There is no gulf between God’s creation and God that has to be spanned. We are not in the need of that kind of salvation — salvation from the wrath and punishment of God. We do not need that kind of salvation or savior. What we need is someone to embody revealingly God’s compassion to us whose life says, “This really is NOT too good to be true.” And lest we calcify God as a father — even a compassionate, forgiving, love and grace-based father — Carroll challenges us to understand God as Meaning. It is meaning — to live a life of meaning — that saves us from hell on earth. Heaven after death is already taken care of in the love and forgiveness and compassion of God.
We must put an end to any portrayal of God that says that without Jesus and the crucifixion we are left standing condemned. And that God’s way is to crucify Jesus and us. That is not what it means to claim that the way of the cross is the way of life. The way of the cross is the way of life means that when we offer ourselves in love for the sake of the life of another — like loving parents do and loving friends do and compassionate neighbors like Good Samaritans do. That is the way of life.
Typical liberal tribe: “We must put an end to any portrayal of God that says that without Jesus and the crucifixion we are left standing condemned.”
No wonder there’s a “Christian” Muslim priest in pecusa.
Summary: we don’t need God: we’re just fine, thank you, without him.
Just because “God is love” doesn’t mean “Love is God”. I think that’s one of the major underlying errors in liberal theology.
[i]We elves had planned to post several excerpts from old T19 posts (re: Jeffrey John and Giles Fraser’s attack on the Atonement back in April) and several other related links today to show why the atonement and especially penal substitution is such a hot topic in theological circles at the moment…
But this post by Kendall of Ed Bacon’s theology serves perfectly as “Exhibit A,” so we’ll save our previously-planned post for tomorrow or Monday.[/i]
#3: Nor is “God is love” a theological summary of God’s character, any more than “I am a good husband” tells you everything there is to know about me.
So Paul’s letters are just antiquated (but “nice”) sentimental historical documents now?
Citing Galileo is the telling bit, for it reminds us that TEC and Schori have cast their lot with the promises that science and technology make. The emphasis here is on this life and how it can be made a heaven on earth – as Schori remarked months ago. And science is the agent of choice, because its techniques yield truth. For this reason, he is turning scriptural truth into sociology in the hopes that a social science will supplant truths which cannot be measured and quantified.
Moreover, he is asking Christianity to present the world with a mission that can scarcely be called real, for he is offering a make-believe world, a fantasy world in which God, who is the author at last of both good and ill, is seen as a touchy-feely God (to use the common phrase), not the God of disease and death and anger and retribution, all of which are in His purview and are part of His creation.
Strange, God is being put in a small box. Where have I heard tht phrase before?
Tell me again, why are we wasting our time with TEC? When you have a cancerous growth, you cut it out, for temporizing will be your death. Why do we temporize with that which, treated kindly, will metastasize? LM
The piece is largely incoherent, in that it seems to be a total rejection of the central Christian belief that Jesus’s death and resurrection is the only means by which we are saved, because that is “violence” and then it goes on to argue that we should “stand in a crucified place” of self-sacrifice.
The logic of the progressives seems to be that because Jesus’s work on the cross was brutal and “violent,” a loving God would not do such a thing to bring forward salvation, so they reject it. The incoherence of that logic is that they keep judging God on their, human terms. God is not “violent” in any human sense; God is God, Rev. Bacon, and you are not.
Its ironic as well that your PB says for gays to wait to be Bishops is “standing in a crucified place.” A true act of submission perhaps without even understanding why would be celibacy.
[blockquote]We must put an end to any portrayal of God that says that without Jesus and the crucifixion we are left standing condemned. And that God’s way is to crucify Jesus and us. That is not what it means to claim that the way of the cross is the way of life. The way of the cross is the way of life means that when we offer ourselves in love for the sake of the life of another[/blockquote]
Why, then, did Jesus suffer crucifixion? Surely he could have better offered himself in love some other way? If crucifixion is not necessary, then why does Paul say “I have been crucified with Christ.” If the cross and death are not necessary, then God is nothing more than the child-abusing ogre that many reappraisers claim.
The Truth is much greater than that! Some who did not deserve any penalty for sin had to pay the penalty for all sins (Penal Substitution). Someone untouched by evil and destruction had to take the worse that evil could give and face destruction so that evil and destruction themselves could be defeated (Christus Victor). Both of these theories of the Atonement required death. Jesus faced death when he deserved none and took the worse that evil and destruction could give when he, himself, had no evil in him. As a disciple (student) of Jesus, I must face the same. I must die daily to the evil that I participate in and I must be reborn as a body animated by the Spirit (I Cor 15).
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
And this does away with mercy. If we are not deserving of punishment or if God never punishes then mercy has no meaning. And not how they despense with what ever scripture they don’t like. They are in truth purveyers of a new religion.
Putting aside doctrinal assertions and leaps of logic for a moment, any essay that includes a phrase such as “our beloved and brilliant Presiding Bishop†will end up sounding like a screed emanating from some Glorious Progressive Peoples Republic rather than anything to be considered seriously. The mis-telling of the Galileo story implies a lack of understanding that is, at best, ironic.
“We must put an end to any portrayal of God that says that without Jesus and the crucifixion we are left standing condemned.”
Phil, the leaders of your church seem to be saying that they must “put an end” to the Gospel, do they not? Its one thing to believe differently from those you are joined together with in a church and denomination. Its quite another to see your leadership boldly state that it must “put an end” to the core meaning of the Gospel. After several years of this, its hard to come to any conclusion other than your church is the enemy of people like me. I don’t say this in any aggressive posture, but it seems to be an inescapable conclusion.
William#2 (#11) – The leader of [b]my[/b] Church is Jesus Christ and He will never put an end to the Gospel! In my spiritual life, I am led by my Bishop, my Rector, and my Spiritual Director. There are those in TECUSA who want to do away with the faith and with doctrines and teachings that upset them. But you know what? There have always been these people. From the Pharisees in Acts 15 to the “Super Apostles” in II Corinthinians to those who “bewitched” the Galatians, there have always been those who want to make God more comfortable for themselves and there will always be these people on this side of the eschaton. I will stay in TECUSA and fight for my faith and for the Gospel until clearly directed otherwise by God. One does not with the war by withdrawing from the battlefield.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
“This means that we must tell the truth about biblical research. The Bible is not a stenographic record of God’s speaking to 66 different authors. The Bible contains the truth as well as a great deal of destructive, violent, and fear-based bigotry. We must sift through the wheat and the chaff …”
Why reinvent the wheel? Marcion did this work more than 1,800 years ago for Mr. Bacon and his friends. Of course, the Church delivered its judgment on Marcion’s work, but since the teaching of the Church is of little concern to Mr. Bacon, that shouldn’t be a problem.
[blockquote]This means that we must tell the truth about biblical research. The Bible is not a stenographic record of God’s speaking to 66 different authors. The Bible contains the truth as well as a great deal of destructive, violent, and fear-based bigotry. We must sift through the wheat and the chaff and join the critics of religion coming from the “new atheists†now writing in the service of ending sadistic and masochistic religion and promoting religion that saves lives, promotes resistance of every dehumanizing force and idea, and turns the human race into the human family.[/blockquote]
English Translation:
We are going to revise the Bible as we see fit.
Maybe he should use Thomas Jefferson’s edited verstion of the NT. Jefferson took a razor and cut out the parts that he felt were superstititious.
I must admit I am becoming weary with clergy who deny the faith.
Pelagius and Marcion live anew in TEC! All hail the old heresy in new clothes!
Let’s see. There is no creation, no fall, no atonement, no new creation and no reason for hope. I guess all we are left with is the gnosis of liberal guilt.
Tell me again, why shouldn’t I spray the poison ivy on the stone wall with week killer? CAn the poison ivy and I compromise, perhaps discuss, while I listen, to the poison ivy’s version of the truth? Why can’t I just spray it? LM
Nothing in this piece is recognizably Christian. It’s just some made up, liberal religion – Unitarian, in fact.
[blockquote]We must put an end to any portrayal of God that says that without Jesus and the crucifixion we are left standing condemned.[/blockquote]
It’s because of the prevalence of “theology” like this in ECUSA (PB Schori is great at very similar statements) that Jim the Puritan left and became a Puritan.
Brilliant! Love Ed Bacon. Applaud his stand. Support his theology.
Cosmic child abuse. Nasty bearded old man torturing his son. Theology perpetuating poverty, disease, and genocide.
Ed Bacon’s pearls of progressive wisdom just keep on coming.
But don’t expect ECUSA do DISCIPLINE him:
“He’s progressive, you know. Even if he occasionally overstates his points, his heart is in the right place.
“But as for you Fr. Mark Hansen [of St. John’s, Bristol, CT], we find that you took a long-planned sabbatical without telling Bp. Smith and thereby abandoned the communion of this church. Yes, abandonded it! Away with you!”
_ _ _ _ _ _
Bacon preaches CHEAP GRACE on stilts. Cf. Bonhoeffer:
“[Cheap grace] amounts to the justification of sin without the justification of the repentant sinner who departs from sin and from whom sins departs.
“Cheap grace is not the kind of forgiveness of sin which frees us from the toils of sin. Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession.
“Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.”
http://koti.mbnet.fi/amoira/blessings/gracech1.htm
Or what am I missing?
Fred (#22) says: [blockquote]Brilliant! Love Ed Bacon. Applaud his stand. Support his theology.[/blockquote] That’s grand, Fred–you and Ed have every right to that stand and theology. You just can’t call it “Christian”, because it ain’t. Have the grace to call it something else rather than trying to make Christianity a “hammer-to-fit-paint-to-match” receptacle for [u]your[/u] “stand” and “theology”.
#24 – West Coast Cleric – You’ve hit the nail on the head. I DO have every right to stand with Ed Bacon. The issue here is not whether what Ed believes is Christian, but who gets to decide what is “Christian”. Last time I looked, it wasn’t you. Besides, I happen to think Gallileo and Ed Bacon are pretty damn good company!
The definition of what/who is a Christian has already been decided and has stood the test of time for 2000 years. And what is in this article does not qualify according to that standard.
So what do we do with the Gospel appointed for this Sunday? The one where the lawyer asks Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life and is told to “go and do likewise” in loving his neighbor as himself. (AKA the parable of the Good Samaritan). Am I missing the part where Our Lord instructs us to “go and subscribe the the theory of subsititionary atonement as the only viable theological understanding of the saving power of my death and resurrection?”
If you want to think ‘within the box’, then of course it’s easy to criticise this piece. If you don’t and if you believe that Christian theology has to take account of current knowledge about the vastness of the universe and about the enormous insignificance of human beings within it, then you will think this is a thoughtful piece. That is my view. I don’t believe in an original paradise state (impossible to reconcile with what we now know about developments since the Big Bang) or man’s ‘Fall’. I don’t sneer at those who do. I do think that those who do should not so glibly dismiss people like the writer (or indeed me).
When the box has been constructed by God Himself, then it gets a bit dangerous to discard that box, doesn’t it?
Susan Russell asks:[blockquote]Am I missing the part where Our Lord instructs us to “go and subscribe the the theory of subsititionary atonement as the only viable theological understanding of the saving power of my death and resurrection?â€[/blockquote]
Yes, Susan, you apparently are.
Even if you acccept the 20th century creation myth, the theology of Genesis sets the stage for the whole purpose for which Jesus , the new Adam, came. Science avoids many important questions which are dealth with in scripture. Remember it takes great faith to believe that the big bang was not a creative act.
Thanks, libraryjim–saved me the trouble.
Fred sez:
[blockquote]The issue here is not whether what Ed believes is Christian, but who gets to decide what is “Christianâ€. Last time I looked, it wasn’t you.[/blockquote]
Nice hubris, Fred. Being human and prone to error, we need to be careful about discerning things from God. Because WCC has chosen to align himself (herself?) with hundreds of millions of souls, past and present as well as across cultures, who declare that your brand of religion is [b]NOT[/b] the faith once delivered to the saints, I would say he’s in much better position to make decisions about what is and is not part of the Christian faith.
As you said, you are certainly free to choose your own path; you are not free to decide if your path constitutes the Christian faith. Why? Because the great cloud of witnesses stands against you and that’s no small thing.
[i]Heaven after death is already taken care of in the love and forgiveness and compassion of God.[/i]
Speaking of which, 20/20 will air a segment tonight (yes, Friday the 13th!) on Hell in Christian theology. Among those appearing will be the inestimable (or infamous, pick your poison) Bishop Charlton Pearson.
Susan – it is one thing to say that you find the theory of penal subsitution unappealing and prefer Christus Victor. It is another to say that the Crucifixion was not necessary or “We must put an end to any portrayal of God that says that without Jesus and the crucifixion we are left standing condemned”
Without the crucifixion, there is no resurrection! Without the “defeat” at the cross, there is no Victory on Sunday! When the “first born of all creation” is not killed, then we are not freed from the slavery of our sins. If Christ did not need to be killed, then he did not need to be raised. If Christ has not been raised, then we are still in our sins and we are of all people the most to be pitied.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Susan, I suspect that you will do the same thing to the Gospel this Sunday that you will do to John 14:6, which is live it in the manner that pleases you.
Phil, its nice to speak with you. Interesting times, to be sure. From a historical standpoint I don’t think your examples are accurate although I know your knowledge of the Word is probably superior to mine. My thoughts: in Paul’s time the “church” was in a process of formation and the core beliefs of Christianity were emerging through the sharing of the Gospel and the work of the Spirit. Did the Church not literally “birth” at the moment of Pentecost? The pharisiacal type people, for example, opposed Paul’s doctrine that their God was also God of the Gentiles. The early Jewish Christians opposed the notion that there could also be circumcision of the Spirit. Over time unity of doctrine emerged, quite obviously with the expression of the Nicene Creed.
Now we are in a different time. A supposedly Christian church speaks against the core meaning of the Gospel. Your presiding Bishop denies Christ in Time magazine as the only means of salvation. Those who hold to “orthodoxy” in your church are a tiny, shrinking minority.
I do not mean to take this off topic by getting into the “Staying versus going argument” which always raises hackles in these parts. I simply observe that your church opposes the Gospel by both statement and action. Is Jesus Christ the head of “your” church, or is Katherine Jefferts Schori? I suppose the answer to that question is in the meaning of the word “church.” If by “church” you mean TEC, then its hard to say that Christ is the head of it as it opposes Him.
Susan Russell and Ed Bacon seem representative of the Episcopal Church from my vantage point. To them, its easy to place inconvenient core truth up on the shelf and call it irrelevant. Evangelicals find power in the Word; and in relationship with Christ comes belief in things that transform lives. Its really not just academic or stuffy “theology” to us, Susan, nor is it empty argument over doctrine, and nor can it be dismissed as the work of pharisees.
Hello all. One thing I note is that the reappraisers on this thread seem to be all lining up and vigorously agreeing with Ed Bacon. That strikes me as interesting because I am constantly hearing that actually reappraisers are not interested in throwing away basic Christian teaching: the Atonement, the Afterlife, original sin, the Devil, and so on. I am, I am told, being very unfair in suggesting that they wish to do so. They are, I am told, just as much defenders of basic Christian teaching as reasserters — it is only on this one issue of homosexuality that we differ.
Could at least one reappraiser stand up — please? — and criticize the Ed Bacon piece, and also criticize the many reappraisers who like it?
Father Bacon’s description of our presiding Bishop reminds me of the description of Raymond Shaw in “The Manchurian Candidate”, “‘Raymond Shaw is the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life, and even now I feel that way – this minute. And yet, somewhere in the back of my mind, something tells me it’s not true. It’s just not true…”
for #39: So an ominpotent God could ONLY work through Crucifixion? I’m only a lowly MDiv but that sounds thelogicallyl problematic to me.
for #38: And would one “reasserter” step up and point us to where the THEORY of atonement was adopted as the only acceptable teaching on the salvific power of the cross?
for the rest of all ya’ll: I’m going back to sermon writing and liturgy details for Sunday … will be back in blogland on Monday.
Susan, God chose to work only through the Crucifixion. Apparently even a “lowly MDiv” finds herself unwilling to submit to His decision. I have a post-graduate degree also and have no need, intellectual or otherwise, to redefine God to my liking. It would be interesting to discuss with you, being fairly representative of “progressive Christianity,” what exactly it is that you DO submit to.
[blockquote] And would one “reasserter†step up and point us to where the THEORY of atonement was adopted as the only acceptable teaching on the salvific power of the cross?[/blockquote]
I’m just a lowly layman, not even a lowly M.Div. like you are, but I guess I would say you can start with these two authorities:
The Apostle Paul: “We have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.” Ephesians 1:7
The Apostle Peter: “You were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain manner of life … but with the precious blood of Christ, as a Lamb without blemish and without spot.” I Peter 1:18-19.
It seems to me in my ignorance there are a ton more verses like this in the New Testament, as well as a bunch more in the Old Testament likewise bearing witness. Verses like “bearing our sins in His own body” and “by His stripes were ye healed” (both the Prophet Isaiah and the Apostle Peter on those), and He “was as a meek lamb, that is carried to be a victim” (Jeremiah) and “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” (Paul again.) You know, little things like that seem to pop up throughout Scripture.
But hey, I’m just an ignorant layman.
RE: “I do not mean to take this off topic by getting into the “Staying versus going argument†which always raises hackles in these parts.”
Heh. Yep, sure does . . . *your* hackles, I’ve noticed. ; > )
RE: “Without the crucifixion, there is no resurrection! Without the “defeat†at the cross, there is no Victory on Sunday! When the “first born of all creation†is not killed, then we are not freed from the slavery of our sins. If Christ did not need to be killed, then he did not need to be raised. If Christ has not been raised, then we are still in our sins and we are of all people the most to be pitied.”
Yeh, Phil . . . so what’s the problem??
; > )
RE: “One thing I note is that the reappraisers on this thread seem to be all lining up and vigorously agreeing with Ed Bacon. That strikes me as interesting because I am constantly hearing that actually reappraisers are not interested in throwing away basic Christian teaching: the Atonement, the Afterlife, original sin, the Devil, and so on. I am, I am told, being very unfair in suggesting that they wish to do so.”
Yes . . . so we have all been told. We’ve all been told that so many, many, many revisionists are just fine with the creed, they just want to support same-sex non-celibate relationships. This will be a fine, additional exhibit to the long, long line of exhibits that have stacked up over the past four years.
You hit the nail on the head, John Stamper.
Now sarah, its only beause I love you that I let you talk about my hackles without riposte.
Peace,
William
Susan (#40)
I guess that God did not [b]have[/b] to work through the Crucifixion. However, all of history shows that He did work through the crucifixion. That is what we have to deal with. The death of Jesus Christ is what allows us to have union with God – at one ment – atonement. There are several “theories” that are equally valid and have scriptural support. The most popular theories today (and since the middle ages) are variations on penal substitution where Christ paid the debt for our sins. Even as a “lowly M.Div.” you should be aware of the provenance and scriptural support for this theory of how the crucifixion acheives the atonement. There are other theories but the one I like the best is “Christus Victor” where Christ takes upon himself the powers of death and evil and destruction and defeats them. The bid difference is that I (who do not have an M.Div, but am just a “lowly deacon” acknowledge that penal substitution is a valid theory that explains how the crucifixion works. It may not be the “best” theory, but it works. I’ve used it myself in evangelism – particularly in prison where it resonates very clearly with men who have debts to pay within prison and outside of prison. They understand the concept of someone else paying their debts.
Perhaps if you tried to see someone else’s point of view before you condemned their faith, you would not be so quick to make such sweeping statements.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Such a difficult choice for the lowly layman! Should I line up with the consistent Christian theology of 2000 years, as set forth, studied and analyzed by millions of Christians, some of whom knew Jesus personally? Or do I go with Bacon’s bits?
By the way: Is anything important riding on this decision?
RE #28
[blockquote]if you believe that Christian theology has to take account of current knowledge about the vastness of the universe and about the enormous insignificance of human beings within it, then you will think this is a thoughtful piece.[/blockquote]
The vastness of the universe doesn’t always lead to the diminishment of humanity. See: [url=http://www.theresurgence.com/hugh_ross_2002_anthropic_principle]The Anthropic Principle[/url]. We should look at the universe and run to Christ. Not dismiss Him.
“I don’t believe in an original paradise state (impossible to reconcile with what we now know about developments since the Big Bang) or man’s ‘Fall’.”
John, 14.7 billion years is a loooooong time, so there’s a lot we DON’T know! Just how old is (recognizably) human civilization? 10,000 years, maybe? But if you’re going to kick ‘Adam’ off the page, you can’t have Christianity at all. Sorry, but the whole NT will unravel, starting at Romans 5 and working through the gospels. You might as well adopt Freud or some other 20th century myth (the 21st is still working its own out). But you can’t call it Christianity, especially if you dump incarnation, trinity, and two natures Christology.
#50
I think you can have Christianity with ‘Adam’ off the page. It just needs a little tweaking. I’m working on it. There’s nothing to worry about here.
as a reappraiser, I think they are both wrong. Ed Bacon is right that our cosmologies are completely different: one doesn’t see a problem with assuming biblical cosmology and our own are fundamentally similar, the other thinks that our capitalist, old earth world-view changes the issue a bit. Personally, I would go a more subtle route.
There has never been one single dogma that asserts the priority of any single atonement theology. Yes – atonement theory is important: but which one? Some make more sense than others. And no – I’ll explain it in my own blog later this evening and not just here.
Matthew’s argument would be incomprehensible to others who do not understand his references. Bacon doesn’t attempt to interpret Christian doctrine.
#51 john,
I would think that a “little tweaking” would indeed keep Adam on the page, but just a little “tweaked”.
Even evolutionarily speaking, Adam need not be cast-off: at some point in time, [i]Homo sapiens sapiens[/i] (theologically defined, of course) did appear. (However, we might be surprised to find that Eve actually came first. But that’s another story). And we can name that first Person (whether male or female) “Adam”. (Questions of mono- versus polygenesis need not detain us here.) It’s interesting that the ‘breath’ of God flowed into dust, creating Adam. Human breath contains molecules formerly part of the human body; I would imagine God’s breath contains ‘elements’ formerly part of God’s ‘body’ (metaphorically speaking, of course), which would make the ‘elements’ of God’s ‘body’ a part of Adam’s body: God ‘breathed’ into the pre-Adamic dust, and Adam became a living soul. The Fall was the ‘breathing’ out of God’s body, but the Incarnation victoriously re-united the body of God and the body of Man, culminating in the Crucifixion, Descent, and Ascension.
Taken together, Adam represents the entry of God, incarnate, in Creation; Adam represents, then, not a merely biological entity. Christ fulfilled the Adamic project.
John Scholasticus, if you tweak Christianity to fit science, be prepared for lots of tweakings – science itself keeps changing and steps “forward” are often taken back. I am less confident than you in what we think we know and how we think we know it.
Hi, Sherri. Hope all is well with you and yours. You don’t seem to have been around much recently.
Best,
John.
#53
Thanks. Something I don’t think absolutely sustainable any longer is this absolute divide between human beings and animals. Something I think highly unlikely to be sustainable (but cannot prove it because none of us will be around for long enough) is the claim that human beings will always be ‘the tops’. On either count, I don’t believe – can’t believe – in this wholly anthropocentric theology. There are – surely – intimations even in the Bible that such orthodoxy isn’t enough – e.g. Isaiah’s prophecy about animals lying down together (this animals eating one another world isn’t good enough) or Paul’s ‘the whole creation is in travail ‘ – a creation which seemingly involves – or should involve – justice to all animal life.
“Would one ‘reasserter’ step up and point us to where the THEORY of atonement was adopted as the only acceptable teaching on the salvific power of the cross?†—Susan Russell
Susan: Your question turns the issue upside down.
Ed Bacon doesn’t offer possible “additional ways to understand Christ’s death on the Cross.†He CATEGORICALLY CONDEMNS the traditional doctrine of the Atonement. He ridicules it. He declares that “we must put an end†to it. That’s what reasserters are responding to.
In defense of Bacon’s doctrinaire intolerance, you ask his critics to prove that the doctrine of the Atonement precludes any other teaching about “teaching on the salvific power of the cross.†But we don’t need to do that: we can legitimately criticize Bacon’s “God Murdering His Son†position without adopting a similarly extreme exclusive-truth position of our own.
_ _ _ _ _ _
The doctrine of the Atonement finds scriptural support in these New Testament passages (among others).
— John 3:14-16: “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up [i.e., crucified], that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.â€
— John 11:51-52: “He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.â€
— 1 John 2:2: “If anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.â€
Given such scriptural language (e.g., “Jesus Christ…is the atoning sacrifice for our sinsâ€), I don’t see how anyone can honestly depict the Atonement as beyond the pale?
Why, moreover, does the Book of Common Prayer so conspicuously declare that on the Cross Christ “made…(by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world�
It is Ed Bacon, not reasserters, from whom an explanation is past due.
_ _ _ _ _ _
I trust that other reasserters will respond to Susan’s challenge by further discussing the scriptural case for the Atonement.
If your son or daughter gave their life for the greater good of mankind, and then someone else came along and called it “unnecessary” or “child abuse”, what would your reaction be? Now imagine, you are the holy and almighty LORD God, who from the beginning of creation had planned for how the world would be reconciled to Himself by the sacrifice of His only Son….and someone came along and said, “We all have our ‘crucified moments’. “Jesus’ sacrifice was not unique.” “There are other ways to salvation.” The hubris is mind-boggling. How God is capable of withholding His righteous wrath and anger is beyond my comprehension.
TEC speaks most clearly on doctrine by what it allows and approves. The reasons Bp Robinson is not an isolatable case is because it tells us that homosexual activity is not just allowed for the common folk, it is activity appropriate to the highest offices of the clergy. The reason that Rev. Bacon is not just a lone wacko is because by failing to exercise any discipline or even disapproval of his revisionist doctrine, the church is telling us that we don’t need a savior in any traditional Christian sense. The reason the Muslipalian priestess is a big issue is that we have learned that at least in the Washington diocese, and apparently at 815, no essential conflict between Christianity and Islam is perceived by TEC.
The church may pass resolutions and issue statements, but the facts on the ground declare more loudly the church’s doctrine.
It only took a sling-shot slinging teenager to defeat a “giant” who was blaspheming the LORD God, when all of Saul’s men were standing around afraid to engage the Philistine. It has been my life’s experience that if you dedicate it to the LORD, He will bless it.
Since Ed Bacon is a priest in TEC, which is still part of the Anglican Communion and I am a member of an Anglican Church, what can I do to initiate charges of heresy against him? Who will join me?
I don’t have much of a problem with [url=http://www.http://stbartswp.dioceseny.org/node/192%5B/atonement%5D, but what atonement means, and how it happens, is worth considering. Bacon has bought into post-Christianity, which was only possible with the salvation Christ already bought.