Tercel

* It is entirely possible that Jesus never said any such thing: Just because the gospels claim Jesus said something does not necessarily mean it is true that he did.
* It all depends on your interpretation. Can we come to the Father by Jesus and through Jesus without us consciously knowing Jesus? Nothing says we cannot. Paul wrote that:
"And just as all people were made sinners as the result of the disobedience of one man [Adam], in the same way they will all be put right with God as the result of the obedience of one man [Christ]" (Romans 5:19)
No explicit knowledge of Adam is needed for people to be put wrong with God. Why should explicit knowledge of Christ be needed for people to be put right with God through what he has done?

On the subject of "original sin": I agree with the Orthodox in finding the notion that sin can be inherited a rather dubious one. I believe that Jesus died for everyone's own sins.
But you can accept both evolution and the idea that there was such a thing as the "first humans". If you believe (as I do, and I believe the Catholics teach this also), that humans have a soul and animals do not then it implies that at some point in the evolutionary process God acted to place such a soul in first humans.

[qb]Christian,[/qb]
The words "substitutionary atonement" makes me think Penal Theory of Atonement. Was Spurgeon that specific, or am I reading too much into your words?

PS, for christ-on-a-stick and others who may not be aware of this:
The theories of the atonement are theories meant to explain exactly how it is that Christ's death did good things. The Penal theory was proposed by the Catholic theologian Anselm in the 11th century and has since been largely accepted by most Catholic and Protestant groups (though it's always been rejected with bells on by the Orthodox and similarly by most modern liberals). According to this theory our sin merits our damnation which God would be forced to punish us with, so Jesus through his death took upon himself our suffering.
Personally I think this theory has some planet-sized holes in. An Orthodox theologian does a rant about it here. (This is extremely recommended reading as it gives some brilliant insights into the differences between different groups of Christians. Take some of his opinions with a grain of salt though.)

Christian

I'm an old earth creationist. I see the 7 days as "day ages." I think the earth is billions of years old, but I do believe there was a literal Adam and Eve some time between 30,000 and 6,000 years ago. If you are familiar with Hugh Ross's interpretation of Genesis, that's basically what I believe.

I think that evolution as an explaination for how life arose in the first place is a fatally flawed theory. However I've met some theistic evolutionists who believed in a literal Adam and Eve. If you believe that scripture is inerrant I don't see how it would be possible to avoid the conclusion that a literal Adam and Eve existed.

Spurgeon did say "substitutionary atonement." If "Penal Theory of the Atonement" means viewing Christ's death in terms of judicial transactions, then that is the view Spurgeon held and I assume the view he was refering to.

"Rom 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10 For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."

Basically we are all ungodly. Christ died for us. Therefore we are justified by his blood and saved from God's wrath through Jesus' death. If that is a description of "Penal" atonement, then I would call penal atonement an essential of Christianity. The most basic and core of Christian beliefs that I can think of (I disagree with the "believe what Jesus taught" answer. A sufficiently creative and intelligent person can tie just about any belief to Jesus' words.)

"Substitutionary" basically means "Christ suffered our punishment for us" to me.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Tercel,

I'm curious. In what way do you think that the benefits of Christ's death are applied to us?

Respectfully,

Christian

christ-on-a-stick

Thanks, Tercel & Christian for your replies.

Tercel, Curious. If you do not consider the Gospels to be a necessarily accurate account of Jesus' life and words, is it not just as "entirely possible" that Jesus never claimed *any* of what is attributed to him, and that the Resurrection never happened for that matter? Why believe in any part of it over any other part? If anything it seems that the more ludicrous of the claims would be more worthy of suspicion (i.e. rising from the dead, since it contradicts the laws of nature, and many of the miracles attributed to Jesus for the same reason). It seems more believable to me that an itinerant (and possible loony) preacher claimed divinity and that he was the "only way to God" than to believe that said preacher turned water into wine, without employing magical thinking.

I have some reading to do but I will address the other points as well

Lauri

christ-on-a-stick

Hi Christian, Do you believe this in spite of the scientific evidence to the contrary or because you have examined the evidence and found it lacking? Or are you aware of some scientific evidence for all of humanity originating with two homo sapiens (no previous evolutionary stages) that somehow the scientific community has overlooked? If so I'm sure the folks up in Evolution/Creation woud be mighty interested in hearing about it. Can I assume, then, if you were to accept the fact that the scripture is errant, it would no longer be possible to avoid the conclusion that a literal Adam & Eve did not exist? A few nits to pick with this whole "penal atonement" concept...

1. Do you consider an innocent person taking the punishment for a guilty person (or persons) an example of "justice"?

2. In the case of an innocent person taking the punishment for a guilty person(s) crime, would it be "just" for the punishment to be reducted to an infinitesimal fraction of what the guilty person's punishment would have been?

3. If a guilty person's "debt" is paid, does their realization and/or acknowledgement of this fact make any difference as to whether or not the debt has been paid? Do they get double-charged for not knowing or believing that it was already taken care of?

4. Can one "repay a debt" to ones' self???

Just a few thoughts...

Christian

No, I consider it "grace." There is nothing just about grace (in and of itself.) Unmerited favor is entirely not fair.

No, but you have it backwards. The value of Christ's death is infinitely greater than the value of me suffering eternal torment.

If the payment is condition in that way, yes. Is it logically impossible to make a conditional payment of someone's debt?

No. If the conditions are not met, then the payment is not applied to the account. No double jeopardy. In Christ's death a payment for our sins was "accomplished." But it is not "applied" to our individual account until the conditions are met (faith/repentance.)

No. But the Father is not the Son. God is three "Who's" and one "What." Is it precisely in the aspect of being a "self" that God is three.

Respectfully,

Christian

Tercel

Anything that isn't logically incoherent is possible. So yes, it's possible. I find it extremely unlikely though. Even the more radical Biblical scholars such as the Jesus Seminar have concluded the the gospels most probably accurately depict Jesus' words in at least a few instances.

Logic, reasoning, consistency, evidence: ie scholarly analysis.

Of course. However if you hold the belief that Christianity as a whole is generally true (including a belief that Jesus was divine) due to your life experiences in the present day, then when confronted by miraculous stories in the text they do not come across as quite so ludicrous.

christ-on-a-stick

Hi Christian, Can I take this to mean that you would not consider God to possess the quality of being "perfectly just"?
WHY?? This strikes me as patently absurd. Somehow a few days of suffering to an all-powerful, eternal being who will live forever in power and glory thereafter (and KNOWS that the suffering is only temporary) is *worse* than a human being suffering eternal torment in a fiery pit??? No, but it strikes me as rather petty and self-centered Interesting theory, and I do understand what you are saying; it makes sense in an abstract way. One problem, though; the bible is not explicitly clear on what exactly the "conditions" are. Faith? Works? A combination thereof? As I'm sure you know, the various denominations have fought quite bitterly at times over the differing interpretations of what exactly is required... usually in a transaction like this (a "contract" if you will) the terms and conditions are very clearly and explicitly spelled out, no need for subjective "interpretation". Garofusis uyrlsbeja foiwrah. See what I mean??? J/K.... but seriously, that is probably a whole other thread... in fact I think Fenton Mulley just started one. I will check it out. Suffice it to say for the moment that I find the whole concept of the "Trinity" to be... incoherent.

In any case, look forward to your thoughts on my above responses.

Tercel - reply to you Coming Soon.

Farren

Actually not. Many theologians don;t believe in hell. The myth originates from
1) The place Christ purportedly went in his 3 days of absence from earth. This is a mistranslation of the Greek, which used the word for the (then) Greek concept of an "underworld", not a place of punishment
2) Revelations, which speaks of a pit where Satan and Co will be cast for a thousand years

The idea of an eternal place of punishment is a medieval invention that didn't exist prior to the end of the first millennia. I'm still astonished by the number of Christians that don't really "know" their own faith

Farren

Any serious historical evaluation of Xianity clearly demonstrates a philosophy that has been warped, mistranslated and in a (slow) process of change for the last 2 thousand years. Roughly 100 years after the death of Christ there were a vast number of conflicting theologies under the umbrella of christianity:

The belief that Christ was a seperate god, the belief that Christ was incapable of sin and any denial of temptation was symbolic. The belief that the holy spirit was not a being at all. The belief that Christ, while Gods son, was nothing more than human.

In addition, the scriptures that form the bulk of most bibles (even these differ to this day) were collated more than a century after the death of Christ by a powerful group of noblemen and, by all the evidence, political and materialistic Clerics, at the behest of Constanine. This was done in an effort to prevent the many Christian factions in the crumbling Roman empire from tearing the empire apart. At the same time, an "official" doctrine was established and "heretics" were put to the sword to unify the Religion.

Some serious scholars claim that Christianity today is the particular interpretation of Paul, and should more accurately be labelled "Paulism"

I have a friend who claims to be a Christian. For him this involves praying regularly and being nice to people. He doesn't believe in stifling dissent, using state funds to fund Xianity, or Christianity. He finds the idea of someone else explaining to him what is "good" or "bad" in a church antethical to all he holds dear and never attends any kind of church service. He believes in God but believes it is well within the capacity of any divine being to guide each person through their own conscience

If all Xians were like this, I would see Xianity as a positive and constructive belief, even if I found its premises illogical. I think if most of the atheists here are honest with themselves, they'll admit its not the lack of logic on its own that bothers them. Consider all of the illogical human traits we indulge in our friends not related to religion. Its the lack of logic combined with the prescriptive, dominating, prosletylizing bigotry that attends most "Christian" belief.

If we could encourage Christians to reject the confrontational and damaging aspects of thier faith, while accepting the ones that advocate peaceful co-existence and respect, the world would be an infinitely better place already.