It’s a funny thing though, because I’ve never understood the Girardian (scapegoat, right?) view of the atonement. Maybe I just wasn’t reading it right, but it didn’t seem to come together for me. If it wouldn’t take too long, maybe you’d be willing to explain it in your own way?
Cole,
I certainly appreciate that. Only I think I’ve said it the best I know how. Someone else may do better. The main thing though is that you understand that Jesus’ life, death & resurrection in some way makes it possible (and certain) for us to escape sin. Paul says that sin leads to death (and I don’t think he’s talking about physical death there), but that the “law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has made us free from the law of sin and death.” HOW that happens is, as Steve or Chris said on your personal page, something of an intellectual indulgence. You don’t need to understand how the air conditioner works in order to enjoy the cool breezes. Just turn it on and relax.
Sin is escaped by me resisting. Even when I’m having bad emotional problems because I’ve stopped taking my medicine. I can resist suicide and harming others. To relieve the emotional problem I choose to go to the hospital and take medicine instead of harming myself or others. It can be done because I’ve done it. The death of Christ thousands of years ago does not release me of anything. I can be motivated by being agnostic about the afterlife. I don’t know if I’m going to live forever or if hell is eternal. I just want to live now. Granted, other people find other reasons. I just choose this one. Anyway, thanks for trying to help me. I thought you were mad at me. I’m glad you’re not.
I don’t so much think that Jesus died to pay for the consequences of our sins either. I really think Father can and does just unilaterally forgive us for our sins. It’s only that He’s not willing to overlook ongoing sin – and you wouldn’t want Him to, really, any more than you’d want your doctor to overlook a dangerous heart arrhythmia, or maybe more aptly, a dangerously infectious case of smallpox or polio. Because sins don’t usually hurt only us personally, or only God as our Father – usually they hurt other people, and often THAT is the reason they ARE sins.
If you think of the answer Jesus gave as to what is the most important commandment of the law, I think you get an excellent definition of sin. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength – and the second is like unto it: love your neighbor as yourself. On these depend all the law and the prophets.” What a beautiful and simple description of what God requires of us! If we do these things, we will not sin, but fulfill the teachings of God.
So when I say that Jesus died to save us from our SIN (not sins – I should have all-capped that; I usually do as it’s easy to miss), I mean that He died to save us from bondage to sin. The angel said, “You shall call His name Jesus for He shall save His people from their sin.” Later, Jesus Himself said, “For the Son of Man has not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” Repentance doesn’t just mean being sorrowful for sin, though. It means changing one’s direction – turning around and walking the other way – a very good thing if the way you’re going leads to death.
Paul said in Romans 7 that he found it impossible to consistently do the things he wanted to do. The good thing he desired to do, he did not do, but when he wanted to do good, he always found the evil thing was near at hand and ended up doing that. “So,” he said, “if I do the thing which I hate, then it is no longer I doing it, but sin that dwells in me.” He calls this distressing tendency “the law of sin and death,” and laments, “O wretched man that I am! Who shall save me from this body of death?” and then answers himself, “I thank my God, through my Lord Jesus Christ!” Chapter 8 begins with Paul’s exclamation of joy and praise: “There is therefore now no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit, for the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death!”
When we are “in Christ” we walk not according to “the flesh” (wherein dwells that law of sin and death) but according to the Spirit, and so bypass the weakness of the flesh. It seems to me in reading this that Paul may see the “law of sin and death” as being embodied in our physical bodies. If evolution is true (and I think it is) this would make sense – as the law we receive in our flesh is one of self-serving survival and passing on of our genetic code as the highest good. The law of life is in self-sacrifice for love of others as modeled for us by Jesus. It is in dying to ourselves that we live truly.
I think you’re right that Jesus’ resurrection is a message of hope to us, of the triumph of good over evil – a full triumph in that Jesus who gave Himself fully is now exalted to sit at the right hand of God the Father (and continues His life-giving service to us even so, as He ever lives to make intercession for us.)
So . . . hopefully that, and my post a little earlier will clarify. If not, definitely say so.
No, Cole – not at all. If you’re worried about my response to your pm, please don’t be. I just feel that if you want to go this way or that way, so long as you’re not harming anyone, Father will still show you the way home. I don’t feel qualified to do that, but I see that some of the brothers here have been discussing things with you and I’m glad of that. I think them very wise and I’m glad you men are hanging out together and learning from one another.
Am I wrong, but all the Nicene Creed indicates about the atonement, and this is in a very oblique way, is that Jesus came to earth “for us and for our salvation”? I think more than this, for example asserting that penal substitution is the best (or only way) to construe Jesus’ work on the cross or atonement, is at least unnecessary and at best simplifying. Calvin was a lawyer, this could have influenced his view, as Anselm’s feudalism surely influenced his conception of owing God infinite honor, in the same way a knight pledged his honor (or life) to a temporal lord.
If you want to conceive of satisfaction or penal substitution along universalist lines, perhaps consider that what most injures God is not a kind of thin-skinned offense against His dignity, but that sin injures, even “infinitely” (not in a legalistic sense, but in the sense of magnitude), God because it destroys His beloved creatures. God is love, how else could it be? Love isn’t concerned about offenses to dignity. Sure, I think God wants our worship and to recognize His ultimate goodness, but not simply so we can serve Him and prostrate ourselves while He sits back on his throne - Skyrim style like one of the Jarls in that haughty slouch Rather, God has shown through Jesus, I think, that God wants to love us. We will serve and love alongside God, recognizing His ultimate goodness, /w God helping us grow to be less and less selfish (which belies need) and to become more and more giving (which belies strength and happiness).
Prince…WOW, that was an EXCELLENT post.
(also: bonus points for working Skyrim in, though i never personally played it (weak PC and wrong set of consoles), but i’m aware of the grandeur!)
(can i earn some points similarly with referencing Cratos in God of War, when he grimly takes his throne among the gods? So unlike our own God…so much more like gods created to reflect man and man’s insecurity (always seeking to dominate, why? out of fear! and God never is afraid)…Jason said in one of the GoW games, there’s a Triptych with an interesting bit of art depicting the gods ruling, then Cratos expelling them, then three wise men following a star…i LOVE that )
Jonny, i also loved the article which you linked! That was very, very good…i did detect some Girardian thought there, and i thoroughly approve.
Actually, Cindy, it is recorded that the angel said, “You shall call His name Jesus for He shall save His people from their sins” [plural].
All Greek texts of which I am aware have "sins’ in the plural, as well as all the translations I have examined. So I am wondering how you understand being saved from sins.
Schaeffer made a distinction between being freed from the bonds of sin, and being freed from the results of the bonds of sin. It’s a good distinction.
I take it that we can be forgiven for our sins, but still be in the power of those sins, and need deliverance?? Since the name Jesus is related to the name Joshua, we are taught that He is a deliverer as well?
And as John reminds us, even as forgiven and delivered people, if we deny that we (stil) do sin, we’re lying.
Why is it that forgiveness can be had so ‘easily’, but the promised deliverance from the power of sin seems to take a lifetime and longer?
I doubt Shaeffer is the only person to make that distinction, and it’s probably good to find someone else less tainted by hatred for those that saw ANYTHING different from him…sorry, but unless we’re talking about his son (who likely went too far the other way), this is a guy that tainted what should be Gospel with the poison of the Pharisees. He most definitely would NOT have accepted any of this speculation in the first place, let alone the belief in UR. He might not have been wrong about everything, but if David Icke likes peanut butter, i’m still not going to quote him as a supportive source in the argument for peanut butter.
I think this is a pretty simple thing, honestly. Forgiveness happens all across history and eternity. It happened before the foundation of the world (The Lamb died then). We however still live in time, and so our deliverance (and i believe “Jesus” IS “Joshua”, though i may be wrong there) happens when we finally catch up with the forgiveness that already exists. They are one and the same. One is God’s perspective, and one is our perspective…and one day we’ll see it from the same vantage point, when we stand next to God looking over the Universe.
Yeah but even Baalam’s ass could speak the truth!
I get it, I know what you’re saying. I’m just saying he was a mix of traits, just like we are, and wrote a considerable amount of excellent material, apart from the good works he did at his chalet. He certainly had his warts, though, I agree.
Actually, God’s forgiveness is not an “easy forgiveness”; it is a response to genuine repentance (a change of heart and mind). It is not granted by “accepting Christ as your personal Saviour” (not a scriptural procedure) or praying “the sinner’s prayer” (unless a genuine repentance has taken place).
The main thing to be gained by becoming Christ’s disciple is an ongoing deliverance from sins. If we are in the process of salvation, then of course God is not going to hold our past sins against us (if that’s what you means by “forgiveness”).
And we CAN be delivered from sin NOW. I don’t refer to attaining a position of ongoing sinlessness, but to a position of being generally an overcomer. We begin a process when we enter the door of salvation—a process which will end at our resurrection when the process will have been perfected.
Of course, it’s a different matter if we get off the narrow path. I suspect, in that case, we will have to undergo post-mortem correction, as all other sinners do.
I agree with you, Paidion. I actually used the word “easily” in quotes to show that I did not mean it was easy. Your point about an ongoing deliverence was well put.
Yeah but even Baalam’s ass could speak the truth!