Are you ready to really be challenged? Watch these videos, if you dare:
Is This Forgiveness?
Is This God's Forgiveness?
So tell me, is this what God's forgiveness is like? Is this what the Bible teaches? If it is, is it really just? If it is not, in what way is it different?
My comment on youtube:
ReplyDeleteI have thought some of the ways discussed in this video. It will take a lot of patience to hear this: it occurred to me that God the Bible does say (John 3:16) that it was because of God's *love* that He gave His only Son: so His motivation is to show love and going to *all* lengths to give us a way into a relationship with Him.
Since you and I are both human, it's safe to assume that we don't obey God. -The point is to have a life of freedom from all that puts us in bondage by talking to a patient, gentle, understanding Father who we approach boldly: confidently to talk about wrongs we that hurt ourselves & others. We know we *can* trust *this* Father (vs. some dads who are abusive) because he allowed His own Son to feel our pain and separation from Him. Jesus did this because of love for us, taking our punishment for wrong stuff we do and think.
I believe, from knowledge of myself, that I would have done the same thing that Eve did if I were in her place.
I think you hit it on the head Leeann when you said that the point is to have a life of freedom, and God's love gives us the possibility to have it.
ReplyDeleteI think that this video-- and a number of others I found and will eventually comment on-- are really responding to a poor presentation of the gospel and a poor theology developed by Anselm in the 12th century, which continues to be presented as the "gospel" by much of the church. Jesus didn't have to be tortured and killed as a replacement for our sin-- rather, He willingly chose shame and death to open a door that we could escape the oppression we are under.
"Jesus didn't have to be tortured and killed as a replacement for our sin-- rather, He willingly chose shame and death to open a door that we could escape the oppression we are under."
ReplyDeleteis this the same as saying that He willingly, moved by love, took the punishment for our sin?
I'll post a poem i wrote about this. I still think it's sort of too primative or dramatic, but the point is there.
It is the same.
ReplyDeleteBut it is different than saying that God forced Jesus to take on the punishment of humanity so that humanity can be forgiven. And this is what most gospel presentations sound like.
The theology of most protestant idea of the atonement is that Jesus' death was necessary for God's wrath to be appeased. That's what the video speaks to. The fact is, it isn't God's wrath that needed to be appeased. We needed to be set free from the oppression of death and sin, which God initially put us under, but we agree to remain under.
Jesus gave us the opportunity to be set free. That's different than most presentations of the gospel, including the four spiritual laws and the "bridge" illustration and the Romans Road.
But I'm not really responding to you, but to Kim Vonheeder. That's okay.
Leeann, I think it's probably better for us to have this discussion here, so that Kim (and possibly others) don't get upset over it:
ReplyDeleteThe theology of most protestant idea of the atonement is that Jesus' death was necessary for God's wrath to be appeased. It is implied that God coerced Jesus into dying. That's what the video speaks to. It questions the justice of Anselm's atonement:
-That God can't just forgive
-That it is ever just for an innocent to die as replacement of, for instance, a murderer
-That people who don't know they've sinned, should be punished for all eternity.
I think that the argument against it is:
a. God can forgive. We are both locked and choosing a system that is in open rebellion against God. We choose a system of hate and death instead of love and mercy.
b. Jesus didn't die as a substitute, but as his own free choice to offer up an opportunity to be of a different realm. God didn't coerce him in any way, but they agreed together that it was the way to free those whom they loved.
c. God doesn't punish people for that which they don't know, but for that which they know. Homosexuality isn't so much the issue for eternal damnation, but the impurity and hatred in our hearts that our actions show. God punishes us for the evils we KNOW we do.
And I say this, Kim, because most Christian presentations of the gospel begin with some "Jesus' death saves us from God's wrath" and then ends with a conservative morality. That's the gospel the video person knows and that's what he's arguing against. If we started with displaying mercy and showing the new way of life in Jesus, maybe this video wouldn't exist.
From Leeanne:
ReplyDeleteJesus didn't die as a substitute,
serious problem w/ this. inacurrate statement.
2 cor 5"21
The only word that indicates substitution in II Cor 5:21 is the word "for"-- in Greek "huper", but it doesn't necessarily mean "in the place of". "For", both in English and in Greek can possibly mean substitution, but it more commonly means "for the sake of" or "concerning." He died because of our sin, but there is really little evidence to say that he died in place of our sin.
ReplyDeleteSteve: here's what i'm seeing: "He made Him who knew no sin to BECOME sin for us, so that in Him (i.e. when we trust Jesus's work on the cross) we might become the righteousness of God." -so Jesus BECAME sin. As a result, I have rightness. -hence the trade: Jesus gets my sin and I get Jesus' rightness:
ReplyDeleteIsa. 53:4 But he lifted up our illnesses,
he carried our pain;
even though we thought he was being punished,
attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done.
** 53:5 He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds,
crushed because of our sins;
he endured punishment that made us well;
because of his wounds we have been healed. **
53:6 All of us had wandered off like sheep;
each of us had strayed off on his own path,
** but the Lord caused the sin of all of us to attack him. **
One possible implication of your argument is that Jesus NOT taking our punnishment for sin is not giving due weight to God's holiness, which *cannot* be around sin, and whatever the reason, there *had* to be a substitutionary sacrifice. The OT (in the Jewish order) books (their themes and types and forshadowings) are an arrow that builds and builds, pointing to the Messiah. Part of this is the scapegoat, and also the substitution of the sacrifices for sin. I really don't get the whys. There are mysteries in every faith. But we know that God is the true God and that this is for some unknown reason the way He has done His will.
Addressing the vid.: Of course Jesus could have left us to go to hell. But He and the Father are moved by love, not obligation. -I thought that God owed us a way out and that He provided His Son out of spite or obligation. I had lots of resentment toward God.
I am not saying that Jesus didn't take care of our sin problem. I'm saying that it didn't happen as a substitute for our punishment.
ReplyDeleteMy real argument against the substitutionary atonement of Jesus is this:
1. It didn't exist until the 12th century AD. Anselm invented it based on court proceedings he saw. Before the 12th century, no one had even thought of the substitutionary atonement.
2. It isn't necessary for the Bible to teach substitutionary atonement. The most common interpretation of the Bible in the ancient world and the middle ages-- and it is still held by many Christians today-- that Jesus died to pay a ransom to deliver us from Satan. My point of view is similar to this. Even the passage you mentioned about Jesus becoming sin-- it still isn't saying that Jesus took on our punishment for us. It says that he became sin. This is most similar to Galatians 3:13 where Paul says that Jesus became a curse for us. It is easier to understand in Galatians rather than the vague statement in II Corinthians. Jesus becoming a curse means that he was rejected by the law so that way he could establish a kingdom outside the law. I think that this is the meaning of II cor 5 as well.
3. I don't believe that the substitutionary atonement is the best biblical explanation for Jesus death. There's a lot of problems with it:
a. How can it be just for one innocent person to die for a whole world of other people?
b. How does Jesus' death lead to the Holy Spirit being given? If the death is for establishing a new kingdom it makes sense.
c. It says in the OT that the sacrifices weren't necessary, but God demands a broken heart. Then how does Jesus sacrifice just cover up sins?
d. Isn't substitutionary atonement basically human sacrifice, which is not accepted by God?
If someone wants to believe in substitutionary atonement, I'm okay with that. I just think there's a better explanation in the Bible for how Jesus' death set us free from sin and death.
" Jesus died to pay a ransom to deliver us from Satan" -Interesting: I've just thought about this a bit, b/c is seems to be dualism: Satan is as powerful as God and can demand our souls sort on a legal basis. -First thought of it after seeing The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. C.S. Lewis portrayed this concept.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what my conclusion is. R/t 3 a.: it of course is not just. It's grace.
Ro. 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man 1 many 2 were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man 3 many 4 will be made righteous.
3 c. R/t when and how the kingdom arrives. I claim ignorance. I've wondered about the answer (or the various views that must exist between denominations) whenever the subject comes up.
3 d. It would seem to me that doubting substitutionary atonement based on human sacrifice is possibly moot: God is God. His Son can volunteer to leave heaven, forgo acting on His own, forgo using His own power and authority, and choose to be like us to identify with us in our human state. He also can decide to do the ultimate love:
Joh 15:13 No one has greater love than this – that one lays down his life 1 for his friends.
Yes?
It is not dualism: Satan was given authority over humanity, as he is the Lord of Death, and humanity was placed by God under death. Satan's authority over man is appointed by God and confirmed by humanity. That means Satan is still under God's authority.
ReplyDeleteC.S. Lewis' thing was a little different-- he presented a "law" which is above God, which is Anselmian. The ransom point of view gives God complete freedom, outside of any law.
As far as a conclusion, it took ten years of consistent thinking for me to come to a conclusion about atonement. My guess is you'll have to consider it more before you come to a conclusion, working through all the passages.
And while how God worked atonement might be moot, we have to admit it is significant. If our theory of atonement doesn't make sense, then we can't present our reasons for Jesus' death, which makes it difficult to evangelize. And if our evangelism makes people think of God as an ogre, then we need to think about our approach. How God did it is God's business. How we discuss it to non-believers is essential to determine ahead of time.