Christian salvation theology; why so complicated?

Great Debates
21

It’s not a matter of being glad. It’s a matter of being thankful. Thoughtful Christians understand the suffering and abhor the necessity, especially since the one paying the price had nothing to pay for. For me, what leaves me gobsmacked is that he would love me enough to do that for me. And awed and humbled, given that example before me.

We celebrate the resurrection, not the crucifixion.
And maybe so many folks get from the “kid” theology to the other by growing into an understanding that it isn’t quite that simple. “Jesus was a nice guy” is fine for five-year olds. Adults can handle something a little more complex.

22

So God can’t forgive a sin after a heartfelt request for atonement? He’s less powerful than the governor of a state?

Sacrifices were done for many reasons, but I don’t think salvation was one of them. (Asking forgiveness, yes, but that is different.)

In fact, I think I can prove that the contention that God cannot excuse sin without a penalty is logically absurd. Consider where sin comes from. It is a side effect of a moral code. Now, if sin did not arise from God, then morality did not arise from God either. If God created morals and sins, he can certainly modify them. Christians obviously believe this, since many sins from the OT no longer count. If God can eliminate a sin as a sin permanently, he can certainly eliminate it temporarily. None of this requires a penalty, a sacrifice, or anything else.

If God is constrained by a moral code and a moral calculus, at least in his dealings with humans, God cannot be the master of the moral code and calculus, and thus God is not all powerful, and is therefore not God.

None of this involves any logical contradictions - such as the rock too heavy junk - which I acknowledge do not limit God’s power. I see nothing logically contradictory about God granting salvation to a man who knows of Jesus, does not accept him as the savior, and commits some sins.

23

Except that, in that system:

  1. Judiasm doesn’t have any concept of any necessary grand atonement for all people. People can atone on their own just fine. So its a fix for something that someone had to invent as a problem in the first place.

  2. Judiasm explicitly forbids human sacrifices as something only evil pagans do (which perhaps is why pagans were more impressed by the idea than learned Jews).

  3. Ritual blood sacrifice is the LEAST important method of atonement anyway, the most trivial and least interesting to God.

24

That’s odd. This is the NLT version of Leviticus 1:1-5

1 The Lord called to Moses from the Tabernacle[a] and said to him, 2 “Give the following instructions to the people of Israel. When you present an animal as an offering to the Lord, you may take it from your herd of cattle or your flock of sheep and goats.
3 “If the animal you present as a burnt offering is from the herd, it must be a male with no defects. Bring it to the entrance of the Tabernacle so you** may be accepted by the Lord. 4 Lay your hand on the animal’s head, and the Lord will accept its death in your place to purify you, making you right with him.[c] 5 Then slaughter the young bull in the Lord’s presence, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, will present the animal’s blood by splattering it against all sides of the altar that stands at the entrance to the Tabernacle.

25

Christian attempts to read passages like that out of context and without full understanding of the entire system and development of the system (its modified by the prophets) have been, to say the least, not very convincing, at least to Jewish scholars. Yes, if you squint real hard and stand on one foot, maybe the passover lamb is about Jesus too. Except that there is no reason to read it more broadly and creatively than the text says.

Also, Jesus is not a goat.

26

Salvation theology is actually a different topic than atonement theology, although both are being combined in this thread.

There are a lot of views on salvation, and how we can obtain it. Some rely solely on the grace of God, and nothing we can do will achieve it. Others believe we have to simply believe in God, Jesus, and some basic tenets of Christian faith, and then we’ll be saved. Still others will say that we have to follow Jesus; that salvation is the result of a life of selflessness and sacrifice.

Atonement, on the other hand is really complicated, and I think that’s what we’re really talking about here.

While substitutionary atonement (Jesus was a perfect substitute for our sins; his death on the cross allowed God to forgive our sins) is the most popular one, there are actually two other dominant “theories” of atonement.

Substitutionary atonement is actually not the oldest view, but was formulated in the high Middle Ages by Anselm of Canterbury. This is now the official stance of the Catholic Church and in various forms, held by most evangelical and conservative Protestant churches. The reasoning is that God demands satisfaction for the sins committed against him, but nothing we can do will suffice; therefore, Christ had to die as a perfect substitute for our sins. This is often justified with appeal to the Hebrew scriptures, and considers Jesus as the perfect sacrificial lamb. As some posters have noted, however, most Jewish scholars consider this unconvincing.

The second most popular view, taught in most liberal and some moderate Protestant churches, is the “moral” theory of atonement. The idea is that Jesus, by giving himself to die on the cross, shows humanity the way of sacrifice and the way of selflessness, even unto death, is how we must live. The whole “WWJD” phenomenon, although most popular with evangelical teenagers who probably hold to the sacrificial substitutionary atonement theory, was actually the product of this liberal Christian view.

The third, and oldest, view, which is held by the Orthodox churches, is the “ransom” or “Christus victor” theory. The earliest version of this theory saw humanity as being held bondage by the devil, unable to escape because of our sinfulness. Jesus’ death was given to the devil as a ransom, so that we might be freed. Jesus’ resurrection ultimately showed that the devil did not have the last word, and that death could not contain him. Later versions deemphasized the ransom aspect because it portrayed God as striking a deal with the devil! Nowadays, many liberal Protestant churches teach a version of this combined with the moral theory, seeing Jesus’ life and death as God’s way of taking on everything the powers of earth could possibly dish out, and then emerging victorious through the resurrection, showing that we no longer need to fear following Jesus, because death and sin have been defeated.

I like the Christus victor view the most, but ultimately, all theories of atonement are the result of Christian views on why Jesus died. It was a shocking idea, and still is. If God was on Jesus’ side, then why would God allow him to be crucified? Thus, we get a lot of explanations, but none of them are perfect, and we should view them as imperfect, human rationalizations of the death of Jesus rather than concrete truth.

27

I agree that Jesus is not a goat.

However, substitution sacrifice seems to my untrained eye to be a part of the Mosaic Law.

With regard to the OP “Why did he have to die at all”, I think it is at least of some significance.

28

I don’t believe anyone suggested he was. But the concept of a living sacrifice in place and preceding the atonement was certainly there and was common and important to the Jewish religion at the time.

Regardless, Christians do not generally put Jesus’ death in the same category, which is why we never had such sacrifices.

However, this entire thread is rather ill-conceived, because it assumes one very incorrect idea: that Christians as a group have the same notion of why and how Jesus died for our sins. What they do agree on is that Jesus did die for our sins, and that, in some sense he wiped them out.

Various concepts of this have been proposed: jesus volunteered to pay the penalty for Mankind, Jesus took upon the dept of Mankind’s sins, Jesus’s holy death was given to humanity to wash them clean in his own blood, etc. We must repent perfectly, except that as now-flawed creatures we cannot do so, so Jesus repented for us.

What I think most of them have in common is the concept of God as the Lawgiver. As the Divine Law, He must create justice where injustice exists. And unfortunately, we are far on the wrong side of that Divine Law. We are stained in some way, or owe a dept (not a numerical, fiscal debt, but a moral one), and someone else has to make good the problem because we cannot.

For anything beyond, consult an actual priest or theologian.

29

To me it seems this way.

People need to know God in order to grow into immortality. God is an authority so great that fear of Him is inherent in the difference between Him, and me. But fear alone will not allow me to grow into immorality. The concept of forgiveness is there, but the understanding of the amount or completeness of forgiveness doesn’t reach my mortal level.

So, God becomes man. He lives, and is executed by the world. He speaks of His love for man even in His death. And He forgives us for killing Him. He has done what must be done to allow his Love to reach the hearts of sinners. He has done what must be done to make His love reach the hearts of legalists. He has done what must be done to reach the hearts of each soul in the world.

I don’t know if this is the ultimate irreverence, but He has done what must be done to save us from the Church itself. For it was because of religion that He died. When I seek Him, I have reason to give trust to him despite law, despite religion, and despite rational limits. The reason is love, and His love is demonstrated to reach beyond death, even to the ones who killed Him. And if I am one of those sinners, it means that I too can have faith in His love.

Tris

(He loves you. So do I, but that is a minor thing. :slight_smile: )

30

Sure, but it’s not the most important form, there’s nothing about it that that has anything to do with requiring some grand final sacrifice, and human sacrifice is explicitly forbidden. In fact, animal sacrifices are ALSO done away with later on (which is why Jews don’t practice them any longer).

The point is that Christians, faced with the death of their prophet, tried to rationalize that death onto something they thought tied back to Judaic law, and modern Christians also seem to think the case that it is is just plainly obvious and sensible. People made that very case in this thread. But in fact, in light of what Jewish law regarding sin sacrifices actually is, it’s not really all that sensible, and it’s only by drastically confusing what that system involved or was all about that the case is generally made.

31

If you assume God did it then, well, you can’t question the wisdom of God now can ya?

As for why in terms of history, because Christianity is the result of many strands of philosophy coming together, eventually outcompeting its rival salvation/mystery cults due to some of the features which to our modern logic makes no sense but, at the time, resonated with many people. If not Christianity then another would’ve taken hold due to the culture of the time.

32

Well, that’s nice of him, but I don’t recall killing him. Or indeed being involved in original sin. So it’s kinda like me forgiving you for stealing my hat - it’s a nice thing for me to do, but, uh, you didn’t steal my hat, so i’m pretty much in the wrong to hold you accountable.

33

Although I used to embrace it in these last few years there are things that really don’t make sense.

Basically as FriarTed explained Jesus physical death is seen as the final sacrifice for the sins of man. To explain it to myself I thought that in order for us to be with God death had to be conquered. There needed to be a bridge between us and God. Jesus lived a sinless life and so death had no hold on him. He conquered death and opened the door for the rest of us to do the same.
The sacrifices of the OT were to prepare people to understand the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus.

The thing that began to not make sense was this; If God is spirit and we are primarily spiritual beings rather than physical how could any physical act redeem us? How could the blood and body of Jesus, the physical fleeting part of our humanity, pay a spiritual debt?

The other thing that confused me was the traditional protestant salvation prayer. If you get someone to invite Jesus into their heart then they are saved. Really? How does that work? What happens after that? You can save a man from drowning but he still has a life to live after that right?
After someone invites Jesus into their hearts how Christlike are they expected to be? Really Christlike? Slightly Christlike? Better than average? How much sin are people still allowed to have in their live?
Does that mean that people of other religions or no religions who live good honest, loving, compassionate lives will go to hell because they didn’t openly accept Jesus as Savior , while Christians who behave badly have their sins forgiven because they have faith in Jesus. How is that just by any definition of the term?

That doesn’t make sense to me and I don’t believe that’s what Jesus teaches in the Bible. It’s become a traditional belief based on a few select and often repeated verses.

I lean toward what **baronsabato ** called the moral theory of atonement. Jesus was a living example of how we are to live, even unto death. We must value the eternal qualities of love and truth more than we value our physical well being. There is a process of spiritual growth as we continue to seek God and the kingdom of Heaven within ourselves.

34

Ok, I guess you’re off the hook, then.

Tris

35

He was a Capricorn, wasn’t he?

36

I’d like to apologize if I’ve ruffled any Christian feathers (hmm, is that a mixed metaphor of some sort?)… I was raised Christian in a Christian culture, so it’s practically an autonomic reflex to ridicule those portions of theology that I find opaque and unintelligible. But I don’t like it when folks make fun of my understandings when they don’t comprehend them, so I should extend the same respect I wish for my own beliefs.
I don’t think Jesus died for our sins. I think Jesus died as a direct consequence of our sins. We fucked up. Well, not literally you or me, but pretty damn mainstream people and typical bureaucrats and people of typical petty authority, the nature of which has persisted pretty well.

I do think Jesus set it up. I think he went to a bit of trouble to create a showdown between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. I am sure he hoped people would choose the spirit. I think he expected people would do so. Having it go the other way and getting killed in the process? A risk he was willing to take, I think, but totally not his intention.

I do not think Jesus was God in any sense that you and I are not. I do not think he considered himself to be God in any sense that other people around him were not, aside from being well aware that he realized it and that other people did not, and that they conceptualized divinity as something entirely apart.

As for original sin, the portion of the book of Genesis dealing with Adam, Eve, serpent, tree, and so forth is a heresy: the true divine presence in that story is clearly the snake, and the Lord God of the story a pompous human authority figure, not God in any sense that I could ever recognize and worship. It’s not even obscurely hidden. It is right to have the knowledge of good and evil; you must know the difference for yourself, see it for yourself, rather than having it spoon-fed to you. It is right to be curious. And so there is no original sin.

The forgiveness of God is perpetual anyway, whereas the justice of God is like the law of gravity: there is no vindictiveness or punitive spirit involved when you fall down and smash your knee, it’s just that the law of God, which in this case is the law of gravity, says that objects are attracted like so and fall like so, and if, in ignorance of the law or silly ignoring of it’s clauses, you do things that are ill-advised from the standpoint of the law of gravity, your knee is going to pay the price. Likewise if you ignore the law of God concerning forgiveness, charity, sharing, and not judging people, which is a law akin to the law of gravity: it’s simply how things work.
I don’t understand the conventional Christian belief-system. I don’t see how anyone could reach those conclusions aside from being directly exposed to teachers and preachers stating over and over that those are the proper conclusions to reach. I can’t make sense of them. I can’t find a God such as described by the conventional theology to be worship-worthy if the descriptions are accurate. It’s not pretty, it’s not elegant, it doesn’t fit into place and make sense. And I have no voice within me telling me these things are right, and in fact quite the contrary.

So it is not casually and lightly that I say I don’t count myself among your number. Meanwhile, I’m not averse to continuing to listen and learn more and give it more consideration. I do take the subject matter seriously.

37

The OP covers any and all faiths that adhere to the idea that the execution of Jesus was a necessary step in the salvation of humanity.

It’s perfectly comprehensible that the sun stood still for a day. I can believe it happened or didn’t happen, but it doesn’t leave me saying, ‘huh?’. Similarly with any miracle. The virgin birth, healing of leapers, raising of the dead, and resurrection are all intelligible, miraculous events that require faith to accept.

The ‘gift’ of salvation that requires acceptance is not a discrete event, it is a process in which certain necessary conditions must be met in order to bring about the sufficient condition.

There are various views on the necessary conditions, what they are, why they are necessary, etc. Personally, I don’t see why they are necessary at all. So I wanted to discuss the issue. It’s gone quite well.

I’ll grant that my OP lacked serious rigor. But I think the point was pretty clear, and the variety of responses indicates to me that it was not fatally glib or supercilious. I could have taken hours and hours to craft an extremely careful, extremely narrow OP that would have defined every term. That doesn’t seem necessary to me, I think you can understand what I’m getting at.

I offered two devices in the OP that were more parsimonious, I think. Here is another one: Jesus snapped his fingers and everyone was granted eternal life in heaven whether she liked it or not.

You’re right, I cannot demonstrate that my models would work. I don’t know why they wouldn’t, though. So why wouldn’t they? I sincerely hope that this clears up the issue I wanted to address, thanks for making me sharpen the OP.

38

Thanks for the coherent outline. It sounds valid to me, but the one thing that jumps out at me is the part in bold. Why not? Why not just let it slide? On Earth we do this all the time. I don’t see why it would be hard to do.

39

The point is, again, that you are demanding logic where it is simply not applicable. You are a human being, and yet pretend to know the mind of a being who, presumably, created the entire universe. To say that you would have gone about this salvation thing differently assumes that you know all there is to know about salvation, and the requirements for it’s achievement.

As to why your models wouldn’t work, who can say? But the fact that you don’t know why they wouldn’t hardly proves they would. You may as well ask an artist why he chose red over orange in a particular painting, complaining that red is more logical. Logic doesn’t enter in to it.

40

Does anyone find that type of sacrifice unhealthy? Its sort of Van Goughy: “I love you…have my chopped off ear.” It’s crazy behavior that makes matters worse. I’m thinking God, wanting to save mankind and change our behavior for the better, would offer some real pearls of wisdom…something really sagely that would hold up…even today. Human sacrifice is detrimental. Imagine a teacher who catches a young student stealing, then chopping off that students hand in front of the class. That kind of misguided brutality screws up people for life.