Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > Wanted: Real Action Heroes (an analogy)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/19/2002 7:26 AM (GMT -6)

If Rocky knows that he is loved in Christ, he will be eager to show this love to his wife. But if Rambo knows that love is a good thing and he wants to be good rather than bad, then he will also be eager to show love to his wife. Both Rocky and Rambo might even come up with the same loving actions. From their wives’ perspectives, their actions might look equally loving, and both Rocky and Rambo would receive positive feedback. But when Rocky loves, it flows out of his knowledge of Christ, and when Rambo loves, it flows out of his knowledge of good and evil. Rocky’s love glorifies Christ whose forgiveness freed him to love, whereas Rambo’s love serves himself—his desire to be good instead of bad. Only Rocky’s love is pure action.

But how would we know which one is the real action hero? In order to decide that, we would have to judge their hearts. No one, not even Adrienne, can do that (Kierkegaard says that we can’t tell the difference between the “knight of faith” and the “bourgeois philistine,” because unlike the “tragic hero” [or in religious terms, the Pharisee], neither of them strive for ethical ideals). Everyone wants to be an action hero—to love others genuinely and successfully. How can we talk about loving action in ways that flow from freedom rather than increase bondage? How can we talk about loving action that glorifies Christ rather than serving the self (our need to be good, not bad)?

Here is one suggestion (warning: unsolicited advice). I think that talking about strategies for loving others is fine (e.g. positively: be open to others’ feedback and adjust accordingly; negatively: don’t be like the Pharisees; etc.), as long as these strategies are not confused for solutions to the problem of the knowledge of good and evil. In order to be sure that people don’t get confused about this, maybe a healthy dose of “Seeing Jesus” (imaginitive meditation on the person and work of Christ for you) mixed in with any strategy for loving others would be helpful....?

Electra

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

Edited by - Electra on 07/19/2002 2:59:51 PM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 7/19/2002 10:26 AM (GMT -6)

Electra,

This is exactly what I have been thinking about all morning. My sleep deprivation has begun to catch up to me so I may be a little slow to respond. But I just want to throw a few quick things out here for right now.

First, I do not believe that someone seeking to show love in order to be "good enough" (e.g. Rambo) will get equally positive feedback as someone showing love out of a fullness of being loved in Christ (e.g. Rocky). I will try to write out an example of why there is such a difference not only in the essence of the action, but also in the impact of the action, and thereby in the feedback given concerning the action. And this perceivable difference is exactly what makes being open to feedback so important. Actions may indeed "look" equally loving from someone on the outside, but they do not impact the receiver (in this case the wife) in at all the same way. Greg used this example, that he mentioned earlier, (concerning the difference between love offered out of duty to wife contrasted to love offered out of fullness) either in his book or in a sermon. I thought he said it very powerfully, and perhaps he would be willing to draw that out again here.

Something else I have been thinking about related to this is the difference between operating out of our boundaries (read: law, knowledge of good and evil, bondage); and operating out of our center (read: love, fullness in Christ, freedom). The work of architect Christopher Alexander explains this difference powerfully, and compellingly argues that this quality of being a “center” is an objective quality that can, indeed, be measured. It is possible to know if something has “more life” or “less life” based on whether or not it is a center that feeds other centers. (This is not an issue of “judgment” at all, but I will have to lay it out in much more detail to show why.)

Electra said:

In order to be sure that people don’t get confused about this, maybe a healthy dose of “Seeing Jesus” (imaginative meditation on the person and work of Christ for you) mixed in with any strategy for loving others would be helpful....?

Semeia:

This is also exactly where I wanted to go next!

The reason it is so difficult to talk about this is in a sense the same reason that Jesus needed to die on the cross. The only thing that ever overcomes the essence of our fallen nature is the experience of love. Nothing that we ever say about love (or centers or life or theology or anything) can really bring us any closer to unity with God and brother. Only the actual experience of love can do that. One of the most powerful ways to “set the stage” for experiencing love is to associate into thoughts of God and Jesus in the way that Greg lays out in his book “Seeing Jesus.” By associating into the enormity of God’s love for us we are reminded of our center, which is the only thing that makes possible any true action, any life, at all.

The reason this is all so difficult for us human beings is because any discussion we have by its very nature tends to disassociate us (in the realm of ideas) from the association into God’s love which is the only true action of which we speak. Which is exactly why we must be known for our love, and not for the strengths of our theological ideas. Only in the concrete relationship in the reality of the world can God’s love take root and live. The realm of ideas is valuable only to the extent that it helps make that happen.

In the past few years as I have struggled to communicate this information mostly influenced by Bonhoeffer, my respect for the magnitude of his work has grown and grown. It is impossible to talk about this without talking in circles. We are all pretty much trained to not talk in circles. But since the essence of our fallen nature is to separate things that are meant to be an unbroken whole, we must circle around and around until we see we are seeing not two things, but one thing from different viewpoints. Which is why we can be both slaves to sin and slaves to righteousness, both in bondage and in freedom, both fallen and forgiven. That Bonhoeffer produced this work in prison, at a time when the temptation toward judgment could not have been greater, is a fact of great inspiration and awe to me. My original frustration that perhaps he could have found an easier way to say it has given way to complete astonishment that he was able to get at the heart of something that is normally only perceivable through the direct experience of love. I wonder sometimes if he had not been murdered by Hitler would people have struggled as hard to understand his work? Jesus’ death on the cross imbues His words with the experience of love – of what love looks like, of the extent to which love is willing to go to land on each person whom God relentlessly pursues.

Electra, I think we are not far apart on this at all. If we are willing to circle round and round within the limitations of language and ideas, I think we can discover that we have our eyes set on the same goal. And in the process perhaps also discover the minefields where our words interfere with the experience of love.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Edited by - Semeia on 07/19/2002 3:33:34 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/20/2002 7:16 AM (GMT -6)

Electra

If Rocky knows that he is loved in Christ, he will be eager to show this love to his wife. But if Rambo knows that love is a good thing and he wants to be good rather than bad, then he will also be eager to show love to his wife. Both Rocky and Rambo might even come up with the same loving actions. From their wives’ perspectives, their actions might look equally loving, and both Rocky and Rambo would receive positive feedback. But when Rocky loves, it flows out of his knowledge of Christ, and when Rambo loves, it flows out of his knowledge of good and evil. Rocky’s love glorifies Christ whose forgiveness freed him to love, whereas Rambo’s love serves himself—his desire to be good instead of bad. Only Rocky’s love is pure action.

But how would we know which one is the real action hero? In order to decide that, we would have to judge their hearts. No one, not even Adrienne, can do that…

Iconoclast

Side note: I assume you are presupposing that Rocky truly loves his wife and Rambo does not.

I struggle with this. I agree that the spouses could not judge their hearts. However, I believe that they could provide a very accurate assessment of whether they experienced love or not. I believe the spouse whose husband truly loved her would say that she experienced love and I believe the one who didn’t would say that she did not experience love.

Matt 7:15-20

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.

The “fruit” of the unloving spouse will not be experienced as love. The actions may on the surface look the same (for a time) but the impact, the experience, the “fruit” will be different. If the “fruit” is NOT different then it truly is love and Rambo is just confused about who he is really serving.

Electra

How can we talk about loving action in ways that flow from freedom rather than increase bondage? How can we talk about loving action that glorifies Christ rather than serving the self (our need to be good, not bad)?

Iconoclast

Love is an objective quality. Love means that we are seeking someone else’s good rather than our own. In fact, it entails that we are willing to sacrifice our own good for another. A loving action then by definition is one in which we are helping someone else at our expense. A man hath no greater love than to lay down his life for his brother. If the action is really designed to help ourselves by making it appear that the action is really loving then this is the exact opposite of love. And it will not bear the fruit that love bears. It will not and cannot have the impact that love does.

We can talk about loving action that glorifies Christ rather than serving the self by talking about how loving action focuses on the “fruit” we are seeking to produce. It focuses on the impact we are trying to achieve. Loving action by definition is seeking to have a helpful impact on another person and therefore measures itself based on whether it is having this impact or not. The goal of a loving action is to have a helpful impact.

Seeking to be “good” by showing love (doing “loving actions”) is impossible. It is to have two competing goals – it is to try and serve two masters. One will win out or the other.

Trying to be “good” by “showing love” can only be done by deceiving the other person about whether we love them or not – whether our actions really are “loving actions” – whether our goal is really to be helpful to them at a cost to ourselves.

My experience is that people have really good BS detectors. The only people who would fall for this sort of deception are people who are “susceptible to flattery” (see Problem and Paradox post) – or people who are not at all deceived but are codependent and getting their needs met in this way.

As Rambo seeks to be “good” by showing love (doing “loving actions”) to his spouse one of two things will happen. He will either give up on his goal to be “good” or he will give up on his goal to show love.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/20/2002 7:29 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia and Iconoclast, thanks for your responses. I would like to hear from others as well.

In the mean time, question: Is the solution to the problem of knowledge of good and evil

a) union with Christ

or

b) good fruit (e.g. successfully having a loving impact on someone else)?

Thanks,
Electra

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

Edited by - Electra on 07/20/2002 12:30:49 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/21/2002 3:15 AM (GMT -6)

Electra

In the mean time, question: Is the solution to the problem of knowledge of good and evil

a) union with Christ

or

b) good fruit (e.g. successfully having a loving impact on someone else)?

Iconoclast

Do you think that living out of our own knowledge of good and evil is a "problem" or a "paradox"? (As defined by David Bohm)

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/22/2002 2:33 PM (GMT -6)

I just got a chance to read your Bohm excerpt.

I would say that the knowledge of good and evil qualifies as a “paradox” (as Bohm defines it) insofar as our “thinking and feeling is dominated, through and through, by a set of self-contradictory demands or ‘needs’ so that as long as such thinking and feeling prevail, there is no way to put things right.” However, I disagree with Bohm that our paradox (somehow) “dissolves” once we direct our energy and seriousness toward awareness of our actual state of affairs. If this awareness was enough to dissolve the knowledge of good and evil, then what was God doing dying on the cross???

No, the knowledge of good and evil is a “problem” insofar as it required Jesus Christ to die on the cross in order to solve it for us, and set us free from the bondage of its paradox. Bohm says that paradoxes are impossible to “solve” (but they can still be “dissolved”?). But I believe God can do the impossible. God makes a way (problem with a solution) out of no way (paradox we can’t do anything about other than become aware of it).

I’m not sure I understand Bohm correctly.

Electra

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

Edited by - Electra on 07/22/2002 7:36:11 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/22/2002 4:15 PM (GMT -6)

Electra

However, I disagree with Bohm that our paradox (somehow) “dissolves” once we direct our energy and seriousness toward awareness of our actual state of affairs. If this awareness was enough to dissolve the knowledge of good and evil, then what was God doing dying on the cross???

Iconoclast

For a moment let’s assume that Bohm is right about the nature of a paradox and that the K of G and E is indeed a paradox. The next question would be: what is our actual state of affairs that (if we direct our energy and seriousness toward an awareness of) will indeed dissolve the knowledge of good and evil?

I would say that the truth about our actual state of affairs is that God unconditionally loves us and wants to be the center of our being that He really is. And that all we have to do is to accept this truth – we have to “live” in this truth (which is simply another way of saying really accept it) – which therefore allows Him to live in us – to be the center of our being that He really is.

In the garden of Eden we knew this truth. We lived in its simplicity. The serpent introduced the paradox into our thinking and we were not able to (or rather – chose not to) focus out attention on the truth about God and the truth about us but rather allowed the paradox to take root in our being by acting on it – by eating of the fruit.

What is the central lie that brought about the fall? It is that God does not really love us and have our best interest at heart.

What was God doing dying on the cross? Proving to us in the most powerful way that He does indeed love us. He loves us unconditionally. He loves us even as we are murdering Him. Man has no greater love than to lay down his life for his brother.

Electra

No, the knowledge of good and evil is a “problem” insofar as it required Jesus Christ to die on the cross in order to solve it for us, and set us free from the bondage of its paradox.

Iconoclast

Yes, I agree that one might describe the knowledge of good and evil as a “problem” from God’s perspective. And how Jesus is God’s solution to the “problem” of us falling into the paradox.

However, I don’t see how it can be considered as a “problem” from our perspective. If it was a “problem” from our perspective then the “solution” of Jesus Christ dying on the cross would have “solved” it for all people for all time – universalism would be true and sanctification would be complete.

But if it is a paradox from our perspective then God’s solution to the problem would require us to accept the “meaning” of His solution. It would require us to learn to “live in” His solution. And His solution would require something so powerful that even in our totally fallen state where we insist on judging God, ourselves and each other, we would take notice and focus our attention on what He has done – so much so that we would come to see the truth about who God is and about who we are in Him. And thus, the paradox “dissolves” and the knowledge of good and evil is overcome with the truth.

Notice that this does not mean that the paradox is suddenly resolved for all time in the moment we accept Jesus into our hearts – like turning on a light switch. But rather the nature of a paradox is that it requires us to focus our attention on the truth in order to overcome it. When we let our minds wander back into the world of conflicts – when we fail to “take each thought captive” – we lapse back into acting out of the knowledge of good and evil. Now over time and through much focused energy (prayer, loving action and so on) we learn to more automatically (our minds are renewed) live in the truth about who God is and who we are in Him.

Electra

Bohm says that paradoxes are impossible to “solve” (but they can still be “dissolved”?).

Iconoclast

Paradoxes are impossible to “solve” because the underlying reality is not a “problem” to begin with. There was no “problem” in the garden of Eden. The serpent introduced a lie about the underlying reality – the paradox is that the lie introduced the belief that there was a problem to be solved when there really wasn’t. When the paradox is “dissolved” then we are no longer “caught” in trying to solve a non-existent problem – we are taken back to the underlying reality where there was no problem to begin with.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 07/22/2002 9:17:21 PM

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/22/2002 7:59 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast

What was God doing dying on the cross? Proving to us in the most powerful way that He does indeed love us. He loves us unconditionally. He loves us even as we are murdering Him. Man has no greater love than to lay down his life for his brother….And His solution would require something so powerful that even in our totally fallen state where we insist on judging God, ourselves and each other, we would take notice and focus our attention on what He has done – so much so that we would come to see the truth about who God is and about who we are in Him. And thus, the paradox “dissolves” and the knowledge of good and evil is overcome with the truth.

Electra

Dear Iconoclast,

What could be more tedious than reading an essay full of dogmatic jargon?

(Do I hear a “kill me now!” in the background?

) If you find it helpful, great. If not, no big deal. (I am mostly trying to create a diversion while I try to figure out the difference between “solving problems” and “dissolving paradoxes”—which is really embarassing because that distinction was whole point of the Bohm excerpt

; but I will pick this up again after I ponder it for a while.)

Here is my rationale for summarizing models of the atonement below (The summaries in Part I are mostly based on Gustav Aulén’s classic work on the subject, Christus Victor). Your response presupposed a subjective understanding of the atonement (aka “moral example” model). Although every Christian thinker presupposes a particular model of the atonement, no model in and of itself adequately explains Christ’s atonement (I personally find this fascinating).

Learning about the different atonement models is sort of like learning about different personality types. If you read through the descriptions, some approaches will resonate with you more than others. If nothing else, you will get a taste of the language I am used to speaking when I do theology. Personally, although I find it very challenging, I am enjoying learning from your language.

Thanks,
Electra

What is the salvation that Christ brings?

I.

Summary of three major views of the atonement:
Objective, Subjective, and Classic

Objective

Definition: God is the “object” of Christ’s vicarious satisfaction for our sins against the divine honor
Proponents: Anslem, medieval scholasticism, protestant orthodoxy, 19th c. revivalism & biblicism
Biblical support: Suffering Servant motiff, Isaiah 53; biblical “for you,” “for us,” “for our sins,” “for many” formulas are interpreted as “instead of…” rather than “on behalf of…”; The “ransom” of Mark 10:45b; Eph. 1:7, 1 Pet. 1:18–19; Hebrews, references to paschal lamb in John 1:29, 19:14, 36 link Christ’s sacrifice to Passover and Day of Atonement
Paradigm: Judicial (over and against dualistic paradigm; developed in feudal context)
Problem: Humans owe an unpayable debt to God
Solution: Christ satisfies God’s wrath vicariously (justification without sanctification)
Christ is: our substitute
God remains: God of wrath

Summary

Anselm of Canterbury’s atonement theory has come closer to being adopted as dogma than any other proposal. His seminal work on the topic, Cur Deus Homo, was the first to attempt to formulate the necessity of the cross, and remains the dominant theory in the West. Anslem juridicized Christ’s work, making sin an objective legal matter rather than personal. Anselm argued that Christ’s sacrifice was necessary for satisfaction and appropriate for offering us hope and an example.

Justice requires that God must either punish human sinners or receive satisfaction from them for their offense against the divine honor. Forde summarizes the heart of Anslem’s argument for the rational necessity of the atonement thus: “The creature must do it but cannot; God could do it but must not; hence the only solution is the God-man” (21). Incarnation is necessary for redemption because only Christ, as both human and divine, could live the faithful life justice required of all humans and offer his life as an atoning sacrifice for our failure to live this life. Since the requirement is satisfied by Christ, there is no change in the divine attitude toward humans. Anslem held that God could not simply forgive humans their debt because it would not be a fitting use of divine freedom.

Criticisms

if God must be satisfied, how is God merciful?
it offers remission of the punishment of sin, but not of sin itself.
unclear what the personal relationship is between God and humanity, if any
Christ as human atones for humans and God is not involved as direct agent of atonement
criticized by feminists as “divine child abuse”
little support in scripture
purpose of resurrection unclear
Luther criticized satisfaction as the “beginning, origin, door, and entrance to all the abominations” of the medieval system because he associated it with penance.

Subjective

Definition: The atonement changes human “subjects” rather than God
Proponents: Abelard, Socinians, Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Forsyth, liberal and conservative pietists
Biblical support: Sermon on the Mount; Jesus’ life and teachings, parables, “we have the mind of Christ”
Paradigm: Conversion (over and against mythical/dualistic and judicial paradigms)
Problem: Humans do not adequately reflect God’s love
Solution: Christ’s self-sacrificing life decisively reveals God’s love, thus informing and inspiring our imitation of his example (sanctification without justification)
Christ is: our exemplar
God remains: God of love

Summary

Abelard rejected atonement as ransom paid to the devil or debt paid to God. He considered Jesus Christ’s self-sacrifice to be the ultimate revelation of the love of God, and established Christ as the exemplar for loving human relationship with God and with each other, emphasizing the psychological change that Christ elicits in human lives. Abelard disagreed with Anslem that the divine justice must be satisfied in order for God to be merciful. After all, Jesus forgave his executioners before his death. He asked, “How did the death of his innocent Son so please God the Father that through it he should be reconciled to us”? Regarding Abelard’s demonstration of how the notion of satisfaction recoils on God, Forde suggests that: “This remarkable outcome of the dogmatic enterprise must be noted carefully. The very attempt to construct a neat theory about reconciliation to God leads to the exact opposite: It alienates from God by creating a forbidding picture of God” (24).

Schleiermacher understood Christ’s exclusive dignity to be the full historical realization of the ideal, and his peculiar activity was the moment by moment manifestation of this dignity over the course of his life. This ideality is best understood as absolute perfection rather than exemplary dignity. Although Christ shared our human nature, the potency of his God-consciousness distinguished him from every other human and amounted to an existence of God in him. Christ is Redeemer insofar as he assumes believers into the power of his God-consciousness. This is understood to be a creative act of the being of God in Christ, in “continuation of the creative divine activity out of which the Person of Christ arose” (427). Schleiermacher describes this activity thus: “[T]he original activity of the Redeemer is best conceived as a pervasive influence which is received by its object in virtue of the free movement with which he turns himself to its attraction, just as we ascribe an attractive power to everyone to whose educative intellectual influence we gladly submit ourselves” (427). Schleiermacher contrasted Christ’s mystical (i.e. must be experienced) influence, in which believers are assumed “into fellowship of His unclouded blessedness,” with magical (unnatural; lacks mediation through Christ) and empirical (overly natural—ordinary; not distinctively Christian) understandings of Christ’s redemptive activity. Schleiermacher summarized the redemptive and reconciling work of Christ in terms of the three traditional offices of King (requirements for the well-being of the community of believers proceed from him), Prophet (teaching, prophesying, working miracles), and Priest (fulfillment of the law via active obedience, atoning death via passive obedience, intercession).

Criticisms

fails to take divine judgment and human sin seriously enough.: “The humanistic interpretation of the process of atonement has its ground in the failure of this theology to maintain the radical hostility of God to evil, and His judgment on sin” (Aulén 148); and, “The intention is to set forth a ‘purified,’ ‘simple’ conception of God, whose characteristic is an unchanging Love. But…the conception of the Divine Love has become humanized, and at the same time rather obvious and stereotyped” (154).
reduces atonement to moral object lesson—with a very painful example
glorifies suffering and can be used to sanction suffering of oppressed
Christ is presented as idealized, abstract, and unreal human
purpose of resurrection unclear

Classic

Proponents: Iranæus, Luther, Aulén
Biblical support: Col. 2:14–15, 1 Cor. 15:24–25; Phil. 2:10; Rom. 8:35–38; Heb. 2:14; John 12:31; 1 John 3:8; Rev. 12:7–12
Paradigm: Fecundity (over and against penal and pietistic—in other words, moralistic—paradigms)
Problem: Human bondage to sin, death, and the devil
Solution: Christ changes the situation for us and for God by defeating sin, death, and the devil in the incarnation and the cross
Christ is: our reconciler
God becomes: reconciled

Summary

Christus Victor is a dramatic action against a dualistic background that defies systematization. Through Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection, God defeats sin, death, and the devil. This cosmic victory sets humanity free from the power of sin itself, rather than from the punishment of sin alone. God is both subject and object of this decisive act in salvation history: “He is reconciled only because He Himself reconciles the world with Himself and Himself with the world” (146). Aulén appeals to the book of Hebrews in which “Sacrifice is offered both by God and to God” (xiv). Salvation is understood in terms of life and death rather than in juridical or moralistic terms. Christ’s decisive victory is carried out by the Holy Spirit and its fruits are reaped in history: “here and now the Blessing of God prevails over the Curse” (150). Aulén distinguished the classical idea from the objective and subjective views by its continuity of divine action, paradigm shift from system of merit to relation in light of grace, direction from humanity to God shifts to movement from God to humanity, “and God as closely and personally engaged in the work of man’s deliverance” (154).

Criticisms

mythological; archaic
glorifies violence
since when does God owe the devil anything?
human responsibility for sin undermined
what kind of a father uses his son as bait for the devil?

II.

Proposal for heart of Christian witness
to Jesus Christ’s Redemption

The objective emphasis on human guilt for sin, and the subjective emphasis on imitating are at the heart of redemption, but they also contradict each other. Given our human sin against God, how can we be imitators of the God-man? How can Christ’s killers presume to be Christ’s imitators? This is the bondage that we require liberation from—for our sake and for God’s, whom we crucified. But Aulén locates bondage in cosmic forces of sin, death, and the devil. Aulén’s proposal is more adequate in that it accounts for Christ’s work according to incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection, and that it offers both justification and sanctification, but I wonder if his championing of the idea’s “tremendous paradoxes” is a cop out? I respect the objective and subjective views of the atonement for their apologetic concern and consideration of their contexts in their formulation, and I am suspicious of Aulén’s claim that he is objectively presenting the biblical-historical “idea” of the atonement. His hermeneutic could stand to be a little more circular…

Regarding the bondage of being an enemy rather than an imitator of Christ, I find a theology of the cross to be the most persuasive view of the atonement.

Theology of the Cross

Proponents: Luther, Käsemann, Forde
Biblical support: Gospel of Mark; Paul’s letters (cf. Rom. 3:21–26, 4:24–25, 6:1–11; Cor. 1:18–2:5, 5:1–13; 11:17–34; 2 Cor. 4: 7–15, 5:14–6:2, 13:1–4; Gal. 3; Phil. 3:2–11). OT: Exod. 33:18–23; Deut. 32:39–42; 1 Sam. 2:6–7, penitential and lament psalms; Isa. 28:21; 45; 53.
Paradigm: Cross (over and against “glory story”)
Problem: The unforgiveable sin: calling good evil and evil good
Solution: In Christ we are dead to sin and alive to grace
Christ is: our death and resurrection
God becomes: God for us

Summary

The term theologia crucis was first used by Luther in his Heidelberg disputation (1518; cf. esp. theses 19, 20, 21), in which he contrasted a theology of the cross with a theology of glory, whose primary metaphor is power. A theology of the cross is a theology of revelation—God is most fully revealed in the crucifixion—and it is highly critical of natural theology. Forde characterizes the aim of the three dominant traditions as ascent toward God via law, morality, or victory: “Atonement occurs when the ascent to God succeeds” (47). On the contrary, in the theology of the cross the direction is reversed: “Atonement occurs when God gives himself in such a fashion as to create a people pleasing to God, a people no longer under law or wrath, a people who love and trust God. When God succeeds in that, God is ‘satisfied’” (50–51).

In the theology of the cross, God’s wrath is not satisfied in general, it is satisfied when “the body and blood are given to us and are received in faith” (51). And “one must note well: The cross, the great reversal, must come home to us; it must be done ‘to us,’” for “to be a sinner is to be one who will not receive from God” (57). I find this very persuasive, but I am not sure how to reconcile Forde’s interpretation of unconditional election with the notion of a gift received and wrath against a sinner as one who will not receive. For this reason, I prefer Kierkegaard’s version of the theology of the cross* because he holds that the gift of body and blood can be received in faith, or rejected in offense/sin. God is still free to elect to offer the gift to whomever God elects to offer it to. However, Kierkegaard’s insight that the gift must be appropriated by the individual emphasizes the sense in which the body and blood is offered for us, and the sense in which God’s wrath is justified if we take offense at the gift—in effect, agreeing with those who crucified Christ for blasphemy. Unlike those who crucified Christ, however, our position is more analogous to Thomas, who doubted the reality of risen victim or Paul who was openly hostile toward it—until they encountered him for themselves and confessed him to be “My Lord and my God!” If they could not have done otherwise, then why did Christ thrust Thomas’ hand into his side, and why did he knock Paul off his horse? If unconditional election is what engenders faith, then Christ’s wounds for us are gratuitous and there is no point in further postponing his glory. How is Christ’s sacrifice for us if election means our annihilation so that God can satisfy God’s desire to make something out of nothing? Why would God destroy one creation ex nihilio (a sinful self) for the sake of a new one, and why would should we think the second attempt will be any more successful than the first? Why not just elect the original self simul justus et peccator in the first place? Does this not undermine the faithfulness of the continuous creator “who began a good work in you”?

The pro nobis, the ministry of reconciliation, the totaliter aliter, and the communicatio all presuppose a synergistic (receiving Christ’s burden in exchange for our own) vs. monergistic (creation ex nihilo via unconditional election) understanding of the cross.

* Theology of the Cross (my understanding of Kierkegaard’s version)

Definition: The self rests transparently in the power that established it when encountering Christ causes it to resort to grace (justification) and resort to grace in the use of grace (sanctification).
Proponents: Anti-climacus (the pseudonymous author of Kierkegaard’s Sickness Unto Death and Practice in Christianity)
Biblical support: Matt. 11:28; 11:6; John 12:32
Paradigm: Cross
Problem: Despair is the sickness unto death. Despair before God is sin.
Solution: Through a contemporaneous encounter with Christ in his abasement, we will have faith or take offense at the God-man
Christ is: Abased God-man
God becomes: The Absolute for you

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

Edited by - Electra on 07/23/2002 01:22:41 AM

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:57 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual