Salvation Theory (diversity of)

[Tiassa]

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/atonement.htm

I'll note here that this page is an excellent summary of the history of Salvation; the diversity of theories describing the process of redemption, atonement, and salvation has caught even me off guard. Obviously, many of these theories have fallen well off the track of history: strangely, theories like the Socinian and Governmental notions, which worked more on observable details, have faded the most from memory.

From the castrato Origen to the quirky Anselm and beyond, there's a plethora of methods by which one might redeem their soul.

On the one hand, we might see here an historical progression of theological ideas, much as we see in other disciplines of subjective evidence: history, philosophy, &c. To the other, though, is the notion that the Bible should have been "complete" (note the article's third paragraph, which contradicts this), and the idea that apparently the Biblical message is so clear that it has to be revised according to modernity and the philosopher's affectation (this latter is almost unavoidable, and the former is no simple riddle, either).

This is the lighter side of what I mean when I'm railing at Christians to clean up [their] own house first. Whereas I generally rail against the larger offenses--cultural threats, murderous rhetoric, &c.--I feel that much of these detrimental aspects of the religion will melt away when the faithful finally resolve their theology and what it means functionally. In the meantime, it seems a matter of how each individual defines God and the Biblical message, and while this is generally fine, it is my understanding that such a condition is inappropriate for Biblical faith.

Thus I present the article link above, and a general question to the faithful:

* Do any of these theories represent what you have learned of redemption?

* Does faith include familiarity with the personal and historical conditions of a theological idea's developing mind?

* How does one, in the modern faith climate, resolve the issue of clarity amid myriad interpetations of what is supposed to be quite clear?

And other questions of perspective. It seems that with so much work done in the past, it's all a waste of time: modern faith rejects old solutions out of hand in many cases, which speaks to a transitory and evolving--that is, not fixed--nature of God's message. This seems a relatively unorthodox result, and makes little functional sense to observe: it seems more an act of fancy.

Commentary and response, obviously, are encouraged. But there it is, in all its two-cent glory.

thanx,
Tiassa

Edit note: I have reworded the second question italicized above; it was dreadfully vague, then, and merely akward now.

 

[Deadwood]

I'll try to write my thoughts down as I read your site. It is a fairly big page. Then give my final thoughts, if I finish today. Just bare with me.

OK Ransom theory.

I think there may be more to it then what the webpage states. I say this because in the Old Testament it was not Satan who demanded reperation for sins but Almighty God. So I am not sure about a deal. Also, I am not sure about God tricking Satan, because God doesn't deceive. Simple as that. However, God could use Satans own stupidity against him.

Here is another verse, similar to the verse referenced on the webpage.

Hebrew 9:15
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

The bible says that Christ is the only mediator between God and Man. Not God and Satan, or Man and Satan

1 Timothy 2:5

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Ok Satisfaction theory

For me the 2nd paragraph of the Satisfaction theory is closer to the mark.

In the first end of the first paragraph God chose the latter method because a certain amount of men needed to be saved to replace the number of angels who fell from heaven.

Interesting. Couldn't agree, but couldn't neccessarly throw it out either. I can't think of any bible verses that would neccessarlily prove or disprove that theory.

Tiassa Paragraph 2 is most probably what I have been trying to say to you about how we are created. however, I havn't really gone into great detail about original sin. but what I do know is that you don't have to teach a child to be selfish or covet over another childs toys. This could indirectly lead to proof that there is original sin. Or that we are born with the sinful nature. But what I do know is that God demands a sacrifice for sins, as in Leviticus and Deutoronomy.

Moral Influence theory

He did not agree that Jesus’ death served to satisfy God’s wounded honor, but saw the atonement as the perfect example of God’s love for man. He emphasized the divinity of Christ.

This goes even closer to what I believe.

Christ showed us that God is not against us. He demonstrated through His suffering and death God’s great desire to relate to us in our pain and suffering. When sinners view God’s love for us through Christ, they will be compelled to cast off their fear of God, and fellowship with Him as was originally intended.

I find this statement to be again close to what I believe.

Socinian Theory—Atonement as Example

This theory seems to come away from and can not explain other scripture.

Scriptural support for this view is found in Peter’s statement to the scattered churches: "To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" (I Peter 2:21). John’s injunction to believers to walk as Jesus walked also demonstrates the fact that Jesus’ life is a pattern to follow (I John 2:6).

I believe that the statement to the scattered churches was to live as Jesus lived and strive to become more Christ like. to be a desciple is to follow. Therefore, we should walk in the ways of our Saviour, but also believe that He died for our sins, as basically every book in the New Testament tells and instructs us. To believe in all of this theory would be stepping on thin ice, because if ou don't believe that Jesus died for your sins, then scripture tells us you are not definitely saved. The other theories before this one did as far as I know instruct believers to believe that Christ died for our sins. Therefore, I see this view as dangerous. But there may be more than what the web page states.

Governmental Theory—Demonstration of Divine Justice

This one is interesting. however, I think greater reading into it is neccessary to come to a conlusion.

Penal-Substitution

This view of the atonement was primarily popularized by the Reformers. They agreed with Anselm that sin was very serious, but they saw sin as breaking the law of God, rather than merely wounding His honor.5 God’s law is holy. The infringement of God’s law brings God’s wrath ad curse on the evildoers. To avert the wrath of God, Christ took the sinner’s place, making an atonement for their sins. Instead of us receiving death for our sins, Christ tasted death for everyone, that they might experience life.

I agree that sin is very serious. I agree that sinning is breaking the law of god as layed our in the five books of Moses, The Torah.

God’s law is holy.

I agree that God's law is holy.

I basically agree with everything in this passage. Except by saying Christ tasted death for everyone. I would have to say that Christ only tasted death for those who believe and put their faith in Him.

Neoorthodox

Again, interesting. Need more reading to come to a conclusion.

I think that what people believe today, contains parts of each, but not contradicting or forgetting or ignoring scripture. Thanks for the sight Tiassa. It was very interesting.

 

[Tiassa]

Deadood ...

Thank you much for your thoughts on the subject. I must admit that Socinian theory intrigued me; I agree that the definitions in the article are somewhat scant.

I believe that the statement to the scattered churches was to live as Jesus lived and strive to become more Christ like. to be a desciple is to follow. Therefore, we should walk in the ways of our Saviour, but also believe that He died for our sins, as basically every book in the New Testament tells and instructs us. To believe in all of this theory would be stepping on thin ice, because if ou don't believe that Jesus died for your sins, then scripture tells us you are not definitely saved. The other theories before this one did as far as I know instruct believers to believe that Christ died for our sins. Therefore, I see this view as dangerous. But there may be more than what the web page states.

Turns out there's a good bit of history behind Sociniansim; I'm giving the following article a read. Copyright conditions demand that the text be reproduced in whole, and well, that's not practical here, so I offer the link: http://www.logon.org/english/s/p185.html

Socinianism actually trickles through history to have some impact in the formative history of the United States, so it naturally has me somewhat fascinated. But I think I get what you're saying about the salvation aspect of the Scripture ignored, but therein lies a small part of the reason I posted this thread in the first place. Not Socinian theories per se but that even those theories that fall more within your Scriptural comfort do overlap and contradict in certain ways based solely on the limitations of their Scriptural support. You'll note people were put to death for anti-Trinitarianism: this is not my usual bit about murderous this and that. I mention the executions because they are direct evidence of that lighter side I referred to: had there been better consensus regarding Scripture, people wouldn't have been put to death because the faith would be considerably more unified and refined. Or, I suppose ... so says I.

Tiassa Paragraph 2 is most probably what I have been trying to say to you about how we are created. however, I havn't really gone into great detail about original sin. but what I do know is that you don't have to teach a child to be selfish or covet over another childs toys. This could indirectly lead to proof that there is original sin. Or that we are born with the sinful nature. But what I do know is that God demands a sacrifice for sins, as in Leviticus and Deutoronomy.

Is Jesus Christ that sacrifice, then?

Man needed someone qualified who could make an infinite satisfaction to God. Since God alone is infinite, only He could make such satisfaction. But if satisfaction was to be of any avail to man, man would have to be involved also. This necessitated the incarnation of God. As the God-man, Jesus Christ, in offering His life to God on behalf of man, went beyond that which was required of Him because He was sinless and had no need of death. Christ’s death brought satisfaction to God’s wounded honor for all of mankind/

It seems, if Christ is that sacrifice, that the purpose of life becomes to know God and to live by God's law through that increasing knowledge of what it is: e.g.--Spencerism, Darwinism: what does and doesn't make sense about it, whether humanity is subject to these processes described or can elect a separate path ... in terms of the child--this is not sin, this is the beginning of primal survival instinct. Or, at least, that's how I think of it. To draw straight across the gap, then, it would seem that our sense of sin is that we are not born knowing everything we need to know to worship God and why one worships God. From there, I'm tempted to spiral for the benefit of the many tangents I could find. Suffice to say, somebody's going to have to explain to me something about the historical phenomenon, then, of Christianity compelling its subjects to behave according to the one thing God can't cope with, blaspheming his name for his glory. I didn't mean to editorialize so much here, so I'll skip the detail. I will also admit that the Socinian history has me thinking in more removed terms right now; I'm more prone to seeing the historical implications of such ideas than the present application. It is not actually my intent today to argue with you about your thoughts on redemption. I will note, though, that I have mentioned so many times what I think is so dangerous about the concept of original sin. So here we find my ramblings on redemption once again reduced to a single notion: I thought nothing happened without God's say-so. To me, Genesis reads like a set-up. We exist estranged from God--as the notion goes--but only because God willed that it should be that way. On the one hand, original sin is a critical fault in the redemption scheme--I'm sorry, it really does sound extortionist, given the scope of God. To the other, if it is assumed, then it seems to motivate, over the longer term, the sentiment of expecting the worst of people. The spectre of having broken a subjective law, of having served your debt to society, and still being treated poorly for your crimes, is not only one of the reasons I'm so critical of human law, but is also something I find derivative of Christianity. Whether or not the United States was founded as a Christian nation (as has been asserted somewhere in the archives of Sciforums) we cannot deny that Christianity in its various forms touches all corners of our map and dominates it. Decency laws reflect Christian standards, and occasionally the more vocal factions of American society will voice a sense of persecution as freedom is rolled back to include freedom. (Sure, I understand that people don't like this or that word, or feel such overwhelming guilt at the potential of their thoughts when seeing a topless woman on the streets that they must insist on a standard of "decency". But that's not free, when freedom is limited to one set of standards.) So much of Christianity lends itself to the low self-esteem of being born a sinner and obsesses itself with personal considerations of redemption. I cannot express to you how damaging the ramifications of original sin are on the functionality of society.

Okay, I'm wandering about the topic now, so I'll stop. Coincidentally, and as a last note, my iTunes is playing Tomorrow Wendy by Concrete Blonde:

I told the priest,
"Don't count on any second coming.
God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming.
He had the balls to come the gall to die and then forgive us.
No I don't wonder why, I wonder what he thought it woulld get us."

and also this reflection:

But God says jump,
so I set the time
'cause if He ever saw it
it was through these eyes of mine
and if He ever suffered
it was me who did His crying...

But these thoughts apparently written upon the occasion of the death of a friend to AIDS. Truly, I wouldn't have even mentioned it if it wasn't playing right as I got to the second I mentioned it.

The first passage is obvious in its sentiments; something about the second just strikes me in the sense of the sacrifices we make for God.

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[Deadwood]

Again, I'm not sure if I can answer to all of your response Tiassa, because I am not sure if I willl have enough time. However, I don't think I'll be coming here for a couple of days, so I'm not sure if you will get a quick response.

I mention the executions because they are direct evidence of that lighter side I referred to: had there been better consensus regarding Scripture, people wouldn't have been put to death because the faith would be considerably more unified and refined. Or, I suppose ... so says I.

Also, I think that people would have noted more that it is not right either to execute people under the New Covenent.

Is Jesus Christ that sacrifice, then?

Yes, Jesus is the sacrifice for all of our sins. He is the only one who can atone for our sins. In the epistle of Hebrews it states that the sacrifices of lambs, sheep, cattle etc were only a shadow of what were to come. You can also take note that these animals that were sacrificed must have been without blemish. Jesus was without blemish and perfect in every way. You may find it interesting to do a bible study of Hebrews? Thats only of course if you wish to persue such a study. I just think that you would find it interesting and informative.

It seems, if Christ is that sacrifice, that the purpose of life becomes to know God and to live by God's law through that increasing knowledge of what it is:

Yes, the purpose of life is to know God. To have fellowship with him also. However, when you say by God's law I think you are thinking the mosaic law as given to moses. Jesus is the fulfillment of that law. Thus we now live by the law of the spirit. Grace (defined as, undeserved free gift). To know more about this. I suggest reading the epistle of Romans. It deals a lot with the law and how the Christian lives.

It seems, if Christ is that sacrifice, that the purpose of life becomes to know God and to live by God's law through that increasing knowledge of what it is: e.g.--Spencerism, Darwinism: what does and doesn't make sense about it, whether humanity is subject to these processes described or can elect a separate path ... in terms of the child--this is not sin, this is the beginning of primal survival instinct. Or, at least, that's how I think of it.

I am not totally sure what you meant here. Is the process that you are speaking of, to know God and live by His law? If it is then by my belief, yes humanity does have a choice to obey or not to obey on an indivudual level as well. However, you can not elect to choose a seperate path. Like for instance another religion. However, I would think that if someone were to never here of Jesus Christ and His Gospel and what the Gospel means and can do, then they may go to heaven. No man or woman living today could even begin to contemplate that they know how God works. You will find He is more compassionate then what you think. However, if you reject Him in this life, then you will reject Him in the next also. I cannot just be sure of what God will judge. Because unlike the current justice system. god works on a personal case by case basis.

Read the excerpt of the scripture of what Lawdog wrote in the anti-antichrist doctrine because I don't know specifically where that scripture is located.

Also, yes in the evolutionary sense, it would be called primal instinct. However, in the bibles creation sense, it would be called fallen into sin. Since we are all descended from Adam and Eve, our bodies are not born perfect as they would be without sin.

Lets make a purely hypothetical arrangement and say that Adam and Eve were perfect but Cain ate from the tree of knowledge, and Abel didn't. I would think that Cain's descendents would be born into the sinful nature. However, Abels children would still be without sin, unless they to ate from the tree. But that is purely hypothetical and carries nothing about what the church believes it is just a theory of mine. However, I am sure many would agree.

OK now I have to leave you. Probably for a couple of days. I'll try and finish the rest next time.

Thanks.

 

[Sir. Loone]

To the Glory of God!

Amen Deadwood! Created to know GOD, to the Glory of GOD!
The word of GOD in the hands of one that has the Spirit of GOD is a powerful guiding light! So let your light so shine among men! To see your good works!

 

[Deadwood]

Please read this as a continuation of the first post and not as a completely different post. Thanks.

Following on exactly from what I have said. You should also take note that the angels who sinned do not get a second chance. Contrary to humans (except Adam and Eve) they were all created totally free from sin. There bodies were bodies. And from the scriptures hintings two thirds of the angels still are. One third are demons, they are not perfect, but have disobeyed God's law, with no escape. Unlike humans, who have sinned, God set up a plan to redeem us. That is, if we decide to go back and follow Him.

It is generally agreed that the first sin was pride.

Here is a passage for your interest. It is directed to the ruler of Tyre but it seems to depict Satan. I will put in this passae, and then a passage just before it, which tells more about who Satan is and what he did.

Ezekiel ch 28 vs 11-18

12
"Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: `This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "`You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13
You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.
14
You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
15
You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.
16
Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.
17
Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings.
18
By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries. So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching.

Ezekiel ch 28 vs 1 - 11.

1
The word of the LORD came to me:
2
"Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, `This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "`In the pride of your heart you say, "I am a god; I sit on the throne of a god in the heart of the seas." But you are a man and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god.
3
Are you wiser than Daniel? Is no secret hidden from you?
4
By your wisdom and understanding you have gained wealth for yourself and amassed gold and silver in your treasuries.
5
By your great skill in trading you have increased your wealth, and because of your wealth your heart has grown proud.
6
"`Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: "`Because you think you are wise, as wise as a god,
7
I am going to bring foreigners against you, the most ruthless of nations; they will draw their swords against your beauty and wisdom and pierce your shining splendor.
8
They will bring you down to the pit, and you will die a violent death in the heart of the seas.
9
Will you then say, "I am a god," in the presence of those who kill you? You will be but a man, not a god, in the hands of those who slay you.
10
You will die the death of the uncircumcised at the hands of foreigners. I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.'"
11
The word of the LORD came to me:

You can read from these passages that Satan to was once beautiful and without sin. God thought of him highly. Satan too was once perfect, though he isn't now, becasue of sin. Just like us.

Suffice to say, somebody's going to have to explain to me something about the historical phenomenon, then, of Christianity compelling its subjects to behave according to the one thing God can't cope with, blaspheming his name for his glory.

Yes, many false teachers and prophets have gone out into the world. No genuine teacher of Christ would compel their congregation to blaspheme god to His glory, if that is possible. Throughout history there has been many human atrocities carried out by Christians. I agree with you here. But our two notions of how and why this happened are both different. I think that you think that somehow God wanted these events to occur. But I cannot find proof of this anywhere. But I have just thought of one reason why while typing.

You see in Roman Catholic doctrine, the Pope is held as infallible. As in everything he says is as if it is coming straight from God Himself. I have held this notion to be extremely dangerous if someday the wrong Pope was elected and created a huge shambles as doctrines which are contrary or not in the bible are still held by Roman Catholics, because of the infallibility rule (yet the first Pope , St Peter was rebuked by St Paul, which does not sound infallible, as well as this St Peter was married, which again is a rule that Priests let alone Popes could not marry) from the brackets you can see why such doctrines are a bit eerie and can certainly be dangerous!

You see the 'subjects' as you call them (for simplicities sake) probably would have thought that what the Pope was saying would have been coming directly, as if from God. I have given you to my knowledge biblical proof, that a Pope is not infallable. Perhaps Pauls rebuke of Peter was specifically put in by God, to prevent such a doctrine, because He alone is holy! It is Christ who makes us holy!

I will note, though, that I have mentioned so many times what I think is so dangerous about the concept of original sin.

Ok, even without original sin, we I have still sinned. So have you, so has Sir Loone. But perhaps you might agree that even without original sin, we are still born with the sinful nature?

To me, Genesis reads like a set-up. We exist estranged from God--as the notion goes--but only because God willed that it should be that way. On the one hand, original sin is a critical fault in the redemption scheme--I'm sorry, it really does sound extortionist, given the scope of God.

We were not always estranged from God, it was only after Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Thus, what I am saying is that it was God's will to give us free will to choose. With freedom comes responsibility. If every time they were going to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and God suddenly came and stopped them each time so they could never touch it, wouldn't that be contradicting free will. Just as I stated up top. All of the angels were created pure, perfect and blameless. It was their choice to marr that.

But that's not free, when freedom is limited to one set of standards

Yes, I can see the implications that that notion would put on your view of Genesis. But have you also heard the other old adage. "one rule for me, one rule for you"? No one would like it if the law said you couldn't steal, but this one can. Or you cannot commit adultery, but this one can. Perhaps I am taking it to extremes but I hope you catch my drift. Though life does deal each person a different set of cards, the rules to the poker game are still the same. (hehe, not only did I speak metaphorically, but I also made the last bit rhyme )

Therefore, if the rules state you cannot cheat you cannot cheat (just remembering the last game of backgammon I had with my little brother about 6-8 years ago, when I was beating him so bad that during the game he said that if I wouldn't let him cheat he was going to quit and never play me again. You guessed it, we havn't played since, and I still live with him. )

So much of Christianity lends itself to the low self-esteem of being born a sinner and obsesses itself with personal considerations of redemption.

But as a Christian, it is so nice to be free from all that. Do I really make ou feel bad? That was not my intention.

But these thoughts apparently written upon the occasion of the death of a friend to AIDS. Truly, I wouldn't have even mentioned it if it wasn't playing right as I got to the second I mentioned it.

Tiassa, that ok, I know you didn't mention it just to attract sympathy. I myself have never experienced the death of a human friend. However, I still think about past relatives and my old family pets, one of whom, would have turned 2 a week ago. I didn't mention it before, but this is why I don't express sorrow at physical stuff. Because all physical stuff reminds me of my pet who was supposed to be 2, so I try to block it all out. I like to think about him, but just not what made him die. Probably sounds stupid to you, but thats just the way I am. So there is more to me than what you think, that brings us closer to why I said for you to stop branding me, and thinking I am some uncompassionate bastard. I'm not asking for sympathy either, just don't want to be branded something I am not.

BTW, I wish I could have told you this earlier, but the Cambodians know the cure for aids. There is a song which contains all of the fruits that you need. You know the song you know the cure. My best friends Cambodian, and his father cured someone close to their family of aids. Also, if you have cancer, shark fin is supposed to be good.

Thanks