Here are my questions to my friend and his answers (see here for part one of this conversation). In summary, he is arguing for a primary view of Atonement that is based on Christus Victor, while I am retaining penal substitionary atonement (as primary). Also, at the end of his answers is my most current response to him:
- Question:
Describe how forgiveness a part from sacrifice is represented in the Old Testament. Explain the scapegoat and the goat that was slain for the sins of the people (Lev 16)
Answer:
I cannot refute the representation of the scapegoat and its clear parallel with the death of Jesus. I know that the penalty of sin is death, and so I see the need for Jesus to die in our place. The difference can best be described with a very Lion, Which and the Wardrobe example. Aslan did not die to fulfill a wrathful Gods wish or need for payment to HIM, but because payment was owed to the WITCH. I’ll get into that more later. As far as forgiveness, we see God forgive several times in the Old Testament without sacrifice, the most obvious being Nineveh. I could show many more, but only one example is needed because if God can do it once, He could do it whenever. So obviously, the slaying of the goat was not a necessity for forgiveness. Forgiveness is actually a subsequent action in Salvation. For example, the message Paul received when he first encountered Christ was that he was being sent to the Gentiles “to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may reiceve forgiveness of sins and place among those who are sanctified by faith in Christ.” (Acts 26.17-18) So it was through Paul that God was going to free Gentiles from “the god of this world” who had “blinded the minds of the unbelievers” (2 Cor 4.4) and thereby set them free from the power of Satan and bring them into the power of God. Because of this—and NOTE CLOSELY THE LOGICAL ORDER—they would bein a position to “receive forgiveness of sins” as well as a place among the community of God. Salvation clearly involves forgiveness, but this forgiveness is itself rooted in a person getting freed from Satan’s grip, and therefore freed from the controlling power of sin. - Question:
Please explain this statement: "God is not a vengeful judge who simply cannot forgive without payment (a picture of God that is not consistent with the rest of the Bible)" -- How is that not consistent with scripture?
Answer:
As far as the statements on Gods anger, I see that anger being towards sin as a power and effect in people’s lives. Not at the people, but at the sin. Much the way we preach that we should live. After all, our battle is not against flesh and blood, but this power that is over them. (This is another reason I love this view, it seems to unify Jesus’ life, and death, as well as how He asks me to live MY life.)
I also see all of those verses on atonement, propitiation, and representative sacrifice being a representation to the enemy, not to God. For all of us who have “fallen short”, we are now rightful property of the enemy, and it is his job and right to “kill, steal, and destroy”. Enter Jesus who came to take our place in this payment…but He double-crossed the enemy and rose from the dead, thus making Satan a “laughingstock” (Col 2.14-15). It’s a beautiful thing… - Question:
In light of Christus Victor, please explain why Jesus had to die in order to be victorious? How is your interpretation of Jesus' death foretold through the prophets?
Answer:
This is probably my favorite part of this view. The New Testament can really be seen in light of a war motif. There is this giant war going on. It’s a war between the Kingdom of this world (Satan), and the Kingdom of God (Jesus). Jesus believes that Satan is the “ruler of this world” (Jn 12.31), so when Jesus comes into “this world”, He is coming as a knight. As a fighter. He is invading hostile territory. And so everything that Jesus was about was centered on vanquishing this empire, taking back the world that Satan had seized and restoring its rightful viceroys—humans—to their position of guardians of the earth. This goes all the way back to the protoevangelion (Barbara Middlebrook anyone?) Gen 3.15. It’s apparently ALWAYS been about the fight. Taking back what belong to God. So, we can then see EVERYTHING that Jesus did is about that. Invading the kingdom of the world with the kingdom of God. But the beautiful thing is that the weapons of the Kingdom of God are completely different from the kingdom of the world. They fight with the sword, we fight with the cross. It’s the difference of the “power over” model, and the “coming under” model. It’s spelled out for us in John 13. What does Jesus do now that He has all the power in heaven and earth? He washes the disciples feet. So His whole life can be seen as attacking the kingdom of the enemy with the Kingdom of God, using the weapons of God: ie Love. So, when Jesus broke religious taboos by fellowshipping with tax collectors, prostitutes, and other sinners, and when he forsook religious traditions to lovingly heal and feed people on the Sabbath, in the light of Calvary we can understand him to be waging war against the powers and exposing the systemic evil that fuels religious legalism and oppression. He was conquering evil with love while giving his followers an example to follow. This is what the reign of God looks like, and therefore this is what confronting the destructive powers looks like. When He crossed racial lines, fellowshipping and speaking highly of Samaritans and Gentiles, and when we crossed social barriers—fellowshipping and touching lepers, for example—he was exposing and resisting the evil powers that fuel racism and social marginalization. He was conquering evil with love while giving his followers the example they are to follow. When he died in our place and offered Himself over to the enemy, He was showing us exactly what real love looks like. And His resurrection is the proof that love is truly greater then evil. The Kingdom of God is greater then the kingdom of the world.
So it is that Jesus’ life, death and resurrection cannot be separated from each other, not even theoretically. Whereas other models of the atonement tend to isolate the meaning of Jesus’ death from other aspects of His life, the Christus Victor model sees every aspect of Christ life—from his incarnation to his resurrection—as being most fundamentally about one thing: victoriously manifesting the loving Kingdom of God over and against the destructive, oppressive kingdom of Satan.
Every aspect of Jesus’ life is best understood along these lines. For example, even though he rightfully could have enjoyed every divine prerogative, He lays them down and is born as a man. Even though He owned all the cosmos, he instead has no place to lay his head. Even though he had all power of the universe, he washes feet. And when he could have called legions of angels, he allows himself to be crucified. Everything Jesus was about manifested Calvary-like love and should therefore be seen as acts of war against the destructive powers that seek to keep people from living in God’s love.
Finally, I believe that there was a "secret" wisdom of God (Rom 16.25; 1 Cor 2.7; Eph 3.9-10; Col 1.26) whose plan was always to both represent what real love looks like on the Cross, and also make the payment for man's sin and choice to go his own way, but ultimately to defeat the Enemy through the resurrection. This was "to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the RULERS AND AUTHORITIES in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose that he as carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Eph 3.9-11) - Question:
If personal sin is diminished, how do you deal with human guilt? Are we not responsible for our sins against ourselves and others?
Answer:
We are all responsible for our own actions and guilt is an absolute reality. But if Jesus came to free us from the “power of sin” (Rom 6.7), why do we keep sinning? “Sin” must be something more then just my personal actions in this understanding. There must be something else that Jesus saved us from. I am still accountable for my own sins, but first and foremost, I had to be saved from this “power” that was over my life before I had Christ.
__________________________________________________________________
My response:
Dude,
YES YES YES!
Love it...but you cannot deny the Wrath of God that is directed at sinners. We see active examples of that in the Bible. We cannot remove ourselves from judgment, nor does your argument explain the great courtroom language Paul uses in Romans to explain how we are justified. He makes it clear that we are objects of wrath, that we are handed over to the wrath of God because of our sin.
Your model says so much good, but places (if teased out to its fully degree) responsibility for sin solely on Satan, and therefore represents God as unjust--why would he punish one sinner (Satan) but not all sinners? We chose sin, we choose sin; our ignorance (sins of omission) and indulgence cannot be denied. We aren't just in objective bondage (to the enemy) but are in subjective bondage (to the power of sin birthed within us).
I don't see a disconnect between all of Jesus' work and the penal substitutinary theory. His incarnation was necessary for him to be the perfect human ultimately paying the ultimate human price for sin. His life modeled his sacrificial love, teaching and modeling for us exactly what you stated, that love wins the day, but his ministry was always a lead up to his sacrificial death. His resurrection secured our own resurrection and paved the way for our sanctification (buried with Christ, raised with Christ).
Your Ransom Theory emphasis has some holes--how is it that anything was owed to Satan? The Old Testament sacrifices weren't presented to Satan, as to appease his wrath or to ransom the people of Israel back. The story of redemption is all about God winning the day (from day one). It seems to me that your theory, as presented to the whole of scriptural atonement, has some holes. I appreciate the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, but fail to see its biblical parallel (in your description). Also, one could argue that his death was necessary for the "deeper magic" and not as a payment to the Witch. He was satisfying the need for death (which wasn't warranted by her, but warranted by the unseen [in the Narnia series] Father). She might have even thought the payment went to her, but it didn't. One could further argue that if anything was owed to the witch, it could not have been death, for only perfection (the Creator and and sustainer of the Law or "deep magic") could demand such a payment. If Satan can demand death as a sinner, what keeps me from being able to demand death from another who has sinned against me?
Your view gives Satan too much credit (he is a tempter more than a ruler [his lies might rule us, but he has no actual dominion--I am the prideful, doubting indulger]). The issue is with mankind who is created to glorify God, but raised (and IS raising) our collective middle finger at God--not only neglecting our primary duty of providing Him with glory and honor, but dishonoring and denying him. We choose sin and have entrenched ourselves in it, and we incur a growing debt to God, for he is the only creditor--either death (if debt not paid) or life (through the imputed righteousness of Christ [lamb without blemish] after our sins have been propitiated before God by him [lamb's blood on the mercy seat] expiated onto him [scapegoat]).
Some other thoughts:
I am reminded that it is faith that justifies, and so the faith of the people of Israel in the Atonement provided initiated forgiveness of sins. So, for Abraham, it was faith that justified, that be believed God. For the people of Nineveh, faith justified. Hmmm....interesting....
And, now our belief is to be in what God has done through Jesus Christ (Romans 1:16).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment