From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Oct 07 2003 - 09:15:36 EDT
Don Winterstein wrote:
>
> Bob Schneider wrote in part:
>
> " The doctrine of the
> "fall"/"original sin" has had its various formulations throughout the
> history of Christian thought. I think the time is ripe for another major
> look at it."
>
> How about a simultaneous reevaluation of the inextricably related doctrines of atonement? Does anyone really understand how atonement works? The NT refers to
>
> Doctrines of sin and atonement would be easier to accept if pried free of OT law, if Christ by his death could be seen to be making the ultimate declaration of
>
> In other words, for those in the Pentateuch paradigm, atonement is a payment; for everyone else, atonement is God's supreme demonstration of his commitment to
>
> Then the "fall" could apply to the whole creation from its earliest beginnings. Man's sins have their origin largely in urges that are common to many other--i
>
> Christians have made too much of the Bible's emphasis on sin and not enough on its message of atonement. RC teachings and Luther's overwhelming guilt feelings
>
> Don
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> <?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" />
> Bob Schneider wrote in part:
>
> " The doctrine of the
> "fall"/"original sin" has had its various formulations throughout the
> history of Christian thought. I think the time is ripe for another
> major
> look at it."
>
>
> How about a simultaneous reevaluation of the inextricably related
> doctrines of atonement? Does anyone really understand how atonement
> works? The NT refers to atonement as a payment, a ransom for sin.
> And Hebrews 10:22 says, "...Without the shedding of blood there is no
> forgiveness." So is God really bloodthirsty? And who actually got
> that payment? Was God paying himself?
>
> Doctrines of sin and atonement would be easier to accept if pried free
> of OT law, if Christ by his death could be seen to be making the
> ultimate declaration of God's love and acceptance of mankind rather
> than simply spilling blood because for some unknown reason that's what
> God needs, or paying some ransom to some unknown person for some
> unknown reason. We are "forgiven" because we have full assurance
> through Christ's offering that we have free access to God's love and
> that he does not hold sin against us. Christ's offering outweighs our
> sins as a parent's embrace outweighs his child's mistakes.
>
> In other words, for those in the Pentateuch paradigm, atonement is a
> payment; for everyone else, atonement is God's supreme demonstration
> of his commitment to us.
>
> Then the "fall" could apply to the whole creation from its earliest
> beginnings. Man's sins have their origin largely in urges that are
> common to many other--if not all--forms of life. We seek
> self-preservation above all, we compete against our fellows for
> resources and mates, etc. All are kinds of activities that originated
> long before the instant that pre-humans became human. The whole
> creation is fallen and always has been, in the sense that it
> cannot reach God or do his will on its own. (This is why a
> strong version of RFEP is not for me.) The message of salvation is
> that God intends to bring the creation into himself, and through
> Christ he has already taken the first major step.
>
> Christians have made too much of the Bible's emphasis on sin and not
> enough on its message of atonement. RC teachings and Luther's
> overwhelming guilt feelings are much to blame, IMO. Christians like
> to beat themselves up endlessly over their sins when God has already
> demonstrated that his love has got them covered.
There have been several "theories of the atonement" proposed in Christian
history. The idea that Christ "made satisfaction" for human sin has been very popular
in the west since ~1100 and a lot of conservative protestants think it's the only
correct way of thinking about it, but that's by no means the case.
The approach you suggest seems to suggest Christ primarily as an example of
God's love - an idea often associated with Abelard & "moral influence" theories & liked
by liberal protestants. I think it's a viable option if one is careful with it. But
there can be some problems. First, if the death of Christ is simply a demonstration of
God's acceptance of us that already existed _before_ the cross then in a basic sense the
cross was not _necessary_. Second, the cross should not be presented simply as a
passive example. It must be an _active_ one, an example that actually does something to
us. "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."
Gustaf Aulen's _Christus Victor_ of 1931 described these 2 models of the
atonement, but argued that the "Christus Victor" motif is really the "classic" model of
the atonement: Christ by his death and resurrection defeats the powers of evil, sin &
death. And, in response to your closing paragraph, he makes a good case for the
argument that this model is the one preferred by Luther - as in his Easter hymn "Christ
Lag in Todesbanden":
It was a strange and dreadful strife
When life and death contended;
The victory remained with life,
The reign of death was ended.
Holy Scripture plainly says
That death is swallowed up by death,
Its sting is lost forever.
Hallelujah!
(LBW # 134)
(& by the way, it would be nice if everybody - not just you, Don - would forego
the pop psychologizing of Luther? I suppose it's a tribute to Luther's importance but
it doesn't really contribute much to understanding his theology. Why don't people do
this with Aquinas or Calvin - or have I missed it?)
There's another point that should be made. We are saved by the death and
resurrection of Christ, not by theories of how they work - as Gerhard Forde emphasizes
in hsi treatment of these matters in Braaten & Jenson's _Christian Dogmatics_.
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 07 2003 - 09:21:26 EDT