garvey0 said:
I've enjoyed reading your posts in this thread and I know you stated that you didn't want to discuss this further on the board, and I don't need for you to respond to this. I just wanted to loosely base my post off of this particular paragraph that you wrote. I think you bring up some valid points and remind us that we need to put the scriptures above these more modern analogies we've created.
I, too, am not totally comfortable with the whole "judicial" focused view. However, I do believe that that view and your view are essentially the same yet the language is adjusted to appeal to different cultural bents and personality types.
I agree that God didn't have to sacrifice Jesus in order to forgive our sins, but He chose to do it that way for a number of reasons. Keep in mind, Jesus Himself did state that he was giving Himself "as a ransom for the life of the world." Furthermore, Isaiah states: "He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed." Also, the fact that the guilty jesus barabbas was released and the innocent Jesus of nazereth was crucified was a clear living metaphor from God to demonstrate Jesus dying in the guilty man's place. They even had the same first name. However, I do agree with you in your discomfort regarding the whole thing characterized as some sort of legal loophole. I just think that it is one of many characterizations that appeal to certain people's understanding. As long as the message is getting out there that Jesus gave His life so that we could live, I can tolerate a number of different illustrations even if I personally find them to be slightly flawed in the analogy they make.
The important thing is that we don't rely too heavily on these analogies and go back to the Bible which is the source material for all of these doctrines.
|
I am of the belief that, from a Protestant perspective, if you start to move away from Reform Theology and end up doing the Evangelical selective sampling, you lose things. I may not agree with the total depravity that Reform Theology speaks of (it considers people dung piles who are only seen as righteous, because God looks at Jesus instead of them), but I will say at least it attempts to account for everything related to salvation, even if it is more tidy than how real life works. Also, there is an obsession in the West to turn people to be like Adam again, and return to the Garden. I believe that Eastern Orthodox Theology, which didn't get shaped by Augustine, doesn't go down this path. The East isn't about returning to the Garden, but to advance forward into the Kingdom, and something new, and fullfill the Law as it was written, in ways that matter that God wanted. My take is everyone is born as Adam, with maybe some defects, but natural like Adam. There is the curse of existence here, and natural people have a hard time making it. I believe the East identifies salvation as not restoring to Adam, but Theosis, which is to become more like God (Reform theology this would be glorification).
There is a judicial side of things in it. It is just the west is HEAVILY judicial in its view of things. In the evangelical form of the Christian faith, this is what it preaches, and then you get this pardon. From there, you and Jesus are best buds forever. I do wonder, when Jesus and the person who has a "personal relationship" with him go out for lunch, who picks up the tab. Of course, one does a bunch of scriptural distortion to end up making the Bible say this. It is selective sampling of texts to make it so. The American form of evangelical Christianity makes it also a personal thing and nor corporate (forgetting the where two or three are gathered in my name). The idea there is a corporate form of knowing Jesus is foreign. This shows how there has been a cultural bias put on theology. Without tradition, and saying "this is what we always have had" and able to trace its origins, and the why, you get this. This goes for the prosperity gospel and others to.
Ok, let me give you my take on this (my as in this is what I hold now). The whole entire death and resurrection of Christ acted as collateral to insure that what God wanted to done in the form of the New Testament, and the Church. God trusts this to Jesus, and is able to forgive the debt, because the promise of righteousness through Christ is made it possible. The resurrection is a showing that death has been overcome, there is a newness here.
A reason why I had said not here is because what I write on really is foreign to people here. And when I am seeing someone write that they think people who believe there is a God have screws loose, you don't exactly have a friendly audience. Anyhow, I do write this because the thread was about what Christianity is about, and that lends to theology being discuss. It is up for each person to decide for themselves if what I write reflects what the Christian faith is, and then whether or not it is true. I believe the former can be arrived at. As for the later, it would depend on what one trusts as a canon to measure things by, and how it lines up.
(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective 
