I was responding to your statement that "I have understood your [i.e., Todd's] view of "salvation" to be quite different than the historical view, so I guess you are just being consistent.
The language of "the historical view" suggests a unitary tradition of atonement theology, but the church did not establish one, and different understandings have been put forth by sundry persons in different historical contexts.
I was actually refering to Todd's "4th view of hell" idea. It's in the Misc. Theological Topics Thread Somewhere.
Quote:
I understand this verse in light of Mark 10:45: "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
I see the ransom as another way of saying "payment", which very much fits the Chrisitian idea of atonement. Christ gave his life to purchase our redemption.
Once again you speak of "the Christian idea of atonement," as if there were only one.
Sorry, I guess I am using more exclusivistic language than I really intended. I will try to be more clear in the future. I don't think that the atonement is exclusively substitutionary. As I have said elsewhere, I think that the Christus Victor, Moral Influence, Substitutionary, theories all have biblical merit.
They all have their strong and weak points, and I am not attempting to interpret all of the texts about the atonement by any single one of them. (Just most of the ones I have brought up here). I don't hold the normal penal substitutionary view because the logical conclusion of that is limited atonement or universalism, both of which I think are unbiblical.
The truth is, the bible doesn't say just "how" it works. I just think that something happened objectivly, apart from our participation, between the Father and Son that brought reconcilliation and made salvation available to us (Rom. 5:9-11). I think that Christ's passion, our repentance and faith all work to save us.
I am not contesting that the New Testament employs the diction of "ransom." The question is: to what extent was that meant to be figurative language?
The pre-eminent event in Jewish salvation-narrative was (and is) the Exodus. In that narrative, the blood of the firstborn in Egypt could be spoken of as having "bought" the Israelites their opportunity to depart from Egypt. But such language should not be construed in an overly literal manner: the "purchase-price" of that opportunity was not actually paid to anyone as part of an economic deal. God's mighty deliverance was not contracted for by that blood, and Pharaoh did not request that blood in exchange for allowing the slaves to go free.
Similarly, Jesus' death could be spoken of as "buying" the opportunity for those who encounter it to be profoundly touched and repent from their death-bound vector. But as with the blood of Egypt's firstborn, such language would be figurative.
I don't take the language so literally as to say that God required X amount of payment for our sins. I see the way that God looked upon the blood of the passover lamb on the doorpost and passed over the houses that had as a type of Christ (in fact, I think that's why He did it
period. But I don't expect you to agree with the typology).
In the same way God looks on the blood of Christ and passes over us, (if we have repented and placed our faith in Him), not giving us what we deserve in a sense.
I don't think that God's deliverance was "contracted for by that blood", as if blood has some magical power over God, only that He
required it be there for His deliverance. I don't think that blood has any value aside from what God has obviously placed upon it.
Concerning Gal. 3
Your argument is undercut by Paul's diction in Galatians 3: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for us." He speaks first of "the curse" and then of "a curse." If he had meant to imply direct substitution, then he could have articulated it in the words you have used: "tak[ing] upon himself the curse." But he did not use your words - he used his words. And his words fully afford the interpretation I have posited.
I disagree. I don't think that the curse came on Christ, because He kept the law perfectly, but He became a curse to free us from the other. I don't see how you can get anything else from the context. If you don't see this here, then I don't expect to convince you.
Quote:
Quote: Now we may turn to your citation from II Corinthians 5:21, which could be rendered "For he made the one not knowing sin [to be] sin for us, that we might become God's righteousness by him." Once again, we must note the Hebraic parallelism in this verse: Jesus becoming sin paired with Christians becoming divine righteousness. But how can this be so? How can Christians be an attribute of God?
I would interpret this in the same way as I explained above, about God imputing the righteousness of Christ to us, etc.
The problem with imputation is that it is fictional; it is not a real solution to a real problem. The sin still exists, however masked it may be, and God is not a liar, so he will not deceive himself or render a fictional judgment.
It is the teaching of the New Testament that we are justified by faith in the blood of Christ. If the "example theory" were correct, the logical conclusion is works salvation.
Please don't take this to mean that we can live in sin. That is not what I am saying at all. We are to strive to be holy; to be like Jesus. And His obediance unto death, and the fact that He died for others, is an example for us to follow. But we are justified by what He did, not what we do.
And I would also say that we do have an answer for sin. God gives us power over sin through His Holy Spirit.
Let me clarify: where is a biblical text that explicitly speaks of God appeasing himself.
The actual word isn't used at all to my knowledge.
But that Jesus' sacrifice "satisfied" God is expressed in Is. 53 (I am aware that you disagree that Jesus is even being discussed there).
Here's some others:
(Rom 3:25) whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
(Heb 2:17) Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
(1Jo 2:2) and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
(1Jo 4:10) In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
God bless Emmet,
one component would consist of the positive demonstration of exemplary conduct by Jesus in costly surrender to the will of God (essentially, the "Exemplary Theory");