Wikepedia puts it like this- "Substitutionary atonement is a doctrine in Christian theology which states that Jesus Christ died on the Cross as a propitiatory substitute provided by God for sinners. Hence, according to this doctrine, he dealt with the punishment that all sinners deserve, enabling them to have their sins forgiven by God.
Among those who pioneered the notion of substitutionary atonement in its fullest form are Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius, and John Calvin. Most contemporary Christian evangelicals adhere to some variation of substitutionary atonement theory. The least amount of support for this doctrine is found in the various Eastern Churches".
Among those who pioneered the notion of substitutionary atonement in its fullest form are Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius, and John Calvin. Most contemporary Christian evangelicals adhere to some variation of substitutionary atonement theory. The least amount of support for this doctrine is found in the various Eastern Churches".
I have been dealing with this issue for quite a while now (like a year) and still haven't done what I said I was going to do: read a book on it. My friend Keith has said that he has a book that discusses some different views. I can't wait to borrow it and postpone reading any other books that I'm reading.
The reason I am suddenly interested again is because there has been some discussion on the Hippie Christian BB that I am a part of about the simplicity of the gospel. I think I did a good job of politely disagreeing with some comments about how easy it is to explain the gospel. "Either you believe that Jesus died for your sins or you don't. Either you go to heaven or you go to hell".
It was interesting to read the scriptures concerning this and to look them up and see what was being said. I am not convinced that I did a very good job of using scripture to explain my point, but I do believe in a redemptive theology that goes deeper than a mystical transaction to remove sin and make us blameless. I wish somebody smart would comment on this so they can support my view.
Oh, I'm thinking about going to seminary. I'd like to move to So Cal and go to Fuller. It could be a really good opportunity to get soem more education so I can get a job. The problem is that maybe some people would listen to my rants just because I have a degree from a seminary. Hopefully my rants will become sweeter smelling though and maybe more thought out. It would probably just be better for everybody all around.
Let me know what you think about the atonement.
6 comments:
I remember you talking about all the different "attonment" theories out there a while back and thinking, "wow! Somebody had WAY too much time on their hands to sit down and write out all the different theories of why Christ died." I still kind of maintain that thought but find it really interesting to hear what others think. I like your photo of the ATM, very witty!
NOthing profound, I know, but still that's all this lady's got!
Love you.
Yeah, i think we've really misled people with the whole "simple exchange" thing. Is it sort of like when Peter pulls out his pixie dust, and all you have to do is "believe"? And really, is it that easy to "believe"? Do you really have to think it through and consider whether you really, really believe that God became a man, born of a woman, lived a sinless life, and was raised from the dead and now rules from heaven while at the same time is omnipresent? What does it mean to "believe" and how many of us really do?
i'm not trying to express doubt, i am simply saying, it's not that easy. Giving verbal consent is one thing. Coming to belief is a life-long journey that become life-transforming.
Christian,
I have a really good book on the atonement that you can borrow. I also wrote a paper on the book. Also I finally wrote the post that you requested on the resurrection. In fact I wrote four new post tonight. Now I am going to bed. Love ya man. Lets hang out again soon. Would you and Jody like to come over here for dinner?
Lemmeno what you think of the post.
Peace,
Wayne
Christian,
I don't have any books you can borrow, and I don't think you ever returned the last book I lent you about Palestine...but that is neither here nor there.
I started to re-read Romans. I usually don't like reading Paul because of all the "watch out for hell" talk, but I read it with a couple things in the back of my mind.
The first was that hell didn't have to mean eternal suffering in Dante's Inferno like culture has taught us to think. Instead hell could represent the separation from God which results in hellish feelings, lonliness, earthly suffering, etc.
The second was that God's grace through Jesus Christ, really was for everyone. The grace he offers us isn't so that we can have heaven in the afterlife, but the grace he offers us is so that we can have freedom and gratitude in our life now. The reason we should "evangelize" then, is to help the qualities of people's lives, not to change the way they think.
Surprisingly, I didn't find a lot to disagree with this when I kept this in the back of my mind. I did find a lot to support it though, a lot of "you'll be surprised by who Christ came for" kind of talk. I wish I could quote it for you, but I gave my Bible away to the night watchman here in Kampala, so I'll have to look for another one.
Hope you are well.
I think the key here is balance.
On one hand I think we're often misled into thinking that Christianity is all about easy beliefs and who's in and who's out. If you read through the New Testament, though, then I definately don't think you find that faith is easy - and you'll also find that faith that doesn't require you to do anything is worthless (James 2). So in that regard, then it is about a lot more than just getting a ticket to Heaven. Christianity should change your life here and now.
On the other hand, I don't want to swing too far in the other direction either. Christianity may not be easy, but that doesn't mean it isn't simple. Faith is a difficult journey, but it's been laid out pretty clearly how to start out on it.
The theme of "belief" is all over the New Testament - particularly the idea of belief or faith trumping the law (Galatians 3 or Romans 7 for example). I think the idea here is that belief comes first before action, and action without belief still doesn't lead to life.
So to sum up - you're not getting the whole story if you tell people to just believe and stop there, but you're still off if you try to go about the journey without starting there.
Jodi- thanks for always reading my blog. I think I also believe in some form of the substitutionary atonement, but I think I am trying to change my mind on the matter. I guess I'm not even opposed to the notion of it being true, but I think there is tension. If it is merely the wiping away of sins for some day, then the gospel is in fact all about someday and about the after-life. I think I believe in an after-life, but I'm sure that the gospel speaks much more to the hear and now than to the someday of death.
Keith (White Rabbit)- first of all, Peter doesn't have any pixie dust. I hate it when you intellectual types try to get artsy and quote fine literature. Tinkerbell had the dust and it was essential to her life. It's people like you who don't believe in her enough to allow her to live. If you would simply "believe" in her, she could truly live. I believe!!! I believe!!! Jodi and I saw the play this winter and it made me cry. (that was an weird little ramble-rant)
I totally agree with you about belief not being easy. We see it from kids everyday. I don't mean about accepting Jesus, but about anything. It is so hard for anybody to change how they view anything. If Christians could view themselves as servants and sherpas rather than as parents and professors who change the minds of those that are dumber than us, maybe we wouldn't have the reputation we now have.
Wayner- I'd love to borrow your book and read your paper. I'd also love to come over for dinner sometime. Let me know when. I've enjoyed all the comments fromt he hippies on your blog. Some of them are well meaning, but it has seemed like some are disagreeing but don't know what they're disagreeing about. I guess the word is disagreeable.
Jonathan- Jonathan. I do have your book and have been reading and re-reading it daily. Thank you. I like what you said about Paul. I need to do that too in the near future because I have a really bad taste in my mouth from classes in college and from bible studies. Romans is really difficult to read ebcause of all the arrows that have been shot at me and that i have shot back at others using the text. I have some of the same problems with Ephesians (isn't that weird) and Hebrews. Also, I am looking into becoming an Episcopal priest. There is a seminary in New York that looks really great. We are in a confirmation class that has been wonderful and that we keep saying- "I have been Episcopalian my whole life and never knew it". It's great. Say hi to all the Anglicans in Uganda for us.
Steve- "On the other hand, I don't want to swing too far in the other direction either". Does this mean you swing both ways Steve? What does that even mean.
Seriously, I understand and agree with much of what you said. It was good to read those two chapters on Law and Faith. It's a lot of information to understand. Again, it's hard for me to read Paul because of my opinion of him. I wonder what he's be like if he was alive today in America. He'd be living in Cascade driving a hummer and be a total pimp probably. Hanging out at Monte's or the Deuce picking up the honeys all night long. Ok, not really, but I think I'll start a new ministry call WWPD. "What does that stand for?" you may ask... What would Paul Do? People could wear braceletts to remind them of what Paul would do in any given situation. This marketing strategy could work for another thing though too... The Walla Walla Washington Police Department. WWPD. Get it.
Post a Comment