From: douglas.hayworth@perbio.com
Date: Tue Oct 07 2003 - 17:37:46 EDT
Sheila:
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I didn't suggest that the atonement is
not literally true. I believe that Christ really did die and rise again
effectually to redeem us from consequence of sin. It is the language or
modes of description that we use to try to describe the mechanism of
atonement that I think is open for discussion. Although the "legal"
language we have often used to describe the necessity for God's
substitutionary atoning death have been useful in communicating the
doctrinal truth, the legal language is not the truth itself; it is a
description of the truth. Just as the doctrine of creation is not changed
at all by our realization that the mechanism was not a literal six-day
event, so our doctrine of original sin and atonement do not have to change
although we consider other possible mechanisms by which it is made
effective. I don't think most of us think that Adam's sin is transmitted
physically to his offspring, though many people in the past (and some still
today) think this is the mechanism. These are the things I am interested
in discussing in light of our science-faith dialogue.
Douglas
SHEILA WILSON
<sheila-wilson@sbcg To: douglas.hayworth@perbio.com, asa@calvin.edu
lobal.net> cc:
Subject: Re: Original Sin/Atonement
10/07/03 04:13 PM
Unfortunately, we cannot walk away from the literalism of sin and
atonement. The literalism of a six day creation is hotly debated here with
good reason. The atonement cannot be debated. Jesus Christ was a real man
that died a real death on a real cross to atone for my very real sins. The
death of Christ is not an allegory. His death may represent many different
aspects of the truth and have allegorical implications but His death was
real. If we walk away from the literalism of His death, we are walking
away from Him.
We are slaves - either slaves to sin and death or slaves to God, we choose.
Romans 6:16 says "Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone
to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey?whether you
are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to
righteousness?" We must choose to acknowledge our sin, our need for a
Savior, and ask Jesus Christ to save us from our sin. This is only
possible because Jesus paid the price for our sin by dying on the cross.
Colossians 2:13-15 says, "When you were dead in your sins and in the
uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He
forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its
regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it
away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and
authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by
the cross.(superscript: ")
Sheila
douglas.hayworth@perbio.com wrote:
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" , "Robert Schneider"
sn.com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Original Sin (was Re: RATE)
asa-owner@lists.
calvin.edu
10/07/03 03:14
AM
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
Sheila McGinty Wilson
sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 07 2003 - 17:44:05 EDT