If forgiveness has to be “paid for", then it isn't freely given.
In my last post I touched on the anarchistic leanings of God and how Christians don't get that about Him. In this post I am going to expound a little (again, with all due credit to my friend Robert Hach) on how modern day Christians worship a God that is the ultimate “legalist”.
The doctrine of the atonement, according to orthodox Christianity, basically says that in order for God to “forgive” sins, that they must somehow first be punished in order for God to remain “just”. The bizarre consequence of this theory is that in order for it to (supposedly) make sense, God must become a human being in the person of Jesus, so that He can “punish sin” by orchestrating a brutal vicarious death, and then “forgive sin” by raising Jesus from the dead.
The unavoidable result is a God, Who, is incapable of genuine forgiveness.
Forgiveness means the canceling of an unpaid debt. If the debt is paid, in any way, it cannot be “forgiven”. The logic behind the orthodox doctrine of the atonement finds its zenith in Anselm of Canterbury, who posits the doctrine of the atonement as though somehow it's spelled out that way in Scripture. This is not surprising given the love affair of the church with the State over history; often utilizing spiritual “law-breaking” as a means to political ends.
The point of all this is to say that in order for forgiveness to be real; to be genuine; to mean anything – it must be freely given.
Jesus did not have to die IN ORDER for God to forgive sins, where otherwise His hands were tied. Rather, Jesus had to die AND BE RAISED UP in order for us humans to believe in God's forgiveness! If Jesus' death is a vicarious atoning sacrifice for our sins, then his resurrection is a sign of our justification before God.
“He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. (Romans 4:25)
The reason so many Christians feel a lack of ease at the idea of God's “forgiveness” is because at the end of the day, they have to consider that it cost an innocent man his life. This guilt-laden sense of God's “justice” also reveals a God Who first and foremost demands vengeance. In this law-centered theology, judgment is the priority over love. In the revelation of Scripture, however, we are told that; “Mercy triumphs over judgment” (cf. James 2:13)
Be reconciled to God, and know that His forgiveness of your sins (if, you are truly sorry for them) is guaranteed, secure, and FREE!
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
God's ways are sometimes veiled in mystery, and that's okay because our faith compensates for what we don't know. Ultimately what matters is that we have eternal life through Christ, one way or the other.
Hi @groundbreaker,
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with you in a sense, but I also believe that God's revelation (Greek = apocolypso), must correspond to human understanding. Indeed there are things human beings will never know (cf. Deuteronomy 29:29). But what human beings CAN know has been "revealed" (apocolypso) to them. Even Jesus himself needed a revelation from God to him (cf. Revelation 1:1).
Peace,
David