It would be very cool to see an articulation of the atonement in process terms. I’m not up to it, but there are a few things that are interesting about the question.

Perhaps what we ought to say is that the ‘nature of things’, given God’s purposes, require this or that, and that this has consequences on both the God and human side of the equation. Persons are sinful and disconnected, in despair and not reconciled to God and suffering the consequences. God is none of these things, but nevertheless God designed us for beautiful oneness with him, a oneness he experiences and enjoys and celebrates.

So whatever expiation or propitiation characterizes the loving act God undertakes to reconcile us to himself, it’s not the propitiation of an angry deity who’s pi**ed off and wants his pound of flesh. Whatever gets propitiated, it’s not God’s emotions or sense of justice per se. What then? Well, how about just the metaphysical constraints of the God-world relationship that God intended should be personal, loving, free and responsible? Let’s see that as requiring a sacrifice to heal and reconcile the broken relationship. So the questions are:

(1) WHY should a ‘sacrifice’ of love be required by the innocent party in such a relationship to make it possible for the offending party in the relationship to restored to relationship. The ‘relationship’ requires it. Why?

(2) HOW does the sacrifice work? What does the sacrifice accomplish that actually makes genuine, personal, relational healing possible and so restore us to being in relationship to God?

I think (2) will be easier to answer the clearer we get on (1).

Can we pick through these? Can we get specific on ‘what’ of the metaphysics of love and personal relationality makes a loving sacrifice necessary to restoring us to God?

Like Namaste said, I think organic wholes (our being an inseparable and constitutive member of the human race) helps in this. But I’m still working on it.

I would just offer this. I think we need to better define ‘forgiveness’ as an ‘act’ God takes with respect to us and decide whether the sacrifice makes it possible for God to forgive us or whether forgiveness is a free act of mercy irrespective of the sacrifice. If the former, then God can only forgive BECAUSE of the sacrifice and only those who choose to embrace the sacrifice. If the latter, then forgiveness actually MOTIVATES the sacrifice (or at least is possible apart from the sacrifice), in which case the sacrifice isn’t about permitting God to ‘forgive’ us, but about making it possible for us the get free from the bondage of sin and despair and actually be relationally restored to God. The point is, God can forgive us our sin while we remain in bondage to it. The sacrifice isn’t about that. It’s about clearing the relational debris and despair that make our actually experiencing God possible.

Not sure this makes any sense!

Tom

I think what we’re struggling to see is why a God who can forgive us without a sacrifice (as Namaste says is the case when he said the sacrifice isn’t required to ‘let’ God forgive us) would require a sacrifice at all, for anything else? Forgiving us ought to be sufficient grounds, ought to be all that we require (to know, to respond to, etc.) and so be restored to God. If God says, “I forgive you” without needing some sacrifice to make it true, what need then of a sacrifice?

Abelard (I think, or was it Anselm?) basically said there is no metaphysical requirement for a sacrifice. God can and does forgive us freely. And we can be reconciled to that so long as we own up to our choices and simply take responsibility for them and confess our need of God. That’s all that’s required. The extreme sacrifice is, in a sense (for Abelard), gratuitous. That is, it’s MORE than enough. It’s extravagant love. And extravagant means unnecessary. It’s just intended by God to affect us as deeply as possible, to overwhelm us with the infinity of God’s love and with the horrible ugliness of sin. So Abelard would say there’s METAPHYSICAL requirement. There’s just an EXISTENTIAL requirement (in fallen human beings—we NEED to be shaken out of our despair, and something drastic accomplishes that).

Tom

Ok. I've been chewing this over with a coworker, and maybe a lightbulb went on for me.

My friend was asking why think that character solidification is real. Why think that a person can't eventually decide to rebel again? After a zillion years, maybe out of shear boredom, isn't it possible that someone, somewhere could decide to sin?

Maybe THIS is what Christ accomplished on the cross and through his resurrection. He established once and for all the futility of sin. If the death of God's only son didn't permanently wreck their relationship, nothing will. This simply was the last, best hope of anyone wanting to see if sin can persist.

The issue is NOT about whether or not God can forgive sin at any time. Of course, God can do that. It's a matter of RESTORATION OF LIFE to MORALLY RESPONSIBLE beings who have walked away from life.

Boy.........I actually articulated that, without spraining anything.

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 10/31/2006 5:02:03 PM (GMT-6)

IMAGINE what it would feel like to NOT condemn yourself for sins that you commit?  NOT to judge yourself and pine after God to forgive you?

That's the life that you get when you take Christ's yoke upon you.  It's easy and light.

The bondage of our self-condemnation is NOT.

Post Edited (Namaste) : 10/31/2006 5:09:51 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 10/31/2006 5:22:17 PM (GMT-6)

Our sin changes us and not God, yes. But our sin delimits or constrains the possible ways God can relate to us, and this is as much because of who God is as it is due to who we are.

I'm interested in what seems to be the thesis, that sin constrains AS MUCH because of who God is... Thinking about it, I think -- if I can make words reach well beyond their capability, here -- that quantitatively...since the Cross conquers all...that God is not constrained and overcame all by the Passion and Resurrection, and Ascension; but qualitatively (I'm misusing these words.)  THAT the Cross was necessary, that the Incarnation and Passion were necessary is, I suppose, indication of a constraint. Guess so.

But where you ask, Tom, "What is it about God that prohibits, say, his just waving his hand and forgiving us independant of any sacrifice?", I feel that the answer is found in the question that preceeds it: ", it’s our sin that requires a sacrifice be offered and then believed in before we can be free of our sin. The question is ‘why’ a sacrifice?" So I'd like to answer that first part.

The answer is in what the nature of a sacrifice is. (I've got a tape of K. Ware I could send you.) An example, and an apropriate one, of a SACRIFICE is a fireman. The fireman who lays down his life, who sacrifies it, to save someone, does *not* wave his hand to save someone. His sacrifice is a giving up of his life, to help others. So, yes, our sin does require sacrifice; but what does that mean...

What does it mean to be free from our sin? I began more and more, and continue to more and more follow the Eastern contribution (But firmly appreciate, value and advize attention to the Western contributions too...) that regards sin as sickness. To be free from sin only happens totally and permanently at the Last Judgement. We AREN'T SAVED until then. (And Paul says as much.) But we can be free from the rule of sin, if we take up our cross. In Christ we have victory, even while carrying around  "this body of death." LIving a life of dependence on the Spirit and the Eklessia we "work out" our salvation through temptation that helps us grow.

Salvation, it seems, is more than I suspected from Vacation Bible School days. We ALL in the Church are "co-redeemers" according to scripture. Paul even described himself in terms that qualify him himself as a 'theotokos' too, bearing birth pangs for a particular church and bringing it into the world. Praying for each other, suffering with each other, all these are PART of our salvation -- that, remember, we don't have in full yet.

Sorry, my attention keeps getting interupted by the door tonight..

B.

Post Edited (Namaste) : 10/31/2006 7:48:34 PM (GMT-6)

Though I'd like to look to the entire life, death, and resurrection of Christ overall, I cautiously assert that the post-resurrection appearances, not the crucifixion, are the epicenter of the atoning movement.

After all, that’s how WE’RE supposed to forgive others—unconditionally and freely. (I hear this from Muslims all the time!)

PoW:   Can you say more about this, that the Muslims say?

Thanks, Tom.

Tom, have we solved this one yet?  My "J-ness" is kicking up. 

Post Edited (Namaste) : 11/1/2006 7:00:49 AM (GMT-6)