The Self-Sacrifice of Jesus

[Prober]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

My brief input to start is that I understand Christ's sacrifice as self-sacrifice, the willingness to give all of His Person in love for us.

I would say that He, the divine part, was sent and He, the human part was willing because He submitted to G-d's will.

It was not necessary taht he be crucified or die a cruel death, although that is what happened. The sacrifice was in becoming fully human, to share in our suffering and touch us.

IMO It was necessary that He died, maybe not necessary that He died so violently.

It is one thing to think of a God loving us from afar, seeing but not sharing in our suffering (and we all suffer, we all grow old, get sick, die), but what greater love is there than to come a hold us and touch us in our suffering.

Amen!

OK, this probably seems to some to deflate the meaning of Christ's sacrifice, and I certainly do not mean to do that. But, Christ's suffering and self-sacrifice is certainly not less than this love which made God come down and BE with us.

To think that the G-d of the universe spent 9 month in a womb.

I for one do not think of it as some kind of tit for tat legal system in which God now pays for my sins.

I do - absolutely!

Forgive? Yes, absolutely. But as Mark says, a literalistic interpretation in which God sets us up knowing we will fall, then shames and blames and punishes until He gives the only sacrifice that will do...no, I don't buy that at all.

I don't either. I don't think G-d sets us up or shames us.

Your thoughts?

[earl]

Well while it doesn't settle anything theologically, thought I'd get that Richard Smoley quote right from his book, "Inner Christianity"
In speaking of the theory of vicarious atonement he said:
"There is a certain sublimity to this doctrine, but what, in the end, is it trying to say? That the human race so irked the Supreme Being by trespassing a minor command that it was completely alienated from him, and that God's wrath could be quenched only by having a part of himself come down and offer itself as a sacrifice to another part? Put this way, the absurdity of this doctrine becomes apparent."

He goes on in that same portion of his book to point out that the doctrine of vicarious atonement was more or less unknown to the early Christian church becoming official doctrine only in the 11th century. take care, earl

[China Cat Sunflower]

O.K., so...is Jesus' death making the world a better place? Is it having any cumulative, positive effect? What has it accomplished?

If we're going to give up the idea of hell, shouldn't we also dispense with the idea of heaven? I mean heaven as a place where people go after they die. If hell is simplistic and silly, isn't heaven?

What about the Kingdom of God here on earth? It seems to me that the thrust of Christ's philosophy is creating, or manifesting the Kingdom here, first in our hearts, and then, by extension, physically. This seems a very Jewish concept, and ties in nicely with the whole "spirit of the Law" thing. In terms of religion and spirituality, I find that, for myself anyway, this is all I'm really interested in. How to bring about God's Kingdom here on earth: Here and Now. It makes all the diverse elements of Christianity, Jewish and Greek, make sense. But I can't contemplate it without giving up the easy outs of heaven and hell. Does that sound like whack?

Chris

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Prober

I would say that He, the divine part, was sent and He, the human part was willing because He submitted to G-d's will.

I believe (trust) the Incarnation, so yes that's implicit in what I said as well.

IMO It was necessary that He died, maybe not necessary that He died so violently.

Death is part of our life and yes, His life, death, and resurrection...it's all the Way.

Your thoughts?

For the most part I just can't get into the penal-substitutionary theology of redemption. As earl pointed out it's a late (16th century) doctrinal development and it's heavy Calvinistic emphasis on guilt just does not speak to me. Themes of healing our relationship with God and each other, healing our brokenness, restoring us, feeding us, liberating us,...those are themes that speak to me. I can't see any reason to prefer a judgemental-law-penal theme over these. Reading a bit more about the history of the development of the penal theology I did come across this one bread crumb I find nourishing:

Originally Posted by [I

Christian Theology[/I], McGrath] Our participation in Christ's death. Through faith, believers particpate in the risen Christ. They are "in Christ," to use Paul's famous phrase. They are caught up in him, and share in his risen life. As a result of this, they share in all the benefits won by Christ, through his obedience upon the cross. One of those benefits is th forgivenss of sins, in which they share through faith. New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders states the importance of "participation in Christ" for Paul in the followoing words:

"The prime significance which the death of Christ has for Paul is not that it provides atonement for past transgressions (although he holds the common Christian view that it does so), but that, by sharing in Christ's death, one dies to the power of sin or to the old aeon, with the result that one belongs to God...The transfer takes place by participation in Christ's death."

Participating in Christ thus entails the forgivenss of sins, and sharing in his righteousness. This idea is central to both Luther's and Calvin's soteriology, as Luther's image of the marriage between Christ and the believer makes clear.

See, all of these (theories of atonement) are the ideas of humans looking back and finding meaning in the cross. As Thomas said in the Atonement thread, it is, ultimately, Mystery. I simply trust that through Christ's life, death, and resurrection, mankind's relationship with God has been restored. In the catechism of my church, this is what is said:

Q: What do we mean when we say that Jesus is the only Son of God?
A: We mean that Jesus is the only perfect image of the Father, and shows us the nature of God.


Q: What is the nature of God revealed in Jesus?
A: God is love.


Q: What do we mean when we say that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and became incarnate from the Virgin Mary?
A: We mean that by God's own act, his divine Son received our human nature from the Virgin Mary, his mother.


Q: Why did he take our human nature?
A: The divine Son became human, so that in him human beings might be adopted as children of God, and be made heirs of God's kingdom.


Q: What is the great importance of Jesus' suffering and death?
A: By his obedience, even to suffering and death, Jesus made the offering which we could not make; in him we are freed from the power of sin and reconciled to God.


Q: What is the significance of Jesus' resurrection?
A: By his resurrection, Jesus overcame death and opened for us the way of eternal life.


Q: What do we mean when we say that he descended to the dead?
A: We mean that he went to the departed and offered them also the benefits of redemption.


Q: What do we mean when we say that he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father?
A: We mean that Jesus took our human nature into heaven where he now reigns with the Father and intercedes for us.


Q: How can we share in his victory over sin, suffering, and death?
A: We share in his victory when we are baptized into the New Covenant and become living members of Christ.

I love that.

In my own way of thinking, as I've followed various breadcrumbs so far, in the Garden we became alienated from God when we began to know good and evil. The good and evil just are...life just is...but it is our judgment of each other, ourselves, creation, and God which leads us out of the Garden and to alienation from God and each other. Knowing good and evil, judging, is the way out. Not judging (aka grace, forgiveness) is the way in, it is the way of the Kingdom of God. Jesus was the perfect example, and enabler, of this way. The way of love. Judgement leads us out of the garden, love (forgiveness, grace) leads us back 'in.' The funny thing is, in reality we are already there...we just need to see it.

When Jesus looked from the cross to the thief hanging next to Him, and said "today you will be with me in Paradise," it was not because of anything the thief knew or did or said...it was because of Jesus' perfect love and perfect unity with that thief. We are all the thief.

Thanks for asking.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

O.K., so...is Jesus' death making the world a better place? Is it having any cumulative, positive effect? What has it accomplished?

Maybe you are asking that eternal question of Christian theology...did Jesus's death change something or did it reveal something eternal? Stated by Martin Kahler (German theologian, 1898): "Did Christ just make known some insights concerning an unchangeable situation--or did he establish a new situation?"

Since liberals solve things by consensus, let's do a poll!

But seriously, there is no clear answer across all theology but some flavors of Christianity perfer one strongly over the other.

BTW, I don't know if my views qualify me as a 'liberal' or not, but I would not say that the liberal way is to decide by consensus. The liberal way, or my way at least, is to be open-minded and to learn to be comfortable with uncertainty, while at the same time trusting in God.

If we're going to give up the idea of hell, shouldn't we also dispense with the idea of heaven? I mean heaven as a place where people go after they die. If hell is simplistic and silly, isn't heaven?

Both ideas are simplistic, but not silly. I find them useful when I think of them as distance from or closeness to God. As for the afterlife, I tend toward universalism which for me takes the fear and desire motivations off the table. Salvation is for now, and it is for everyone.

What about the Kingdom of God here on earth? It seems to me that the thrust of Christ's philosophy is creating, or manifesting the Kingdom here, first in our hearts, and then, by extension, physically.

The Kingdom of God is here. It's not something you 'build,' but it is something you can know and 'see.' You step into it when you accept Christ's invitation to see and do things differently, to love and forgive. Easy? No. Maybe that's why it's called the narrow path.

This seems a very Jewish concept, and ties in nicely with the whole "spirit of the Law" thing. In terms of religion and spirituality, I find that, for myself anyway, this is all I'm really interested in. How to bring about God's Kingdom here on earth: Here and Now. It makes all the diverse elements of Christianity, Jewish and Greek, make sense. But I can't contemplate it without giving up the easy outs of heaven and hell. Does that sound like whack?

Chris

Seems like a pretty good choice for something to be interested in. I'm not sure why you can't separate it from heaven and hell though...can you explain?

Ah, I need me some Isaiah:

6 "Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?

7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

8 Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness [a] will go before you,
and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.

9 Then you will call, and the LORD will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.
"If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,

10 and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.



What is the Sermon on the Mount? An commandment to follow the letter of the law more closely or more stringently? Or an invitation to do things differently, choose the narrow way, choose to forgive, love, and not throw others away carelessly?

[Prober]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

For the most part I just can't get into the penal-substitutionary theology of redemption. As earl pointed out it's a late (16th century) doctrinal development and it's heavy Calvinistic emphasis on guilt just does not speak to me. Themes of healing our relationship with God and each other, healing our brokenness, restoring us, feeding us, liberating us,...those are themes that speak to me. I can't see any reason to prefer a judgemental-law-penal theme over these.

I understand. I don't take as heavy an emphasis as the Calvanists (from my understanding) on guilt. Rather, on freedom from guilt. I accept my guilt of original sin. Maybe that's the difference. I don't dwell on it, but on the redemption of Christ's sacrifice. In other words, I glory in Christ's resurection (sp), versus His death. And, just because we have record of it from the 16th century, doesn't mean it wasn't dwelt on before that.

See, all of these (theories of atonement) are the ideas of humans looking back and finding meaning in the cross. As Thomas said in the Atonement thread, it is, ultimately, Mystery. I simply trust that through Christ's life, death, and resurrection, mankind's relationship with God has been restored.
When Jesus looked from the cross to the thief hanging next to Him, and said "today you will be with me in Paradise," it was not because of anything the thief knew or did or said...it was because of Jesus' perfect love and perfect unity with that thief. We are all the thief.

Thanks for asking.

I agree. And, of course, we can only look back...

[Prober]

Originally Posted by earl

He goes on in that same portion of his book to point out that the doctrine of vicarious atonement was more or less unknown to the early Christian church becoming official doctrine only in the 11th century. take care, earl

Sometimes it takes a long time for something to become official...

[Prober]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

O.K., so...is Jesus' death making the world a better place? Is it having any cumulative, positive effect?

YES!

If we're going to give up the idea of hell, shouldn't we also dispense with the idea of heaven? I mean heaven as a place where people go after they die. If hell is simplistic and silly, isn't heaven?

We should not give up the idea of Hell.

What about the Kingdom of God here on earth? It seems to me that the thrust of Christ's philosophy is creating, or manifesting the Kingdom here, first in our hearts, and then, by extension, physically. This seems a very Jewish concept, and ties in nicely with the whole "spirit of the Law" thing. In terms of religion and spirituality, I find that, for myself anyway, this is all I'm really interested in.

IMO It IS a Jewish concept!

How to bring about God's Kingdom here on earth: Here and Now. It makes all the diverse elements of Christianity, Jewish and Greek, make sense. But I can't contemplate it without giving up the easy outs of heaven and hell. Does that sound like whack?

Don't give up the concepts of Heaven and Hell...(IMO)

[InLove]

Hi Everyone--followed the trail of breadcrumbs here--

I decided to make use of my present insomnia to catch up on some reading. I have been trying to get through the study on theories of atonement, but it is no easy thing for me because it appears that before I can discern between the doctrines, I need to define and sort out the differences between the theories of The Fall, Original Sin, and Total Depravity. I didn't realize until just recently that there was so much difference, especially between the first two. Initially, it looks like splitting hairs.

But thanks to you guys on this thread (and others elsewhere--in particular, Thomas and path_of_one), I am learning to put those fine lines under a magnifying glass.

Chris and Prober, I find your questions invaluable. And Laurie--I do so appreciate your efforts. The material you have posted here has contributed so much to my understanding. Some things, like posting from the catechism (LOL--"catechism"--old Baptist reading here...does not compute....does not compute...sputter, sputter, cough ) have helped tremendously!

I just wanted to stop in and say "thank you".

InPeace,
InLove

[InLove]

Hello again--

Just typed in "Baptist" and "catechism". Hmmm...appears I didn't pay enough attention? Apparently there is at least one! Maybe we just didn't use that particular term where I have had memberships. But I was in the Girl's Auxiliary, even helped out in Awanas and VBS, attended Sunday School and taught in the Children's Church. Never heard the word applied to the teachings before!

Learning...about myself?

Anyway, back to the theme of the thread (don't mean to derail it--just needed to clarify...something...???)

InPeace,
InLove

[lunamoth]

Hi InLove,

To my understanding a catechism just means a form of Q and A to give the central tenets of belief. It is presented in the Q and A format to make it easy to say, teach, and learn. Otherwise there is nothing special about it (other than what the contents point to, of course).

luna