded my imagination!
Johnny - I know you were addressing Cindy primarily - but I must read the George MacDonald piece too. I know that he was enormously effective in robbing faith of its morbid terrors for many in the latter part of Victoria’s reign and had a very large and loving circle of friends; so he’s gotta be good.
AUniversalist - that’s interesting what you say about Law and Gospel. Do look at Paidon’s recommended article if you can (for me). How does you view fit with Christus Victor?
All the best
Dick
You can shoot me now - but I’ve just read the rest of the Rebel God website which containts the article on P.S. It’s brilliant - I’ve come across Christus Victor before but it’s so well explained here and linked persuasively to UR; and it’s really pertinent to the dicussion we have been having. I’m going to take it as my ‘site for Lent’ this year and read it through slowly so that I can digest and internalise it properly.
Auniverslaist - actually the question I asked is answered there. Yes, Chrisuts Victor is very pertinent to the Law, Grace distinction.
Perhaps the quotation that follows is pertinent to ‘Narrative Christus Victor’ (still trying to understand the ‘Narrative’ bit)
‘You see ‘penal substitution’ isn’t foolishness to narrow rationalists, it’s perfect sense. It fits exactly how they see the world. . This is because what passes for Christian fundamentalism is not a biblical creed, but a creed which fits the biblical texts into a preordained intellectual framework that actually works against many of them. By way of contrast it seems that God offers us something ‘open to interpretation’ rather than something fixed and certain. In the Gospels God comes to us not as a knock down theory, an infallible book, an unassailable proposition or a self evident ‘answer’. Rather, God comes to us as a helpless baby, a troublesome person, as vulnerable flesh, as flesh crucified, as flesh raised – but still recognisable flesh. And thus God comes to turn our hearts of stone into hearts of flesh’.
(Simon Barrow – Cross Purposes)
Over and out
Dick
Sobornost,
I do appreciate when people try to explain their beliefs and thanks for the recommendation. I made a short comment because I don’t have the time to go into the long explanation.
The penal substitution atonement, that through Jesus we have the propitiation of our sin, was not their to satisfy a vengeful God but a vengeful Law in which the Hebrew people submitted themselves too believing that through the Law they would find salvation. Jesus became blameless sacrifice in which the Law was satisfied and why Hebrews says “How much more surely shall the blood of Christ, Who by virtue of His eternal Spirit has offered Himself as an unblemished sacrifice to God, purify our consciences from dead works and lifeless observances to serve the living God?”
What the cross means to the Hebrews is a different complete meaning of what it means for the Gentiles. For the Hebrews it was a release from the Law, and what it means to the Gentiles is a reconciliation with no more veil separating us from our reality, we are all Sons of God. Like the prophet Hosea says, " And the Lord said, Call his name Lo-Ammi [Not-my-people], for you are not My people and I am not your God. Tet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered; and instead of it being said to them [by definition of the Law], You are not My people, it shall be said to them, Sons of the Living God!"
**Galatians 3:13 **Christ purchased our freedom [redeeming us] from the curse (doom) of the Law [and its condemnation] by [Himself] becoming a curse for us, for it is written [in the Scriptures], Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree (is crucified)"
Christ was not a Penal Substitution Atonement, as if He took a punishment on behalf of a people. No! He didn’t save us from punishment, or God…but the Law which to all who are under it was a curse; that is what it means having freedom from the curse of the Law.
So we can go into all the theology of the Protestant or Catholic church and etc. If they ever taught that Jesus died for our sins and then mention off the list of sin as according to the Law, then THEY ARE WRONG! The first sin in the Garden was not eating of the Tree, nor was it disobedience to the command to eat, but the addition to the command which decieved the Woman and had her doubt the command and so she ate. The Law.
I began to write a booklet called The Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I want to share with you the first chapter.
Τhe Purpose of Christ’s Sacrifice and the True Gospel
“Jesus Christ is the sacrifice for our sins!” Perhaps the majority of Christians would affirm this to be the central truth of the Christian faith. But what is the meaning and purpose of Christ’s sacrifice?
Did Christ die in order to appease the wrath of an angry God and through a legality which the Father Himself established, in order to make us positionally righteous so that we could go to heaven and escape hell? Or did Christ die in order to enable us in the process of living righteously and overcoming sin?
Let’s consider what the apostles Peter, and Paul, and the author of the New Testament letter to the Hebrews gives as the reason for Christ’s death.
*I Peter 2:24 He himself endured our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
II Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.
Heb 9:26 …he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.*
Each of these reasons is essentially the same. Jesus died in order that we might come under His authority and thereby, through His enabling grace, become righteous persons. God wants people to be reconciled to Himself and gave His Son to make this possible. The reconciliation of the individual entails taking on the characteristics of God ---- righteousness, holiness, love, and compassion. Christ began His work by His own proclamation of the gospel of the Kingdom. He accomplished on the cross the means of making righteousness possible, and proclaimed from the cross that this aspect of His work was completed. Through His people, He continues His work in the hearts of people, reconciling them to Himself, enabling them to overcome wrongdoing, and giving to them the ministry of reconciliation. Christ’s work will not be complete until He has eliminated sin from the universe!
2 Cor 5:17-19 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
Does the fact that Jesus died to make people righteous imply that regenerated persons can be righteous now? Unequivocally — yes! But doesn’t Isaiah proclaim that all of our righteous deeds are as filthy rags? Yes, OUR righteous — OUR self-righteous deeds, but not the righteous deeds which God enables us to do. And God’s righteousness through Christ, by whom He enables us, is not a positional righteousness thrust upon us — a cloak of righteousness wrapped around us which covers our sin, so that when God looks at us, He is blinded to our sin and sees only Christ’s righteousness. It is a REAL righteousness which is available to us through the grace of Christ. It is a growing and developing righteousness. Paul describes it, and the way to obtain it in Philippians 3:8-14:
Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
John made clear that this righteousness of God is a real righteousness which we now possess, and not a mere covering:
I John 3:7, 8 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous. He who practices sin is of the devil…
Are we going to let someone deceive us into believing that it is impossible to be righteous? Will we be deceived by Martin Luther who, in his A Treatise on Christian Liberty, wrote concerning the commandments of God, “It is equally impossible for us to keep any of them”? Is this idea in keeping with the character of God? Will He ask people to do that which is impossible to do? John made clear, in the passage quoted above, that some people are indeed righteous, just as God is righteous.
Is it possible to be holy? Peter referred to Leviticus 19:2 when he wrote:
1Peter 1:15,16 … as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”
So we are to be righteous like God, and we are to be holy like God. And God does not require of us the impossible. This is the very purpose of Christ’s death.
But surely we can’t be perfect? Or can we? Jesus Himself required of His disciples— perfection:
Matthew 5:48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
So we are to be righteous, holy, and perfect like God. But surely no one is perfect! Do you know anyone who is perfect? No? Perhaps no one is yet complete or perfect, but it is God’s plan for everyone of His children to be complete. We are to be conformed to the image of Christ:
Romans 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also pre-appointed to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first‑born among many brethren.
Jesus Himself, though sinless, was not perfect or complete until He finished His course on the cross:
Heb 2:10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.
Jesus knew no sin, (2 Cor 5:21), not because His Deity precluded the possibility of His sinning, but because His absolute unity with His Father made it possible for him to always choose righteousness. He deliberately chose the right and eschewed the wrong. It was a process; He learned obedience through what He suffered and He made the right choice every time.
Heb 5:8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered;
The apostle Paul as indicated in the Philippians passage, knew that he, too, was still imperfect; yet he expected perfection at his personal resurrection. Paul wanted to be among the many brethren of the resurrection! But he didn’t expect this to happen automatically. He believed he had to press into it.
Philippians 3:12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.
Salvation from sin is a process which will continue until we are completed as Christians at our resurrection. Jesus was the first-born of the resurrection! Those whom Christ will save from sin through His enabling grace, will be born into the first resurrection, and thus, complete, will become Christ’s brethren! We must now be generated again (John 3) with the seed of Christ planted in us, but at the resurrection we will be born again, and will be manifested in the earth as the full-blown sons of God.
Romans 8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.
Yes, God sacrificed His beloved Son for our benefit, and Jesus sacrificed Himself for the same reason. Both the Father and the Son agreed about this, as they agreed on everything they ever did.
John 8:28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am I, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me.
The Father and the Son have always had a total unity, a unity that no two human beings have ever had. Thus Jesus was able to say to Philip, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” John 14:9. Jesus is the exact expression of the Father (Heb 1:3), or as the RSV puts it, “bears the very stamp of the Father’s nature”. For this reason, if you see the Son, you see the Father. Though they are two different divine Individuals, they are identical. So, by agreement, the Father sacrificed His Son for us, and the Son sacrificed Himself for our benefit, in order that we might live righteous, holy lives before God.
However, since Martin Luther’s day, and even earlier, there has been a different explanation of the sacrifice of Christ, and consequently a different gospel. It has been stated that the death of Christ was a sacrifice to appease the wrath of an angry God, a God filled with rage about sin. Without this appeasing sacrifice, or propitiation, God in His anger would send everyone to eternal torment. But since this appeasement has been made, there is a way out. So the presentation of a different gospel approximates the following excerpt from Derek Flood’s article “Christus Victor”:
You have broken the law because it is impossible to keep it, and so you must have broken it. And because
you cannot keep this impossible to keep law you will be charged with death because “the penalty for sin is death” and those are just the rules. God must have blood because the law requires it; there must be a penalty paid. The only payment that would have been enough is sacrificing someone who was the “perfect law-keeper”, someone who could live a perfect life without sin. So God decided to kill his own Son on the cross to appease his legal need for blood. Now that Jesus has been sacrificed God is no longer mad at us for not doing what we can’t do anyway, so we can now come and live with him forever - as long as we are grateful to him for his “mercy” to us.
We may be told that we need to “accept Christ as our personal Saviour” (a phrase that we do not find in scripture), or pray the sinner’s prayer, “God be merciful to me a sinner”, or pray some other prayer of an evangelist’s composition, such as, “I realize I am a sinner, and that Christ died in my place, and took my punishment for me. Father, I am very sorry for my sins (though I couldn’t have done otherwise), and I hereby accept the finished work of Christ as alone sufficient for covering my sins, so that when you look at me, You will no longer see my sins, but Christ’s righteousness, and I will become righteous in your sight and thereby qualify to go to heaven and avoid hell. Amen”.
“After praying this prayer,” you may be told, “you may not feel any different. But nevertheless, you have been saved from hell. Just accept that fact by faith, and it will be true for you.”
This gospel, so-called, does not require repentance, does not require a change of mind and heart concerning the way we are living, and does not require a turning away from our former way of life. Sometimes, we hear the word “repent” in the presentation of this “gospel”, but it is used to mean “feeling sorry for” our sins, rather than changing our minds about them and turning away from them. Implicit in this “gospel” is the concept that we cannot live consistently righteous lives even after we get saved from hell. Oh, it is thought to be a good idea to obey Christ, but it is not a necessity as far as salvation goes, because we are covered by His blood and thus delivered from the wrath of God through Him, and because it has nothing to do with works. By contrast, the true gospel tells us that through Christ, we are delivered primarily from sin. The angel said to Joseph, “You shall call his name ‘Jesus’, for He shall save his people from their sins.” One might call deliverance from hell a side-effect of this process.
Is the Gospel All About Forgiveness?
A short “devotional” I once read contained the statement:
“Jesus Christ shed His blood to forgive our sin, not to remove our sin”.
The author had it exactly backwards. Jesus shed his blood to remove our sin, not to forgive our sin. This is obvious from the statement already quoted from Hebrews 9:26
…he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Throughout the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation, it is obvious that God wants righteous people. We may well be satisfied merely with forgiveness so as to escape the Lake of Fire, but not God. He wants the very best for us, and He knows that we cannot dwell in total joy and health of soul until sin is removed from us. At this point, some may object that it is obvious that salvation is all about forgiveness of sin. And they point out scriptures such as these:
Acts 13:38 Let it be known to you therefore, brethren, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you…
Colossians 1:14 …in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
There is reason to doubt that the Greek word ἀφεσις (aphesis) should be translated as “forgiveness”. This becomes obvious in the words of Jesus in quoting Isaiah 61:1
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed…”
The word translated as “release” to the captives (“deliverance” in the Authorized Version)
is none other than ἀφεσις. Indeed, the word is used again in the phrase “set at liberty those who are oppressed.” This last phrase is literally “send away in deliverance the ones having been shattered”. Surely, Christ was not sent to forgive the oppressed, but was sent to deliver them from their oppression. Surely Christ was not sent to proclaim forgiveness to those who were unjustly imprisoned, but to proclaim their release from prison. So in addressing the men of Israel in Acts 13:38, surely Paul was saying that through Christ deliverance from sin, or release from sin was being proclaimed to them! Indeed, other than Jesus’ quote from Isaiah 61, all other instances of ἀφεσις in the New Testament relate to being delivered from sin.
Did John the Baptizer preach forgiveness of sins? According to most translations he did.
Mark 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Looking at the record of John’s dealings with people, do we ever find that he mentioned forgiveness — even once? How did he deal with the multitudes that came to be baptized by him? Did he ever tell them, “Repent and be baptized, and your sins will be forgiven?” No. He warned them to bear fruit that is consistent with repentance. Here is Luke’s record:
Luke 3:7-16 He said therefore to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits that fit repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
And the multitudes asked him, “What then shall we do?”
And he answered them, “He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.”
Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?”
And he said to them, “Collect no more than is appointed you.”
Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?”
And he said to them, “Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”
*As the people were in expectation, and all men questioned in their hearts concerning John, whether perhaps he were the Anointed One,
John answered them all, “I baptize you with water; but he who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into his granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” So, with many other exhortations, he preached good news to the people.*
In examining further the true message of salvation, we may ask ourselves how we become regenerated. What do we actually do to appropriate the sacrifice of Christ so that we may have the enabling grace to do right and avoid wrong? If we repent of our way of living, submit ourselves to Jesus as Lord of our lives, and become baptized into Christ, then we shall enter the Kingdom of God now, and Christ’s enabling grace will become available to us. John the Baptizer and Jesus proclaimed the same message concerning the Kingdom of God:
The Gospel According to John the Baptizer
According to John the Baptizer in the words we just read, there were two requirements necessary to become a member of the Kingdom:
1.Repent
2. Be baptized. The end or purpose of baptism was the affirmation of one’s decision, the entrance into the door of salvation, and the beginning of the process of sending sin out of one’s life, and thus the bearing of fruit that is worthy of repentance.
The Gospel According to Jesus
*Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
John 4:1-3 Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again to Galilee.
*
Jesus proclaimed the same requirements! Repent and be baptized.
The Gospel According to Peter
After Peter had addressed the men of Judea, showing that God had raised Jesus from the death, and that they had crucified Him, the following exchange took place:
*Acts 2:36-39
“… Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forsaking of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”
*
What were Peter’s requirements to appropriate the benefits of the Gospel? Repent and be baptized! The only difference was that now that Jesus had been raised, the gift of His Spirit was given.
Now some claim that John the baptizer and Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom, but that the apostle Paul opened the new order of the Church by preaching the gospel of grace. C.I. Scofield, in his notes on Matthew 5:5 went so far as to affirm
“…the Sermon on the Mount in its primary application gives neither the privilege nor the duty of the Church.” ---- Scofield Reference Bible, 1917 edition.
In other words, it is neither the duty nor the privilege for the Christian to obey the laws of Christ expressed in those chapters.
Scofield taught that Christ’s teachings in the “Sermon on the Mount” were the laws of the kingdom offered to the Jews, but that since the Jews rejected the kingdom it was to be postponed. Such teachers declare that now that we are under grace, we should listen to Paul, for the words of Christ no longer apply to us who live in the age of grace.
But as Paul made abundantly clear, there is only one gospel. That one gospel is the gospel of the Kingdom and Paul himself preached it!
The Gospel According to Paul
Acts 28:30,31 And he lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered.
But did Paul declare the necessity of repentance, as did John the Baptizer, Jesus, and Peter? Or did he teach that all that is necessary is to believe in the atoning work of Christ? In recounting to King Agrippa, his experience with Jesus on the road to Damascus, he concluded by saying,
Acts 26:19,20 "Wherefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance.
Does Paul’s gospel not resemble that proclaimed by John the baptizer? Yes, Paul preached repentance, and doing deeds worthy of repentance. But did Paul proclaim the necessity of baptism? We read:
Acts 18: 8 …many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.
It was after they heard Paul that they were baptized. The necessity of baptism must have been implicit or explicit in Paul’s message. Otherwise, why would they get baptized? So Paul’s gospel not only “resembled” that of John the Baptizer; it was identical! But is baptism really necessary in order to get right with God? Let’s look at the life of Paul himself. When were his sins washed away? Was it on the road to Damascus when Jesus spoke to him, and he submitted? That experience certainly turned him around. He was blinded, and was then ready to do what the Lord Jesus told him to do. But later, it was Ananias who counseled him to be baptized. From Paul’s own account of the matter, Ananias said:
Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
So it was not when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus, but at his baptism that Paul had his sins washed away.
Jesus taught:
John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I tell you, unless one is generated of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Although there is much controversy about the meaning of “generated of water”, many understand it to be baptism. This view is consistent with Justin Martyr’s explanation of the ways of Christians to Augustus Caesar and to his son. Justin was born in 110 A.D. In chapter 61 of Justin’s “First Apology”, we find his explanation of Christian baptism:
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God having been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them.
Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated… For Christ also said, “Except ye be generated again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”… And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Isaiah the prophet… he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”…that he may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be regenerated, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe…”
What About John 3:16 and Acts 16:29-31…?
Acts 16:29-31 And he (the Philippian jailer) called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out and said, “Men, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Do these passages contradict the requirements Jesus and Peter gave for becoming right with God? Do they require something less to be saved? So often today, we hear that all you have to do to get right with God is “accept Christ as your personal saviour”. That’s a phrase we don’t find in any New Testament or early Christian writing. Or all you have to do is pray “God be merciful to me a sinner”, or “I realize I’m a sinner, Jesus, and that you died to save me. I hereby accept your finished work to make me fit for heaven.” Or some other prayer.
I recall a woman from my local area who affirmed that she would not become a Christian, because she just didn’t want to have to come to the front of a church and weep and cry. Some time later, she told me that she found out from her Christian friend that a person doesn’t have to come forward, weeping and crying. “All you have to do,” she explained, “is say a little prayer, and you’ll be a Christian.” That’s the way the woman understood the “gospel” which was presented to her. One wonders how many people have “said the little prayer” and remained unchanged, but are under the delusion that they are now “saved”, that they can go on living their lives as usual, but with the expectation that they’ll go to heaven when they die, or when they are raised again to life.
So, it is said that all we have to do is believe in Jesus. However, the whole crux of the matter lies in that little word Πιστευω (pisteuō) which has been translated “believe”. Indeed, the word does mean “believe” in many contexts. But another meaning is given in John’s account of Jesus’ life:
John 2:23-25 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.
Is not “entrust” also the way the word is used in John 3:16 and Acts 16:29-31? If we entrust ourselves to Jesus, this includes repentance and baptism. “For God so loved the world … that whoever should entrust himself to Him would have lasting life.”
Identification With Man
Luke 13:5 I tell you … unless you repent you will all likewise perish."
John 3:5 Jesus responded, "Truly, truly, I tell you, unless one is generated of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Then how is the death of Christ connected with salvation? For years I had no idea. Yet I believed the words of Paul that the Saviour’s death makes possible His enabling grace to help us live a life of righteousness before Him. More recently, I began to understand how Jesus’ death relates to our salvation from sin. Jesus began to identify with man when He was born as a human being. He was truly a human baby who cried and wet himself like any other baby. He lived the life of an ordinary man here on earth, becoming hungry and thirsty like other men, and being tempted to wrongdoing like other men, though through His relationship with His Father, He always chose the right over the wrong. And finally He died as a human being. The identification was complete. After He was raised, He and His Father came to dwell within His people. Christ in us — infiltrated through our entire being, and we in Christ — infiltrated through His entire being. Christ has put on humanity, and we have put on Christ.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
God prepared a building made without hands, which is His Church. In the Father’s house (again the Church) are many dwelling places (John 14). The Body of Christ of which He is the Head is a single organism — we in Him and He in us. This magnificent unity has been made possible through Christ’s identification with us, the great finished work that Christ accomplished on Calvary’s tree.
Father, enable each one by your grace, who considers your great salvation to understand its wonder, its depth, and its expression of your magnificent LOVE! Show them that the easy way that is being proclaimed today is deceiving people and leading them into death. It is falsely portraying your character.
@ Paidon
Dude…
Somehow in this post you managed to combine all my misgivings with some evangelical doctrines on things like salvation, baptism, works, etc., all the things I was suspicious of but couldn’t really figure out, you just put them together and made them work.
You need to post this separately somewhere or something. This is bigger than just atonement models.
What you’re writing is somewhat similar to EOC beliefs, except EOC’s tie it to their specific church and to the Trinity.
Of course, this all begs the question: what if you run out of time and do not become perfect? That is for the majority of people. Hell, from the looks of it, even Paul died imperfect. And what if you never started the path at all?
Hi AUniversalist –
Thanks so much for your post – I just needed to understand your faith in this matter a little more clearly; thanks for taking the time to flesh things out. Really appreciate that.
I wasn’t actually recommending the website I mentioned in my previous post. It’s the one that Paidon recommended and I was simply confirming that I found it very useful indeed. It was a brazen faced cheek to ask you to read it – really sorry (over excited) -which is why I read it again more closely and reported back that Christus Victor is compatible with some sort of distinction between Law and Grace (although I’m not sure the distinction made on the site is precisely the one you are making).
I agree that ‘Penal Substitution’ is wrong teaching inasmuch as it is in my view mistaken, can be very damaging, and can bring our faith and our God into disrepute. However, I am, if you like a Christian Humanist of the more modest sort – I am interested in our forbearers, even the ones who were wrong – especially the one who seem to have got it wrong in many ways but right in other ways. I think their stories teach me something about my own limitations and about wider compassion; and that’s the only reason I like to share them. I know I too am wrong in many ways but I trust that the God of infinite patience will lead me slowly into all truth.
As far as your Law and Grace distinction is concerned – a distinction that you’ve rooted firmly in the scope of scripture – I will have to think it through carefully. I’ve actually said something on another thread –the Wrath thread - that could be interpreted as being at variance with your distinction (I’ve stated that ‘an eye for an eye’ needs to be seen as a merciful progressive Law – at least in Spirit). Paidon quite rightly picked me up about Luther’s appalling anti-Semitism on yet another thread. And it just brought to mind some of the post holocaust theology I once read which informed me that the way Luther made his Law/Grace distinction turned him into a rabid anti-Semite against the ‘stiff-necked and legalistic Jews’ . His ranting diatribes against the Jews are an important root of the holocaust mindset. Calvin – by way of contrast – with his theological legalism – was relatively philo-Semetic – but, following Calvin to extremes, extreme Calvinists have often wanted to reinstate the punitive codes of Leviticus in the kingdoms of this world. Everything I have read and learnt from many conversations with Jewish people suggests that both Luther and Calvin were wrong; the former in making too strong a distinction between Law and Grace – the latter in identifying the two. The Torah and the interpretation of Torah has always had a progressive and merciful inherent tendency, as well as a severe one. And certainly the tendency in Rabbinic Judaism since the time of Jesus has been chiefly towards the merciful tendency. I think there is still a valid distinction to be made between Grace and Law – and there is nothing in your distinction remotely tainted with anti-Semitism.( And you imply a valid distinction between ancient Hebraism and later Rabbinic Judaism by writing ‘Hebrews’ instead of ‘Jews’. However, I will always think of this issue in terms of post-holocaust understanding. Perhaps I’ll get it right one day.
We are all Christian Universalists – but it’s amazing the variety of backgrounds/perspectives we come from. Of course we can sometimes irritate each other in discussion – because we are so different – but with an awareness of each other’s good intentions this can be productive and I guess we can muddle through. Thanks – you’ve really made me think and I will continue to think about Law and Grace (form a biblical as well as a Christian humanist perspective).
All very good wishes
Dick
Paidion - thanks for all you are teaching me
Bird - good to see your name. Have been thinking about you for some reason (I think I had a spell as a pantheist too once which I found difficult to maintain).
I have said all I want/can on Penal Subsitution - but will look in on the debate as is continues to see if it adds to my understanding of The Rebel God website that Paidion drew our attention to.
Blessings
Dick