Todd I just finished reading this week! Heavy heavy thoughts to ponder. Substitutionary atonement. Let’s first define what we say is a sin. We sure are sinning against this WORLD God loves. Who will save us.
Hebrews 9:28 "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."
This supports substitutionary atonement. God punishes sin, we see this throughout the bible. That Jesus was sent to bear our sin is not something evil, but very good. That God must punish sin is also good. The cross reveals severe justice and excessive mercy together. When you take one side and turn it against the other you miss God altogether. Romans 11:22 "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."
Stephen, welcome to this space in the comment section for the first time. Here are a few brief responses on a subject that fills many shelves in seminary libraries. "Bearing the sins of many" does not necessarily mean being offered as a sacrifice in place of us for our sins. I'm sure you could add other scriptures that point to language of sacrifice, but within Christian history there are multiples ways of understanding the meaning of the cross. The first statement on the death of Jesus in the Nicean Creed reads, "He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven." Since I was preaching from John's Gospel, his Christology differs in emphasis from the Synoptics. John focuses on these multiple of signs of who Jesus is, including light of the world, living water, bread of life, the vine, the resurrection and the life, and so on. He does not include the image of Jesus as the sacrifice of God in his seven signs of who Jesus is. Instead, John's theology of the resurrection focuses more on Jesus' willingness to bear the suffering and injustice of the world to show God's love. As John 3:17 says, "Christ came into the world not to judge it but to save it."
I grew up Evangelical and I value many of the gifts of the tradition. I do part ways with the emphasis on substitutionary atonement of Christ, and the idea that there is one orthodox way to understand scriptures. Our canon has four Gospels for a reason, to acknowledge that there are different ways the story of Jesus has been passed down. I value all four Gospels and Paul's letters, but note that there are different emphasis and even a few contradictions.
This is so good, Todd. Being a Christ-follower for many years, I remember in the beginning believing in a magic word theology. Say the sinner's prayer and you're in. I had trouble with that thinking then and I have certainly changed my stance on it now. I've had a big problem with the substitutionary death explanations for quite some time also. At the heart of my pondering is always the verse you brought up--John 3:16--no restrictions, no magic words, just a simple statement: God's love. I've been accused(?) if that's the right word, of just being a universalist but really, when you consider questions of the now and the hereafter, how can one limit the boundaries of God's love and grace? I realize this path of thinking uncovers more questions than answers, but to me, in the place I'm at now, that's the beauty of a relationship with God: leaning into the mystery of God just brings me closer to him. I believe I'm paraphrasing Augustine when I say, "If I can totally understand everything about God, well then, that's the God I don't want to believe in." Thanks again, Todd
Thanks for your note. I find myself having less certainty about my theology, but a greater sense of faith and presence of God. It's a strange paradox. Mystery opens deeper relationship.
Todd I just finished reading this week! Heavy heavy thoughts to ponder. Substitutionary atonement. Let’s first define what we say is a sin. We sure are sinning against this WORLD God loves. Who will save us.
Hebrews 9:28 "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."
This supports substitutionary atonement. God punishes sin, we see this throughout the bible. That Jesus was sent to bear our sin is not something evil, but very good. That God must punish sin is also good. The cross reveals severe justice and excessive mercy together. When you take one side and turn it against the other you miss God altogether. Romans 11:22 "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."
Stephen, welcome to this space in the comment section for the first time. Here are a few brief responses on a subject that fills many shelves in seminary libraries. "Bearing the sins of many" does not necessarily mean being offered as a sacrifice in place of us for our sins. I'm sure you could add other scriptures that point to language of sacrifice, but within Christian history there are multiples ways of understanding the meaning of the cross. The first statement on the death of Jesus in the Nicean Creed reads, "He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven." Since I was preaching from John's Gospel, his Christology differs in emphasis from the Synoptics. John focuses on these multiple of signs of who Jesus is, including light of the world, living water, bread of life, the vine, the resurrection and the life, and so on. He does not include the image of Jesus as the sacrifice of God in his seven signs of who Jesus is. Instead, John's theology of the resurrection focuses more on Jesus' willingness to bear the suffering and injustice of the world to show God's love. As John 3:17 says, "Christ came into the world not to judge it but to save it."
I grew up Evangelical and I value many of the gifts of the tradition. I do part ways with the emphasis on substitutionary atonement of Christ, and the idea that there is one orthodox way to understand scriptures. Our canon has four Gospels for a reason, to acknowledge that there are different ways the story of Jesus has been passed down. I value all four Gospels and Paul's letters, but note that there are different emphasis and even a few contradictions.
This is so good, Todd. Being a Christ-follower for many years, I remember in the beginning believing in a magic word theology. Say the sinner's prayer and you're in. I had trouble with that thinking then and I have certainly changed my stance on it now. I've had a big problem with the substitutionary death explanations for quite some time also. At the heart of my pondering is always the verse you brought up--John 3:16--no restrictions, no magic words, just a simple statement: God's love. I've been accused(?) if that's the right word, of just being a universalist but really, when you consider questions of the now and the hereafter, how can one limit the boundaries of God's love and grace? I realize this path of thinking uncovers more questions than answers, but to me, in the place I'm at now, that's the beauty of a relationship with God: leaning into the mystery of God just brings me closer to him. I believe I'm paraphrasing Augustine when I say, "If I can totally understand everything about God, well then, that's the God I don't want to believe in." Thanks again, Todd
Thanks for your note. I find myself having less certainty about my theology, but a greater sense of faith and presence of God. It's a strange paradox. Mystery opens deeper relationship.