From: douglas.hayworth@perbio.com
Date: Tue Oct 07 2003 - 16:19:41 EDT
This is a very interesting thread. While staying in the context of the
faith-science dialogue, I do hope we can continue to discuss theories
(=theologies) about how to best understand the facts (doctrines) of the
Fall, original sin, and the atonement. I think Don is right in bringing
the atonement into the discussion because any theologically worthwhile
perspective must be able to deal with both ends of the sin equation.
It's never quite made sense to me why there literally or legalistically has
to be blood to atone for sin. Obviously, in expressing his revelation in
these terms God communicates the gravity of our sin and his desire and
power through Christ to redeem us from it. I don't wish to lessen the
impact of this symbolism, but it still seems weird that this would have to
be literally true.
I discussed this issue recently with a good friend of mine. We are both
huge fans of C.S. Lewis and his Narnia books, among others. However, we
found that we could not quite agree with the manner in which Lewis presents
the atonement of Edmund from the White Witch. The witch says quite
literally that she has the legal right to Edmund's life, that his blood
price is hers by right. I don't know if Lewis intended this to be taken as
his theological statement on the matter, but it at least points out that it
is difficult to phrase the redemptive story in terms that avoid this type
of atonement mechanism at some level.
Can anyone paint an overall description of the sin/atonement doctrine that
avoids this literalism while not lessening it as a doctrinal truth? That,
it seems to me is the main challenge for us as we walk away from the more
literal interpretations of the Genesis story that Young Earth Creationists
work to preserve.
Douglas
"Don
Winterstein" To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>, "Robert Schneider"
<dfwinterstein@m <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
sn.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Original Sin (was Re: RATE)
asa-owner@lists.
calvin.edu
10/07/03 03:14
AM
<?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.
Don
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 07 2003 - 16:26:29 EDT