You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: If forgiveness has to be “paid for", then it isn't freely given.
Greetings, @euqreuqubla,
I've come across and begun reading your posts here, and must confess that I am struggling to understand what you are getting at.
No, not the part about Christian's misunderstanding anarchy - that has been obvious to me for some time - the part about atonement.
Are you arguing against the "satisfaction theory of atonement" that Wikipedia claims that Anselm promulgated?
Could you please clarify how you believe forgiveness actually works, what it truly means? Thank you!
Hi @creatr,
It was a hard concept for me to grasp at first too, even with someone better at explaining it than I am able to, explaining it to me. Thanks for your patience and bearing with me on it. In sum, the atonement claims that in order for God to be "just", He must punish sin. This is contrary to forgiveness, which demands no form of punishment. Forgiveness is the cancellation of an unpaid debt. If the debt gets paid, it can't be forgiven.
This obviously raises the question; "Then why should Jesus have died at all?" To which the answer is, "In order that we can believe in God's forgiveness".
Which is probably where it gets confusing.
To back up a little; in other words, if God needs or demands a form a "payment" in order to forgive sins, then forgiveness under such circumstances is not given freely. I am suggesting that God's forgiveness is completely free, and does not require a payment of any kind. Jesus' death, then, rather than appeasing GOD - was meant to appease "the Law", which according to the NT was "hostile" (cf. Colossians 2:14) and which caused feelings of guilt in the hearts and minds of people.
Which is not to say that people don't do wrong and evil things; it is just to say that God does not hold sins against people in the first place because He loves them, and where love is, there is no reckoning of evil or taking evil "into account" (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:5)
The doctrine of the atonement goes hand-in-hand with the extra-biblical doctrine of the trinity which mistakenly puts Jesus, a "man" (cf. John 8:40) in the place of God.
So the death of Jesus was necessary to put away the work of the "law" (of Moses), insofar as the law caused guilty feelings in the hearts and minds of the people. But more importantly, in reckoning the sins of the world in Jesus and then subsequently raising Jesus from the dead, this demonstration of God's forgiveness lights up the human heart and mind with anticipation of God's gift of eternal life in the coming kingdom. God does not hold human sins against them. We hold them against ourselves if we don't believe in the "good news" of God's forgiveness. Anselm's "good news" can only be understood in view of Anselm's "bad news" about God's legal demands. Which, again, were never demands of God but of the law of Moses, administrated by angels.
I will forego digging deeper into the weeds without first asking if any of that makes any sense to you. Thanks again for your patience.
Peace,
David
Hello David,
Thank you for your thorough response to my inquiry; I'm sorry to have taken so long to respond, but I'm still learning to "find my way around" on steemit, and it's only today that I found your reply.
At first blush, I think I disagree with this viewpoint, but I will re-read and consider what you've said. I will summarize my initial reaction by briefly stating my view and understanding of "atonement."
My reading of scripture leads me to believe that all sin must be atoned for - i.e., covered or absorbed or compensated for in an effective way. There are only two available options; either God, in the person of Jesus Christ, atones for the sin, or the individual sinner atones for his own sin.
As far as who Jesus is goes, if you do not believe he is God, then we are vast poles apart on that point...
Thanks again for your answer, I'll mull over it some more and (if I have anything else to say) possibly respond again later. :)
Hi creatr,
Well, I am apparently not learning to get around nearly as quickly as you! :-) I just now saw your reply from 6 DAYS AGO! My goodness, God could have re-created everything in as much time.
I understand your point of view about the options for "atoning" for sin, which is indeed poles apart from "forgiveness". Again, to "forgive" at all, it must be freely given; without payment. I think Jesus' blood functions, not as a payment "to God", as though somehow God has to have His forgiveness purchased, or bought off. Rather, I think Jesus' blood functions as a payment to"the law" - effectively appeasing what the law (not God) required. Hebrews 9:22 points this out when it says; "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Most tend to only read the last part of that verse without considering the first part which says "the law requires..."
Of course, where there is no law, there is no sin (cf. Romans 4:15)
Jesus' humanity is another conversation that I'd be happy to have, and is fact integral to understanding the atonement for what it is; humanity's only hope for immortality. Before you discount the notion altogether, I would at least give John 8:40 a read, as well as John 17:3, and really chew on those two.
Really appreciate you creatr. Thank you!
Peace,
David