What is the gospel message?

[Mark Metcalfe]

Okay folks, an exercise:

Before you read anyone else's response, hit Reply and type a
brief explanation of the gospel. After you have submitted your
reply, read and respond to others as you will.

Mark

P.S. Try to explain the gospel without using Scripture, but certainly
have your explanation be Scriptural. For example, don't just quote
John 3:16.

[Ian Gentles]

That no -one can come to the Father but through Jesus, Who paid the price that all can enter into the Fathers presence.

[Brad Mercer]

Okay folks, an exercise:

Before you read anyone else's response, hit Reply and type a
brief explanation of the gospel. After you have submitted your
reply, read and respond to others as you will.

Mark

P.S. Try to explain the gospel without using Scripture, but certainly
have your explanation be Scriptural. For example, don't just quote
John 3:16.

Gospel means Good News. The good news is that the worst thing you've ever done, or that has ever been done to you, doesn't define you, and isn't the last word about you. The good news is that the one who knows you best, loves you most. The good news is that you are worth more than many sparrows. You are fearfully and wonderfully made. We are joint heirs with the crown prince. You are made for love. You are worth loving, and someone wonderful does. Your true love's love for you is even now transforming you into someone who is able to give love fearlessly and unreservedly and joyfully and transformingly and redemptively. His love for you is making you like him in all the ways you admire. You were created to give and to receive love that is safe and appropriate and deep and intimate and honest and open and affirming and liberating and thrilling. Your own love story is the story of someone wonderful who found you when you were unloved and unloving and unsuspecting of your true identity and your true destiny. He found you and adopted you and regenerated you and showed you who you really are and who he really is and you adore him and he adores you. He's the strongest and most beautiful person you've ever seen and the older you get, the more you remind other people of him.

Only, the good news is way better than that, and there's way more than that, but I don't have the words for it, and besides, neither of us would believe half of it even if we had the words. But the Gospel is good news. It's really, really, good news. And you're due some.

Love,
Brad

[Sharon Isley]

The gospel news is that though we have all been separated from God because of our sins - our desire to be the rule maker and to have things our way - Jesus came to bridge that gap. Our sinfulness kept us from His presence, but because of Jesus, we can be forgiven, have our sinful desire to be in charge taken from us, and be in an intimate relationship with our God, as we were created for.

[Bruce Carriker]

God created us in his image meaning that we are, among other things, eternal spiritual beings enduring a temporary physical existence. God desires a relationship with humankind that transcends this existence, and that relationship is made available to us through Jesus Christ.

[Bruce Carriker]

Luke 1: 46-55

And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me— holy is his name. His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation. He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever, even as he said to our fathers."

Luke 4: 16-21

He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

[Marsha Lynn]

From the thread that spawned this question (I presume):

The gospel in a nutshell:

God loves you (here, today, as you are, because he sees past all the masks and facades and baggage and sin that others see as part of your identity and looks into your very core of cores and finds value in who and what you are) and invites you into relationship with himself. He loves you so much that he sent his only Son to open the door to such a relationship. The possibilities of what you can become as a result of that relationship are absolutely astounding and limitless. All you need to do is accept that invitation knowing that it will cost you nothing and yet everything. You will never regret that decision.

[Mark Metcalfe]

What's good for the goose... here is my attempt before reading other
people's messages:

The good news of Jesus Christ is that every person is either in or out
of relationship with God, and that no one can reach God by his or her
own effort. But God - because He loves His creation - can reach us
and reaches for us even now. His arms are outstretched towards us
but we must respond (reach back). The response to God is the desire
and ensuing act of knowing Him better; to enter into communion.
This is not an equal partnership; although God is our Friend, He is
God and we are not. We can be comforted that God is love and
desires us to enjoy His companionship.

The technical side of this relationship has to do with sin - its presence
and eradication. Sin is un-love; it is selfish, even when it doesn't seem
to harm others. Love is selfless. Sin and love are incompatible.

Every person sins. We can't help it. Because sin and love are incompatible,
something has to be done about the problem of sin. That's where Jesus
Christ comes into the picture. Sin incurs a penalty of separation from
love. That is why we cannot reach God. However, love reaches down
into sin and lifts you out. Jesus did not have any sin in Him, and yet
he experienced the penalty of sin in our place to spare us from that
separation. He could do this for more than one person because He
is the Son of God.

Jesus' sacrifice can be rejected, and many people do. If we reject that
sacrifice, then we reject the remedy for our sin (and are without hope
of reconciliation with God). However, if we accept what Jesus did for
you and me, our debt is paid and we can begin to know more and more
about the Loving God that searched us out to remedy our sorry state
and free us for relationship with Him.

There is more, much more; just as a relationship grows over the years,
God has a lot in store for us. But the good news is that we need not
be lost in our sin! We can accept God's gift and remedy and start a
new life with Him.

Mark

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

P.S. Try to explain the gospel without using Scripture, but certainly
have your explanation be Scriptural. For example, don't just quote
John 3:16.

First, I don't think there is a truly valid understanding of the gospel without the foundation of Scripture.

But, for the sake of discussion:

God created human beings for the sake of having relationship with himself. Humans rejected that relationship and became alienated from God. However, God has provided a way of restoration by coming to this world and making reconciliation to himself possible in the person of Jesus Christ.

[Mark Metcalfe]

First, I don't think there is a truly valid understanding of the gospel without the foundation of Scripture.

But, for the sake of discussion:

God created human beings for the sake of having relationship with himself. Humans rejected that relationship and became alienated from God. However, God has provided a way of restoration by coming to this world and making reconciliation to himself possible in the person of Jesus Christ.

To clarify, I certainly want replies to be scriptural; I hope to avoid the
jargon that comes with being in church circles forever. Jargon implies
that everyone knows what I mean to say. We know this is not always
the case. An illustration.

Back in the 70s, there was an altar call at a rock band church. Walter
MacPherson was there to pray with the young people (hippies, some
of them). He said, "Are you ready to leave this old world behind?" The
young man didn't know whether the old man was going to shoot him
or what.

Mark

[Mark Metcalfe]

I was hoping that at least the Preachers on NazNet would respond to this thread.

[Brian Hammons]

God loves us so much and wants to have a personal relationship with us so much that He provided His Son Jesus as a sacrifice for our sins so we can know Him intimately and personally. Maybe even more simply, God loves you and has a plan for your life. BTW, not exactly an original thought.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I was hoping that at least the Preachers on NazNet would respond to this thread.

What am I? Corned Beef?:bannana

[Ian Gentles]

LOL Scott, was wondering what I was as well ?

[Hans Deventer]

LOL Scott, was wondering what I was as well ?

And Brad is a preacher too, as is Sharon.

[Gina Stevenson]

... I just understood that Mark [perhaps?] was speaking of the "oldtimers" here ... rather than the "younger baby-boomer pastors," eh?

Unless I missed it, there aren't those who are perhaps wise enough to sit back and let those currently "in the thick of things" give their interpretation(s) before speaking up, eh? Perhaps he was speaking of those in his dad's generation ... ?? ;)

Did I guess right ... or not?

[Barb Bouldrey]

The gospel...the good news that God sent His only Son to be born of a virgin, to die on a cross and resurrect so that every person has the choice and opportunity to be made right with God through asking forgiveness of their sins.

[Mark Metcalfe]

What am I? Corned Beef?:bannana

No. Thank you for your response.
My note was not directed at preachers who already responded.

I don't think that many people today (mostly non-Christians, and some
Christians) know why Jesus was sacrificed - why it was necessary that
Jesus died and was resurrected. (I am serious about this.) We explain
that a sacrifice was necessary but don't always tell why it was necessary.
The gospel message is useless without Christ crucified. Why was it necessary
that Jesus had to die? Weren't His teachings about love good enough, if
I follow them? Wasn't His demonstration of love good enough to emulate?
Couldn't God accomplish His love in us and reconcile us to Him without
Jesus dying?

Mark

[Hans Deventer]

Couldn't God accomplish His love in us and reconcile us to Him without Jesus dying?

I don't know. I agree with what Jirair Tashjian wrote at http://www.crivoice.org/jesusdeath.html

Conclusion

I began this essay with the question as to whether the death of Jesus was historically contingent or divinely foreordained. It seems to me that the answer is that the death of Jesus was brought about through human decisions and therefore it is historically contingent. Survey of material from and about the historical Jesus indicates that social, political and religious forces were at work to bring Jesus to his violent death. At the same time, however, Jesus was not simply the victim of circumstances. At some point in his life he began to see that his message and what he represented would probably result in a violent death and that this was part of the coming of the kingdom of God. His words at the Last Supper indicate that he understood his own death in the Passover imagery of liberation for captives from the old order.

The various New Testament writings interpret the death of Jesus as atonement, understood as God’s reconciling love toward humanity. It is God who takes the initiative to act redemptively through the death of Jesus. I conclude that the death of Jesus was not divinely foreordained as penal satisfaction but the result of God’s coming into human history vulnerably through the incarnation.

In the context of contemporary theology with its concern for the oppressed and the spiral of abuse and violence, the least viable formulation of the atonement would be penal substitution. The moral influence theory with its emphasis on the suffering love of God should at least be given a renewed hearing, but without underestimating the power and seriousness of sin. Such an articulation of the atonement is a more faithful rendering of the New Testament understanding of the death of Jesus than satisfaction theories. It is also more congenial to the central commitments of Wesleyan theology than the other classical theories.

[Mark Metcalfe]

I don't know. I agree with what Jirair Tashjian wrote at http://www.crivoice.org/jesusdeath.html

Conclusion

I began this essay with the question as to whether the death of Jesus was historically contingent or divinely foreordained. It seems to me that the answer is that the death of Jesus was brought about through human decisions and therefore it is historically contingent. Survey of material from and about the historical Jesus indicates that social, political and religious forces were at work to bring Jesus to his violent death. At the same time, however, Jesus was not simply the victim of circumstances. At some point in his life he began to see that his message and what he represented would probably result in a violent death and that this was part of the coming of the kingdom of God. His words at the Last Supper indicate that he understood his own death in the Passover imagery of liberation for captives from the old order.

The various New Testament writings interpret the death of Jesus as atonement, understood as God’s reconciling love toward humanity. It is God who takes the initiative to act redemptively through the death of Jesus. I conclude that the death of Jesus was not divinely foreordained as penal satisfaction but the result of God’s coming into human history vulnerably through the incarnation.

In the context of contemporary theology with its concern for the oppressed and the spiral of abuse and violence, the least viable formulation of the atonement would be penal substitution. The moral influence theory with its emphasis on the suffering love of God should at least be given a renewed hearing, but without underestimating the power and seriousness of sin. Such an articulation of the atonement is a more faithful rendering of the New Testament understanding of the death of Jesus than satisfaction theories. It is also more congenial to the central commitments of Wesleyan theology than the other classical theories.

I think you have hit on the crux of the matter, Hans.

Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

What does it mean to "preach Christ crucified?" Does it mean that
Christ's death was the result of violent men, and nothing more
meaningful than that? What does "it is finished" mean in that context?

Mark

[Bruce Carriker]

I don't find the "crux" of the Gospel message in the crucifixion, other than that it precedes the resurrection. Jesus' crucifixion means nothing unless there's a resurrection three days (or a day and a half) later. His power over sin and death is accomplished in resurrection, not crucifixion.

[Mark Metcalfe]

I don't find the "crux" of the Gospel message in the crucifixion, other than that it precedes the resurrection. Jesus' crucifixion means nothing unless there's a resurrection three days (or a day and a half) later. His power over sin and death is accomplished in resurrection, not crucifixion.

Yes, thanks for the clarification. No disagreement there, but I am focusing
on the necessity of the crucifixion.

So the crucifixion is of no account?
Why didn't scripture say, "we preach Christ resurrected?"

Mark

P.S. The crux to which I referred was Hans' note about the role of the crucifixion, not that it was the crux of the gospel.

[Hans Deventer]

Yes, thanks for the clarification. No disagreement there, but I am focusing on the necessity of the crucifixion.

So the crucifixion is of no account?
Why didn't scripture say, "we preach Christ resurrected?"

I wonder, but I do know, they would have preached nothing at all if He was not risen.

[Mark Metcalfe]

So the crucifixion is of no account?
Why didn't scripture say, "we preach Christ resurrected?"

I wonder, but I do know, they would have preached nothing at all if He was not risen.

Yes, but this is not an answer. The resurrection is important because God
has power over life and death. Was the crucifixion only important to provide
the opportunity to be resurrected? It wasn't any death; it wasn't Jesus
dying of old age and being resurrected; it wasn't the resurrection of Lazarus
that was efficacious. Sacrifice is the essential element in the death of Jesus
Christ; the resurrection is a separate [though integral] component of the
gospel.

Mark

[Hans Deventer]

I think you have hit on the crux of the matter, Hans.

Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

What does it mean to "preach Christ crucified?" Does it mean that
Christ's death was the result of violent men, and nothing more
meaningful than that? What does "it is finished" mean in that context?

Mark

I do believe it was the result of violent men (btw, ever noticed that it weren't the whores or tax collectors who put Him on the cross, but the decent religious people?), but why would that mean "nothing more meaningful"?

Jesus lived God's life to the limit. He came to understand, this meant, His death. He finished what God wanted Him to do, which is be completely and totally faithful to His Father, even to death on the cross. "For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me." This He finished. Or as He said elsewhere: "it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work"

Mark, I have to warn you at forehand. I am quite weary of the Western church's fixation on the cross, on punishment, on payment. I believe the Eastern church had it better to focus on the resurrection. Easter is the main feast there, and I believe they are right. Easter changed everything.

And I really don't like the "payment" idea at all either. I way too easily slips into a kind of thinking that God can't have anything against me anymore since "Jesus paid it all". Well, the king in Matthew 18 forgave millions, until the servant appeared to be unforgiving himself. Then He was thrown into the dungeon. So much for the forgiveness.

Jesus came to make a new way of living possible. Don't ask me how, all the theories of the atonement are theories indeed. We don't actually know. But we DO know that we can be forgiven and live the Kingdom life because the Holy Spirit has come, the very life that Jesus lived on this earth. That is enough gospel for me.

[Marsha Lynn]

What does it mean to "preach Christ crucified?" Does it mean that Christ's death was the result of violent men, and nothing more
meaningful than that? What does "it is finished" mean in that context?

You combine your second and third questions with an 'and' as though to affirm one is to affirm the other. I'm not sure this is the case. Here's the sequence as I see it:

1. God came to earth incarnate in the form of Jesus Christ

2. Men rejected the presence of God in their midst -- He didn't fit their rules for being religious.

3. Men killed Jesus Christ -- the incarnate God. This demonstrated not that man was more powerful than God but the extent to which God would go in submitting to the human experience (and the extent to which men would go to destroy the Truth). Death was the ultimate (final) act of submission.

4. Although death was the end of the incarnate presence of God among men, it was not the end. Jesus was raised from the dead by the power of God.

5. Because God has dwelt among men, died, and overcome the power of death, the possibilities of relationship with God are enormously expanded. God has participated in the human experience. Men have seen what God looks like in flesh. What could possibly be more powerful to open the doors between us?

Removing the crucifixion from the original plan of God in no way makes it any less significant. Men killed the incarnate manifestation of God Almighty. God allowed that to happen. How could anyone doubt the significance of such an event?

"We preach Christ" -- the incarnate presence of God in our world -- "whom you crucified!" (emphasis added) Laying the responsibility for the crucixion on the eternal plan of God rather on the evil heart of men bothers me. I, too, much appreciate the article Hans linked.

Marsha

[Mark Metcalfe]

"We preach Christ" -- the incarnate presence of God in our world -- "whom you crucified!" (emphasis added)

You have mixed two scriptural references. 1 Corinthians 1:23 does not
contain "whom you crucified" in the five or six versions that I just checked.

[Bruce Carriker]

I think Marsha has touched on a key point, here.

That wasn't just some rogue Jewish preacher hanging on the cross. That was God! And he could have come off the cross any time he chose. But he didn't. He suffered the ulitimate in both shame and pain, so no one could ever claim that God couldn't identify with their situation.

Certainly the crucifixion is not irrelevant. But I tend to agree with Hans and his position concerning the Eastern church's approach.

[Marsha Lynn]

You have mixed two scriptural references. 1 Corinthians 1:23 does not
contain "whom you crucified" in the five or six versions that I just checked.

Yes, you're right. I should have included the two references -- laziness set in.

The first part of my statement is from the words of Paul you had already mentioned. The second is from the words of Peter in Acts 2:23 and 2:36 (to the crowd gathered on the day of Pentecost) and Acts 4:10 (to the "rulers and elders of the people"). He makes it clear that it was men that crucified Jesus. However, Acts 2:23 does say "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge." The question is: Did God's set purpose and foreknowledge include crucifixion as inevitable from the beginning? Or did His purpose and foreknowledge primarily involve the incarnation (placing Jesus into the hands of men) without having the complete blueprint ahead of time of what would happen if God dwelt among men?

Marsha

[Mark Metcalfe]

Yes, you're right. I should have included the two references -- laziness set in.

The first part of my statement is from the words of Paul you had already mentioned. The second is from the words of Peter in Acts 2:23 and 2:36 (to the crowd gathered on the day of Pentecost) and Acts 4:10 (to the "rulers and elders of the people"). He makes it clear that it was men that crucified Jesus. However, Acts 2:23 does say "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge." The question is: Did God's set purpose and foreknowledge include crucifixion as inevitable from the beginning? Or did His purpose and foreknowledge primarily involve the incarnation (placing Jesus into the hands of men) without having the complete blueprint ahead of time of what would happen if God dwelt among men?

Marsha

Acts 2:23 does say "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge."

Marsha, thanks. To parse the sentence (in English; find the Greek
scholars among us for verification), "being handed over to you" seems
to be the simple reference to God's purpose and foreknowledge, not
an oblique reference to Jesus' incarnation.

Mark

[Gina Stevenson]

one thing that came to mind reading the word "crux" several times in this thread ... how "crux" and "crucifixion" are related words.

when someone speaks of something being "the crux of the matter (often without even realizing the root word, I'd venture)," that seems to refer to how the cross is that part of redemption without which the resurrection could not have occurred. The "crux" is the "pivotal point" of a matter, or that on which something "stands," ... just as there could be no resurrection without a death preceding it, in spite of the resurrection being that unique thing differentiating Christianity from other "religions."

words are interesting ............... "crux" ... "cruces" ... "cross" ....

oh, yeah ... thanks, Mark, for reminding me a couple of posts down that "crucial" is another related word from the same root ... and we all know that something which is "crucial' is something that cannot be done without .... thanks yourself, Mark. ;)

[edit: typo, 2nd one, forgotten word ;)]

[Marsha Lynn]

Acts 2:23 does say "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge."

Marsha, thanks. To parse the sentence (in English; find the Greek
scholars among us for verification), "being handed over to you" seems
to be the simple reference to God's purpose and foreknowledge, not
an oblique reference to Jesus' incarnation.

Mark

Here's the entire verse/sentence (from the NIV): This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

It tells us that at some point God handed Jesus over to Peter's listeners by His "set purpose and foreknowledge." A common interpretation would be that this "purpose and foreknowledge" included the crucifixion and would put the "hand[ing] over" close to that event. In other words, Jesus did not submit to the religious authorities who killed him (with the help of the Romans) until the very end when "God handed [him] over to [them]" in order that he would be crucified in keeping with God's eternal plan. But there's nothing in the verse that actually says that the crucifixion was God's eternal purpose nor that He foresaw that exact conclusion to Jesus' life. Then we may ask, At what point did God hand Jesus over to the Jews? Was it during the trial before Pilate? At the trial before Caiphas? In the Garden of Gethsemane? When Judas went to the chief priests? When Jesus set out to Jerusalem that last time, knowing it would mean death to return there?

To some extent that handing over happened on the day of Jesus' birth when he entered this world with no way to exit except death and bearing a divine message that would not set well with the religious leaders of the day. Then it gradually developed to the point where Jesus chose to walk the road to Calvary rather than to exert his power and authority.

I didn't mean to say that the incarnation was referenced in this verse. I'm just not sure what other point to go back to when saying that "God handed [Jesus] over" to the Jews and allowed the events that happened to play out as they did. I think the whole process of being 'handed over' started at his birth but didn't come into full effect until Jesus the God/man accepted that ending and chose to walk that path, knowing (not because of the planning of God but because of the blackness of the hearts of humanity) that it would lead to death.

Does that make sense?

Marsha

[Mark Metcalfe]

Marsha,

I think your post begs the question as to whether the death on the Cross
was necessary, or was another death just as important to the resurrection?
What I think I am trying to convey is that yes, there is some extent where
the natural course of events took place in that Jesus upset the authorities
of His day which led to the plot against Him and and His subsequent execution.
But the choices were limited I think to these: go to the Cross, or not go
to the Cross (as He was tempted at Gethsemane). His choice was not to
choose another path of (or for) redemption.

Yes, death was necessary for resurrection; but not any death would do.
Jesus' death had to be MORE than the natural course of events in a
particular circumstantial setting, or He was simply another martyr for
His peculiar beliefs. What role would prophecy have had otherwise?

The death has meaning even as the resurrection has meaning.
It is crucial (thanks for your note Gina). Or, is it not?

Mark

[Hans Deventer]

Then we may ask, At what point did God hand Jesus over to the Jews? Was it during the trial before Pilate? At the trial before Caiphas? In the Garden of Gethsemane? When Judas went to the chief priests? When Jesus set out to Jerusalem that last time, knowing it would mean death to return there?

No, at Christmas.

[Hans Deventer]

Yes, death was necessary for resurrection; but not any death would do.
Jesus' death had to be MORE than the natural course of events in a
particular circumstantial setting, or He was simply another martyr for
His peculiar beliefs. What role would prophecy have had otherwise?

The death has meaning even as the resurrection has meaning.
It is crucial (thanks for your note Gina). Or, is it not?

Mark

Prophecy, in general, says that if things continue as they are, such and so will happen. But if you repent, God will be merciful. This is the bulk of prophecy.

Jesus Himself understood it this way:

MK 12:1 He then began to speak to them in parables: "A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. 2 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed.
MK 12:6 "He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, `They will respect my son.'
MK 12:7 "But the tenants said to one another, `This is the heir. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' 8 So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.


The only special thing about the death of Jesus was that this was not merely a Jew who died on a cross, as thousands did before and after Him. This man was the lamb of God, was God Himself. He did not merely die for His beliefs, though certainly that is true as well. He died most of all for who He was. That was the main accusation, the Sanhedrin accused Him of stating He was the Messiah, the Son of God.

[Mark Metcalfe]

The only special thing about the death of Jesus was that this was not merely a Jew who died on a cross, as thousands did before and after Him. This man was the lamb of God, was God Himself. He did not merely die for His beliefs, though certainly that is true as well. He died most of all for who He was. That was the main accusation, the Sanhedrin accused Him of stating He was the Messiah, the Son of God.

"While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:8

I know that love is who God is. That love drove Jesus inexorably to the
Cross to bridge the chasm between God and man which is a gulf that sin
has put between us. "The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is
eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

If Christ bridges the gap without the crucifixion, then why go through it in
the first place? Who He is as the Lamb of God (an image of sacrifice for
atonement) is very importantly tied to the death on the Cross.

Mark

[Mark Metcalfe]

There is a lengthy paper over at CRI (Christian Resources Insititute) by
Jirair Tashjian entitled, "The Death of Jesus: Historically Contingent or Divinely Ordained?"

http://www.crivoice.org/jesusdeath.html

There are many pieces to cull from this. I chose the following quote
because it supposed that Wesley interwove the various separate
viewpoints into a whole:

"Maddox summarizes Wesley’s understanding as 'a Penalty Satisfaction explanation
of the Atonement which has a Moral Influence purpose,
and a Ransom effect!'" (emphasis is in the paper, quoted)

Mark

P.S. I see that this is the article to which Hans referred to in the note
that started this particular discussion. Perhaps I subconsciously thought
to check CRI.

[Hans Deventer]

If Christ bridges the gap without the crucifixion, then why go through it in the first place? Who He is as the Lamb of God (an image of sacrifice for atonement) is very importantly tied to the death on the Cross.

Mark

Let's first of all conclude that it is not true that Jesus sacrifice was necessary to appease an angry God.

2 Cor 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them.

Through Christ, God was reconciling US to himself. WE were the ones that needed to be reconciled, not God.

Perhaps it is good to read Hebrews:

HEB 9:11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

HEB 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.


Two aspects here. First the covenant and the High Priest. Larry Shelton has a great explanation of the atonement in the light of the covenant in the Wesleyan Theological Journal, thankfully also online
http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/16-20/19-09.htm (http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/16-20/19-09.htm)

I like his conclusion a lot:

Christ's sacrificial act of submissive obedience to God in the face of the sin of self—righteous humanity is the supreme historical revelation of God's self—giving love. As a vicarious expression of penitence for all humanity who will participate in Christ's life and death by faith, Christ enables a grieving God to believe in us again. The love which goes to such lengths to win back a "crooked and perverse generation" creates hope anew for a world which is lacking in integrity, trust, and community.

And I also think that the idea of ransom has to be understood in this light, for it cannot be a simple payment, for the obvious reason that if Christ paid for all, all will be saved no matter their reaction, since there is no more guilt because obviously, He paid everything. It is way too mechanical and impersonal. On the contrary, a covenant concept of atonement requires the identification of the sinner with the sacrifice, as Shelton argues, a point forcefully made by Paul in Romans 6:

Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin-- 7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

Now to be united with Christ has the purpose of doning away with the body of sin. That most certainly has to die. And it is here that the image of death is crucial. But we should not forget that the whole of Christ's life was being alive to God and dead to sin, with every choice He made. And the very point is that we should live a life like Him. Ever sinse the Fall, that is God's purpose, restoring men to the image of God.

Somehow, Christ has made this possible. The Bible does very little explaining as to the actual how. We understand that His perfect obedience, His suffering, His death, His resurrection and the giving of the Holy Spirit are all part of this. I don't think we understand a whole lot more.

This being the case, again, I always resent a fixation on Christ's death. That is great for Lent. And I gladly will remember His suffering and death then, with deep gratitude. But the goal was that He should become alive in me. And that is where I reach for, that I where I struggle, that is where I need Him most. That is my fixation.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Let's first of all conclude that it is not true that Jesus sacrifice was necessary to appease an angry God.

Sure. Jesus sacrifice was necessary for atonement and ransom

HEB 9:12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.

The blood of goats and calves in the sacrificial system were also "not an
appeasement" but a symbol that sin leads to death. The blood of Christ
is important to see in this light. Sin leads to death, and Jesus, the sinless
one, went to death on the behalf of us all.


[INDENT]I also think that the idea of ransom has to be understood in this light, for it cannot be a simple payment, for the obvious reason that if Christ paid for all, all will be saved no matter their reaction, since there is no more guilt because obviously, He paid everything.

I do not follow this logic. God so loved "all" that... "whosoever believes".
God's sacrifice is sufficient for all, but all do not receive it, therefore all
are not saved no matter their reaction. A response to the love of God is
essential to salvation (i.e. faith).


Now to be united with Christ has the purpose of doing away with the body of sin. That most certainly has to die. And it is here that the image of death is crucial. But we should not forget that the whole of Christ's life was being alive to God and dead to sin, with every choice He made. And the very point is that we should live a life like Him. Ever sinse the Fall, that is God's purpose, restoring men to the image of God.

Somehow, Christ has made this possible. The Bible does very little explaining as to the actual how. We understand that His perfect obedience, His suffering, His death, His resurrection and the giving of the Holy Spirit are all part of this. I don't think we understand a whole lot more.

Contemporary theology is rethinking the understanding that has stood for
a number of centuries - that the sacrificial system set up in the Old
Testament was fulfilled in the New Testament through Christ. Perhaps it
is the sacrificial system that is not well-understood. To repeat, it is
the symbol that sin leads to death; not the "payment" that barters
a couple of doves for an intentional indiscretion. It is the same symbol
provided to Adam and Eve when they were given animal skins.


This being the case, again, I always resent a fixation on Christ's death. That is great for Lent. And I gladly will remember His suffering and death then, with deep gratitude. But the goal was that He should become alive in me. And that is where I reach for, that I where I struggle, that is where I need Him most. That is my fixation.

There is no Easter without Good Friday; and Good Friday cannot be separated
from the resurrection - though they each portray separate themes of
"the wages of sin" and the "power of God over sin and death."

Mark

[Charlene Clevenger]

Jesus was God in the form of a man, who came to live on earth to tell us about God and his love. Jesus died for our sins, paying the price for us, so that we, after we accept his gift of grace, can walk with the Holy Spirit's guidance and be welcomed into Heaven.

[Hans Deventer]

I do not follow this logic. God so loved "all" that... "whosoever believes".
God's sacrifice is sufficient for all, but all do not receive it, therefore all
are not saved no matter their reaction. A response to the love of God is
essential to salvation (i.e. faith).

Let me explain. The logic is as follows. We all have a debt, because that is what requires payment, right? Like when you get a speeding ticket, you owe a debt to the state. Now someone appears to pay your debt. Say your father loves you so much and pays your debt. Great! No debt left, there is nothing for you to do, it's gone!
Do you see where they "debt-payment" logic becomes impersonal? It is great in explaining how we could never save ourselves (which is the very point of the image), it fails in explaining how we cannot be saved without ourselves.

Does this help?


To repeat, it is the symbol that sin leads to death; not the "payment" that barters a couple of doves for an intentional indiscretion. It is the same symbol
provided to Adam and Eve when they were given animal skins.

Agreed.

There is no Easter without Good Friday; and Good Friday cannot be separated from the resurrection - though they each portray separate themes of "the wages of sin" and the "power of God over sin and death."

True, but many people have died for a good cause. And even the disciples who had recognized Jesus as the Lord of all, were scattered and utterly lost after Good Friday. It did not become a Good Friday but after Easter. Without Easter, we would still be in our sins, there would have been a splendid sacrifice, but it would have been utterly useless. Tragic, beautiful perhaps in some view, but totally useless and pointless.

From the earliest days, there is one gospel: "The Lord is truly risen!"

Fixation on the cross is like standing for hours in the bakery, watching bread being made. That's a wonderful process and necessary, but bread is for nourishment. Don't confuse the means with the goal. The very genious of Wesley was that his theology was teleological: it was pointed towards a goal, the restoring to the image of God. That was for instance his main problem with the Moravians and the Calvinists, he felt their teachings did not lead people to living a holy life. And that is what it is all about.

Anyway, I think I have made my point by now. I'll let Paul have the last word:

1CO 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. 20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

[Mark Metcalfe]

I don't get how discussing the necessity of the cross somehow ignores
the resurrection. I have stated repeatedly that the two are part of a
whole. I also do not agree that discussing the necessity of the cross
is a fixation (which connotes an irrational focus).

I have not argued, nor do I support a transactional redemption,
("to obey is better than sacrifice" therefore sacrifice is more a result
response of sin than a payment for sin).

I believe that I have argued and supported a reactional redemption.
God initiates, we respond. God gave to every person in the whole world,
but is only to whosoever believes that participates in eternal life.

The payment of the speeding ticket is an analogy that misses the mark
and the kind of "payment" that sacrifice has made. A speeding ticket
may be paid whether I have asked for it or not; debt cancelled. But
salvation cannot be recieved unless I respond to the Giver of the gift.
Your analogy might be better suited like this:

Ad in the paper: to all who owe speeding fines, Jesus has paid your fine.
However, guilt remains on your record until you come to court and claim
the redemption that Jesus has offered. To accept this generous
gift and receive the full benefit of this debt-cancellation, respond to:
God, P.O. Box 777, Gold Street, Heaven.

John 3:16 shows that salvation is available to all. The death of Jesus
testifies to the weight of sin. The resurrection demonstrates the power
of God.

Sin must be addressed. The sin in my life must be addressed. I cannot
address it in my own power. The sin in my life will lead to my death.
However, thanks be to God, Christ has addressed my sin and I receive
His forgiveness and life through Him.

The death on the cross plays a role in addressing the sin problem.

Mark

[Marsha Lynn]

Marsha,

I think your post begs the question as to whether the death on the Cross
was necessary, or was another death just as important to the resurrection?

I'm not sure what you mean by "another death". Are you referring to Jesus dying another way or someone else, not the Son of God, dying? Is it crucifixion that you find essential? If so, why? It does fit back into Old Testament writings well but I'm not sure another form of execution, say, burning at the stake, wouldn't do equally well if that's what had happened. God has an amazing way of making the most horrendous happenings look perfectly planned and executed for good in retrospect.

What I think I am trying to convey is that yes, there is some extent where the natural course of events took place in that Jesus upset the authorities of His day which led to the plot against Him and and His subsequent execution.
But the choices were limited I think to these: go to the Cross, or not go
to the Cross (as He was tempted at Gethsemane). His choice was not to
choose another path of (or for) redemption.

I see the choice in a different light -- would Jesus practice humility and non-resistance regardless of the price (the immensity of which had become quite apparent to him) or would he use his power to shield himself from the animosity that had grown to murderous levels? Would he practice the non-resistance he had been preaching through the worst that mankind could do to him? He had been given a message and a mission. It turned out that it would cost him unspeakable suffering, terrible humiliation, and his very life to fully deliver it. There was no alternative path of redemption. His message had led him to that place and the only way to stay true to his mission was to accept the consequences of daring to speak truth to a world that hates it. He prayed that those consequences could somehow be changed, but accepted them as the will of God when they weren't.

Other than providing a nifty graphic to bridge the gulf between God and man when drawing pictures for non-Christians, it isn't the Cross itself that is essential to our salvation. It's the obedience of Jesus Christ in the face of death. He paid the ultimate price to speak the message of the Kingdom of God.

Yes, death was necessary for resurrection; but not any death would do.
Jesus' death had to be MORE than the natural course of events in a
particular circumstantial setting, or He was simply another martyr for
His peculiar beliefs. What role would prophecy have had otherwise?

How could the Son of God ever be considered "simply another martyr"? The only way that could ever be the case would be if you failed to move on to the next chapter -- the Resurrection. Without it, it doesn't matter what type of death Jesus died. And as far as I can see, with the resurrection, it doesn't matter what type of death he died. What matters is that death was not the final word.

I've enjoyed this exchange. It has helped me to sort out further my own beliefs on the matter. The truth is, I really don't have any big stake in all this but I do find it freeing to get away from some of the more offensive 'traditions' that pass as gospel truth in regard to the death of Jesus. For example, I have never been able to accept the idea that God turned his back on Jesus when he was on the cross because he couldn't bear to look at all the sin piled upon him. There is so much wrong with that picture but I never knew where to begin to come up with an alternative view or even that doing so was an option for me.

Speaking of paying prices, Dr. Tashjian's article has cost him much, particularly after an abbreviated version of it was published in Holiness Today. I am grateful for those who have the courage to question tradition out loud.

Marsha

[Mark Metcalfe]

I see the choice in a different light -- would Jesus practice humility and non-resistance regardless of the price (the immensity of which had become quite apparent to him) or would he use his power to shield himself from the animosity that had grown to murderous levels? Would he practice the non-resistance he had been preaching through the worst that mankind could do to him? He had been given a message and a mission. It turned out that it would cost him unspeakable suffering, terrible humiliation, and his very life to fully deliver it. There was no alternative path of redemption. His message had led him to that place and the only way to stay true to his mission was to accept the consequences of daring to speak truth to a world that hates it. He prayed that those consequences could somehow be changed, but accepted them as the will of God when they weren't.

I have no issue with this paragraph.

How could the Son of God ever be considered "simply another martyr"? The only way that could ever be the case would be if you failed to move on to the next chapter -- the Resurrection. Without it, it doesn't matter what type of death Jesus died. And as far as I can see, with the resurrection, it doesn't matter what type of death he died. What matters is that death was not the final word.

Again, I am not diminishing the role of the resurrection.

Regarding the type of death that Jesus suffered: if Jesus took sick and
died of a fever or leprosy, that would not have meant staying true to his
mission. The fact is that the type of death that Jesus suffered was
because He was true to his mission!!

Speaking of paying prices, Dr. Tashjian's article has cost him much, particularly after an abbreviated version of it was published in Holiness Today. I am grateful for those who have the courage to question tradition out loud.

Marsha

I do not know what you mean.

Mark

[Marsha Lynn]

The fact is that the type of death that Jesus suffered was because He was true to his mission!!

I agree.

As to Dr. Tashjian, his position is considered heresy by some outspoken leaders in the Church of the Nazarene. That has put him in an uncomfortable position as a professor in the religion department of a Nazarene university. I'm not sure how it has all played out.

Marsha

[Hans Deventer]

The payment of the speeding ticket is an analogy that misses the mark
and the kind of "payment" that sacrifice has made. A speeding ticket
may be paid whether I have asked for it or not; debt canceled. But
salvation cannot be received unless I respond to the Giver of the gift.
Your analogy might be better suited like this:

Ad in the paper: to all who owe speeding fines, Jesus has paid your fine.
However, guilt remains on your record until you come to court and claim
the redemption that Jesus has offered. To accept this generous
gift and receive the full benefit of this debt-cancellation, respond to:
God, P.O. Box 777, Gold Street, Heaven.


The problem with this example is that is makes no sense at all. And that is a problem because the idea of payment and ransom is meant to convey meaning to us. But never in human justice will a debt paid remain as guilt. Either it is paid and debt is removed, or it is not paid and debt remains. That is what I have been trying to point for some time now. And hence my objection to all the songs about "He paid it all". The value of that statement is solely in the fact that HE did it and I never could. It is NOT in the idea that all debt and guilt have gone. That would logically lead to the idea that all will be saved no matter their response. Thankfully, of course the Bible makes clear that such an idea is not true.

But the fact that people do read it that way and I am not merely making something up is clearly illustrated by Calvinism. Why did it opt for a limited atonement? Because they believed that if Jesus paid it all, no debt was left and all would be saved. Since that is obviously not the case, they simply had to insert a limited atonement.

Phew, I don't know in how many more ways I can say this. Am I so inadequate in phrasing my thoughts? To my idea, I have been saying the same thing over and over again for several posts now. Where am I failing so badly?

[Mark Metcalfe]

Either it is paid and debt is removed, or it is not paid and debt remains.

...but the gift of God is righteousness through Jesus Christ.

When the payment of debt is viewed as a gift, then the gift must be
received. The payment (wages of sin; atonement for sin) is a gift for whosoever believes.

How many other ways can I say that it requires a response? :basic01

Mark

[Mark Metcalfe]

As to Dr. Tashjian, his position is considered heresy by some outspoken leaders in the Church of the Nazarene. That has put him in an uncomfortable position as a professor in the religion department of a Nazarene university. I'm not sure how it has all played out.

Heresy is a very serious charge, and one that should never be leveled
lightly. I read the complete article. As I mentioned in another note, he
uses tentative language (e.g. it could mean this but it could mean that)
and the conclusion that the death of Jesus was "historically contingent"
versus "divinely foreordained" is an opinion.

Choosing either/or in many cases is shaky ground. Salvation is by
faith alone, but one cannot continue in new life without works. ("Faith
without works is dead.") We see the same thing with putting the
fine point on the Cross and Resurrection, which are part of the same
whole. Faith/works, cross/resurrection; each with a role and each with
distinct value.

I can hold to less than 100% of the professor's persuasion without believing
that he is heretical. In fact, I do not hold to 100% of his arguments,
though you might be surprised to know that I hold to most of it because
I think that one can hold that the death of Jesus was both historically
contingent and divinely ordained.

Mark

[Hans Deventer]

How many other ways can I say that it requires a response? :basic01

Mark

Mark, I'm out. I am dead serious, you are making me look like a fool. That is no basis for a discussion.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Hebrews 9 (emphasis added)

The Blood of Christ

11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

15For 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.

16In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep." 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

I can marry the Moral Influence persuasion with this, but I cannot divorce
the atonement persuasion from this. That Jesus fulfilled His mission by
being obedient unto death has to also include the sacrificial blood of
cleansing. I would not get stuck on the word "payment" but rather
see the necessity of Christ's death as cleansing atonement- and the
necessity of Christ's resurrection as God's power over death.

I do not discount the professor's reasoning, but fault him only in that
I think he should not have made it an either/or argument, but that the
several facets of the atonement of Jesus Christ on our behalf as High
Priest can be inclusive and not divisive.

There is a cost to sin and a price that will be paid, by our blood,
or by His. But, thanks be to God, we have an Advocate and Mediator.
If we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin.

Mark

[Mark Metcalfe]

P.S. I use Linear mode. Hybrid mode indicates that some responses are children of others, which may not be the case. For example, my most recent post does not directly address Hans' final note.

[Mark Metcalfe]

In the C.S. Lewis allegory of the gospel, Aslan and the White Witch
have a parlay. The White Witch declares according to the deep magic
that "all traitors belong to me!" and she demands what is hers.

Aslan calls the witch into His tent and strikes a bargain: His life
in exchange for Edmund the Traitor.

The bargain is kept by the honor of Aslan Himself and He submits
to the desires of the White Witch to have Him shorn and mocked
and then killed. And the Lion dies.

Some time later, the Lion is resurrected. Aslan explains that there is
a deeper magic than the magic the witch knows. The deeper magic
says that when someone who is not a traitor give his life in exchange
for a traitor then that love is so strong that not even death will conquer.

As I spoke about these topics with my wife, and tried to convey the
objection to the "payment" and "satisfaction" theories, this exchange
between Aslan and the White Witch came to mind. "All traitors belong
to me." All sinners are children of the Devil. Perhaps in this line of
thinking, the sin payment is not to a blood-thirsty angry God but
to a blood-thristy angry Devil. The wages of sin is death, but the
gift of God is rieghtouesness through Christ Jesus.

Mark

[Gina Stevenson]

... re this quote, Mark: " Aslan calls the witch into His tent and strikes a bargain: His life in exchange for Edmund the Traitor.

The bargain is kept by the honor of Aslan Himself and He submits to the desires of the White Witch to have Him shorn and mocked and then killed.
And the Lion dies."

*****************************************

The witch, I noticed, while not knowing Aslan would resurrect, muttered something while they were doing Aslan in about how wrong they were to think that this sacrifice would save Edmund, because she was going to get him, anyway. She planned to go back on the "bargain" ... so like our real enemy, whenever he thinks he can get away with something of this sort.

[Mark Metcalfe]

I have never been able to accept the idea that God turned his back on Jesus when he was on the cross because he couldn't bear to look at all the sin piled upon him. There is so much wrong with that picture but I never knew where to begin to come up with an alternative view or even that doing so was an option for me.

Marsha, would you expand on this, please? It has run over
in my mind since you wrote it.

Just so you know where I am coming from: God is who He is, regardless of
whether I am bothered by some of the things that the Bible reveals to us
about God. My point being that if you or I discover a truth about God, and
we have trouble accepting that truth, is it then not true about God?

This is why I feel this discussion is of such importance.

I agree with you when you say "I am grateful for those who have
the courage to question tradition out loud." It is good to test the
truth as we understand it. However, the contemporary theological
positions bear the burden of testing as much as the traditional
theological positions.

Mark

[Brad Mercer]

My point being that if you or I discover a truth about God, and we have trouble accepting that truth, is it then not true about God?

Mark

I know Marsha is more than capable of speaking for herself, but I'm going to jump in here anyway. She didn't actually suggest that she had trouble accepting the truth about God; she said she did not accept an idea about God. I suspect that her reason for rejecting the idea is that it seems to her to be an idea that the Bible does not explicitly assert, and that appears to her to conflict with much that the Bible does explicitly assert about God.

Brad

[Mark Metcalfe]

I know Marsha is more than capable of speaking for herself, but I'm going to jump in here anyway. She didn't actually suggest that she had trouble accepting the truth about God; she said she did not accept an idea about God. I suspect that her reason for rejecting the idea is that it seems to her to be an idea that the Bible does not explicitly assert, and that appears to her to conflict with much that the Bible does explicitly assert about God.

Brad

Thanks, Brad. Though I am not sure of the need for clarification on the
point of idea and truth. I phrased the question "if you or I discover a
truth about God...". If an idea about God is somehow later revealed truth,
then what?

Whatever ideas I hold about God, I hold them as carefully as I can
because of the testimony in Job where God says to Job, "Where were
you when I set the foundations of the earth?" God is Who He is. We
understand more about Him through Jesus.

Mark

[Mark Metcalfe]

I'll try to be even more clear with an example:

I have trouble accepting the idea (or truth) that God ordered the
slaughter of people in the Old Testament.
How do I deal with that idea/truth?

P.S. Although it was addressed to Marsha, this is an open discussion forum. Jump in anytime.

[Brad Mercer]

I'll try to be even more clear with an example:

I have trouble accepting the idea (or truth) that God ordered the
slaughter of people in the Old Testament.
How do I deal with that idea/truth?

P.S. Although it was addressed to Marsha, this is an open discussion forum. Jump in anytime.

Well, of course, that is a slightly different issue. The Bible, as far as I can recollect off the top of my head, doesn't anywhere say that the Father couldn't look on the Son because of all the sin he was carrying. It does say he ordered the slaughter of men, women, children and animals in the Old Testament. Idea and truth are not the same thing. They aren't synomymous as in "idea/truth" or as in "idea (or truth)". Until you acknowledge that distinction as absolute and stop using them in the same sentence as if how we relate to one is necessarily how we must relate to the other, I don't think you're going to get a meaningful conversation. As to the truth of God, whatever I conclude is true I, by definition embrace and accept. As to ideas that I hear presented that I am not convinced are true, I may wrestle with them and ultimately conclude that they are not, in fact, truth, and reject them accordingly.

Brad

[Hans Deventer]

Well, of course, that is a slightly different issue. The Bible, as far as I can recollect off the top of my head, doesn't anywhere say that the Father couldn't look on the Son because of all the sin he was carrying.

The issue is probably, was the "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" an expression of an actual act of God, of reality, or was it Jesus' experience in His moment of deepest anguish, that most certainly reflected His feelings but not necessarily reality?
And then of course you also have to take into account that it is actually a quote from Psalm 21 that yearns for God's action.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Well, of course, that is a slightly different issue. The Bible, as far as I can recollect off the top of my head, doesn't anywhere say that the Father couldn't look on the Son because of all the sin he was carrying. ...

Marsha said, "I have never been able to accept the idea that God turned his back on Jesus when he was on the cross because he couldn't bear to look at all the sin piled upon him."

I simply want to get to the root of her thought process on this matter because
I would enjoy the exchange; whether the difficulty in accepting the idea is the
result of not having it explicitly stated in the Bible, or if it comes from some other
difficulty.

Mark

[Brad Mercer]

Marsha said, "I have never been able to accept the idea that God turned his back on Jesus when he was on the cross because he couldn't bear to look at all the sin piled upon him."

I simply want to get to the root of her thought process on this matter because
I would enjoy the exchange. Whether the difficulty in accepting the idea is the
result of not having it explicitly stated in the Bible, or if it comes from some other
difficulty.

Mark

Mark, I'd like to hear her further thoughts on the matter, too. Marsha is always a very provocative thinker. Even when I don't agree with her, her thoughts challenge me to think and reflect more deeply, as well.

I think you're doing a useful thing in keeping this discussion going. It's probably good for all of us to occasionally think through what we consider to be basic beliefs and purposes, to consider what we believe and why we believe it, rather than just spouting the same old cliches with no real thought, as I think we all tend to do most of the time.

Brad

[Marsha Lynn]

Marsha said, "I have never been able to accept the idea that God turned his back on Jesus when he was on the cross because he couldn't bear to look at all the sin piled upon him."

I simply want to get to the root of her thought process on this matter because
I would enjoy the exchange; whether the difficulty in accepting the idea is the
result of not having it explicitly stated in the Bible, or if it comes from some other
difficulty.

Mark

All right, all right, I'll elaborate -- later. I've got to catch up on "real life" first. You people must type faster than I do or make fewer revisions. Even with all my effort to keep things tight, I still end up tossing in a parenthetical statement and now am called to explain it. Meanwhile, uncompleted tasks pile up around me and people start to notice that maybe I'm spending too much time discussing theology with my imaginary internet friends and not enough time doing "real work".

Brad and Hans are doing fine representing me, but I will try to take time soon to make my own contribution.

Marsha

[Marsha Lynn]

Marsha, would you expand on this, please? It has run over
in my mind since you wrote it.

What I've heard:

When Jesus was on the cross, he bore all the sins of the world. (1 Peter 2:24) God is too holy to look at sin and turned his back on his own Son. There are two ways that we know this: 1) the sun stopped shining for three hours (Luke 23:44-45) and 2) Jesus cried, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34)

Starting at the end, Hans has already expressed the possibilities for Jesus' cry other than that the God who promised "I will never leave you nor forsake you" over and over to his people had actually done so in this case. (Had He truly forsaken the psalmist who originated this cry?)

There's nothing in the Bible that explains the meaning of the darkness. To equate it with God's back being turned is pure speculation.

The entire Bible is the story of our holy God's relationship with less-than-holy people. He is not blind to evil in our world nor to those who do that evil. Where does it say in the Bible that God cannot stand the sight of sin and turns away from it?

The idea of Jesus having all the sins of the world heaped on him represents a view of sin as something of substance rather than a broken relationship. There are other ways of looking at the passage in Peter. "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree ..." Men did the worst they could do to him. The thorn of crowns, the mockery, the flogging, the crucifixion, all those acts represented the total depravity of humankind and resulted in Jesus' death. Yet, death was swallowed up in victory. (1 Corinthians 15:54) Sin does not have the final word! Jesus endured every act of evil committed against him "so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed." (1 Peter 2:24b)

If I accept the idea (never stated in the Bible) that God turned away from Jesus at his time of greatest need, how can I be assured that He won't do the same if I slip and fall into sin? Is it only all of the sin of the world that makes him turn away or can one person be so putrid in his eyes as to get the same treatment?

If I accept the fact that Jesus was God incarnate, this back-turning is even more troublesome. Did God back off from the moment of suffering and leave the man Jesus to do the suffering alone? Was God in heaven with his face averted waiting for the suffering to end or was God on the cross absorbing the pain of the ultimate rejection of his creation? I choose to believe, based on everything I read in scripture, that the crucifixion was God himself accepting the total pain of evil in this world and that the resurrection signals the defeat of that evil.

Just so you know where I am coming from: God is who He is, regardless of whether I am bothered by some of the things that the Bible reveals to us about God. My point being that if you or I discover a truth about God, and we have trouble accepting that truth, is it then not true about God?

As Brad said better than I could (and in fewer words and with less lag time), it's not that I'm not willing to accept what the Bible says about God. What bothers me is what people say about God based on questionable interpretation of scattered scripture passages removed from the bigger picture.

Thanks for asking, Mark, and for your persistence. Again, it helps me to sort out my own thinking on this.

Marsha

PS: I didn't mean to kill the exchange while you all waited with bated breath for my promised return. :)

[Brad Mercer]

What bothers me is what people say about God based on questionable interpretation of scattered scripture passages removed from the bigger picture.

To quote the Dufflepuds from The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader: "That's our chief! Just what we were about to say ourselves! Couldn't say it better than that!"

Worth the wait! ;-)

Brad

[Hans Deventer]

it's not that I'm not willing to accept what the Bible says about God. What bothers me is what people say about God based on questionable interpretation of scattered scripture passages removed from the bigger picture.

Perhaps I am walking on very thin ice here, but I understand this to be the heart of the matter and the answer to Mark's question.

Nevertheless, I do like your elaboration, Marsha. And I think the question "Where does it say in the Bible that God cannot stand the sight of sin and turns away from it?" is way too often ignored.

[Marsha Lynn]

To quote the Dufflepuds from The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader: "That's our chief! Just what we were about to say ourselves! Couldn't say it better than that!"

Worth the wait! ;-)

Brad


Lucy: Are [the Dufflepuds] very conceited?

The Magician: They are. Or at least the Chief Duffer is and he's taught all the rest to be.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Two points:

1. Thank you Marsha for your explanation of why you find it difficult to
accept the idea that God turned his back on Jesus on the cross. For
me, it was tangential to the main discussion but brought up a curiosity.

2. I never once said or implied (though it might have been incorrectly
inferred) that I supported that particular notion. (Check my texts.)
I was curious as to your objection to it, and I like your response.

Mark

[Marsha Lynn]

I never once said or implied (though it might have been incorrectly inferred) that I supported that particular notion. (Check my texts.)


I don't have to check. I know that you have expressed no such support in this thread. In fact, I don't remember the idea of God turning his back on Jesus during the crucifixion ever being discussed on NazNet. It's probably safe to assume, however, that I'm not the only one who has been exposed to it.

I brought it up as an example of a "traditional" view which I've heard widely and frequently enough that I would think it had a firm biblical basis if I hadn't actually read the Bible.

Sorry if you felt that I was responding to something you didn't say.

Marsha

[Mark Metcalfe]

Sorry if you felt that I was responding to something you didn't say.

No I did not feel that you were responding to something I didn't say.
I just want to be very clear to anyone reading. I appreciated your
response very much.

Mark

[Mark Metcalfe]

Blood figures prominently - throughout the Bible - with the problem of sin.

These two verses came to mind:

1 Samuel 15:22b "to obey is better than sacrifice,
and to hearken than the fat of rams."

1 John 2:1-2 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.
And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only,
but also for the sins of the whole world."

And perhaps a third:

Deuteronomy 30:19 "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you,
that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing:
therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:"

Brad pointed out that "Outside of relationship there is nothing.
For anyone. Within relationship there is everything. For anyone." (In another thread)

How these things relate:
1. obey, ye sin not, [choose] life, blessing, live, within relationship
2. sacrifice, if any man sin, death, cursing, outside of relationship

Obviously, we want to live in relationship with God, enjoy His blessing
and Presence; we don't want to be out of fellowship with all that is
Good.

My Dad pointed out to me yesterday that sin was such serious business
with God that it had to be dealt with somehow. A study of blood in the
Bible could take on its own thread with lots of good truths (and ideas).
If I had more time, I would like to develop it. I hope this note serves
as a sketch.

Blood has physical properties that are essential to life. Red blood cells
carry oxygen from the lungs to our tissue. Leviticus 11:17 says, "For
the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the
altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that
maketh an atonement for the soul." (This is part of the explanation
for the commandment not to eat blood.) Even if blood is to be thought
of symbolically (as life), there is serious importance placed on the
symbol, if not the physical blood.

The ritual of communion symbolizes and is centered on the blood and body
of Christ, shed for us. Blood is necessary for life.

Blood figures greatly in atonement for sin. No doubt it breaks God's heart
that blood must be shed - as opposed to the notion that God demands
blood as vengeful retribution rathen than redemption. This is why the verse
I started out with is so important. God desires obedience - not sacrifice!

Therefore, we should be asking "why is blood required for atonement?"

"Satisfaction" obtained through sacrifice does not produce a sense of
well-being in God; far from it! God desires that we do not sin... God
desires obedience... but knowing that all have sinned (and I like how
John says, "if we do sin"), our Advocate is our "propitiation." That is,
the probelm of sin (death) must be dealt with; not to satisfy a blood-thirsty
God; God is not blood-thirsty; but that blood (life) is necessary to redress
sin (death).

I am actually reluctant to use CS Lewis, rather than scripture, but
his allegory does lend itself to one understanding, which I have referred
to earlier in this thread. ("All traitors belong to me!" declared the White
Witch to Aslan.)

We see a cosmic divide between life and death, good and evil, righteousness
and sin. If we are clean and holy, we can be on the side of life, good, and
righteousness. Otherwise, we "belong" to the other side. The "wages of sin"
place us in the "lost" category; we are outside of relationship to all that is
Good, life, blessing, etc.

Being lost is a state of being. To explain what I mean, a sinner is not
a sinner only when he is committing acts of sin, just as a theif cannot
be anything other than a theif even if he is not in the act of stealing.
This is why we cannot "pay" for our own sins; we HAVE AlREADY "paid"
(or are paying) for our sin in being lost and apart from God! This is why
we need a Redeemer from outside our state to be able to provide
atonement and rescue.

Mark

(I probably should have developed this better but time is pressing me
to push this out.)

[Mark Metcalfe]

Since the Articles of Faith were brought up in another note
(regarding the Bible; i.e. "Holy Scriptures"), I thought I'd post
the Articles of Faith pertaining to Jesus, the Atonement, and
communion, which I think belong to this discussion.

ARTICLE II: JESUS CHRIST

We believe in Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Triune God-head; that he was eternally one with the Father; that he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and was born of the Virgin Mary, so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead and manhood, are thus united in one person very God and very man, the God-man.

We believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and that He truly arose from the dead and took again his body, together with all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith He ascended into heaven and is there engaged in intercession for us.

ARTICLE VI: ATONEMENT

We believe that Jesus Christ by His sufferings, by the shedding of His own blood, and by His meritorious death on the Cross, made a full atonement for all human sin, and that this atonement is the only ground of salvation, and that it is sufficient for every individual of Adam's race. The atonement is graciously efficacious (capable of producing the desired effect) for the salvation of the irresponsible and for the children in innocency, but is efficacious for the salvation of those who reach the age of responsibility only when they repent and believe.

ARTICLE XIII: THE LORD'S SUPPER

We believe that the Memorial and Communion Supper instituted by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is essentially a New Testament sacrament, declarative of His sacrificial death, through the merits of which believers have life and salvation and the promise of all spiritual blessings in Christ. It is distinctively for those who are prepared for reverent appreciation of its significance and by it they show forth the Lord's death till He come again. It being the Communion feast, only those who have faith in Christ and love for the saints should be called to participate therein.