quote:

---

As I understand it, the Christian doctrine of the atonement means more or less this. Human beings, thanks to the Fall of Adam, are fatally tainted with sin, in a fundamental state of moral impotence and alienation from God. The self is the center of interest, where God should be. And if God were central, things would fall naturally into place. Loving and serving God, we would thrive like a heliotropic plant that always bows in the direction of the sunlight. Such was our nature till it jumped the track when Adam sinned and fathered a race and a social system of sinners. We are born in sin like a fish born in water. Thus it would take radical surgery to lift us out of the briny deeps of sin and make us breathe air on the surface. We can no more reform ourselves by good intents and efforts than a fish can simply decide to live on land from now on.

God would have been well within his rights to wash his hands of us, but instead he went the second mile and provided the radical surgery, the means of re-creation, rebirth. This he did by the atonement of Jesus Christ. At the very least this means that Jesus was altogether righteous and thus could not have deserved the punishment of death or indeed any punishment at all. But he died a punitive death, on the Roman cross, to take the punishment for the sins of the human race. And though his atoning work is said to be all-sufficient, we are not out of the woods till we consciously embrace his sacrifice on our behalf. We have to admit we are sinners and accept a salvation we need and could never have earned. Those who do not consciously embrace the gospel of salvation will not receive its benefits.

---

I see this as more or less correct. The whole REASON that atonement exists is because of the premise that a HOLY God couldn't just forgive sin...otherwise God wouldn't be perfectly just. Some type of RETRIBUTION had to be paid of SOME kind for sin. If this weren't the case, then God could have just "winked" at sin, and that would be that. No need for Christ in this area. Price basically summarized the substitutionary/propitiation idea of the atonement, as many Christians understand it. So exactly how is he misunderstanding it?


And moreover, how does a recognition of the HUMAN imperfection with regard to morally truly boster what you are saying? I don't get it.

And here's something. Do you not think it's POSSIBLE that the atonement could INDEED be a reinterpretation of events to explain the death of the Messiah? It's not even a possibility?

quote:

---

Do you not think it's POSSIBLE that the atonement could INDEED be a reinterpretation of events to explain the death of the Messiah? It's not even a possibility?

---

It seems that your chief assumption is that the Gospels are fundamentally TRUE, meaning that Jesus, more or less, specifically told his followers THAT he would be dying for human sin...and the resurrection was verification of that. That Jesus, through his teaching, had ALREADY made the link between his suffering to come AND the need for Satan and sin's ultimate destruction. It is THIS assumption that I belive Price DOESN'T take! He basically wonders if it's NOT POSSIBLE that the expectation of resurrection and everything arose from the INABILITY of Jesus's followers to explain his death in meaningful terms. He mentions his ideas as a "plausible scenario" Surely, you see that this is the main difference between you (AND ME) and what Price is saying.

Now, I refuse to say that it's IMPOSSIBLE that what Price is saying is not true. It might well be the case...and I have to admit that possibility. That doesn't make me lose any sleep at all. What I really like about what Price says is that it is INDEED the atonement that provides the central distinctive. Price wisely notes this, over and against more liberal stances that would try to say otherwise. Moreover, I think that Price brings up some good things to think about when dealing with after-effects of the atonement. Like the goodness of God in face of the "logic" of the atonement, given who God is. Heck, we've discussed a NUMBER OF THE SAME THINGS here on this board. Why would you disagree with saying that some controversial ideas really DO arise from the atonement idea?

Blessings,