Bridgers Class

[williamdlongworth]

Faithful readers,

Our man Lewis is at it again. Considering theism in general and Christianity in particular to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, Lewis states that he will devote the remainder of the book to examining moral and theological issues from a Christian perspective.

There are some sections worth praising here. One comes when he condemns the intrusive and sanctimonious brand of Christianity, unfortunately all too common today, that believes that society should ban anything that makes them uncomfortable or that they dislike. "One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way."

1. (Covering some previous ground here, but I thought it applicable.) In MC, Lewis claims that the Christ-life is spread to men through baptism, belief, and the Lord’s Supper. This is a false gospel of faith plus works.
It is not his Methodist friend we should listen to but the Bible itself, and the Bible says that salvation is by the grace of Christ alone through faith in Christ alone without works. Works are important but they follow after salvation and are the product of salvation rather than the means of it. The difference between saying that salvation is by faith without works and that works follow and saying that salvation is by faith with works or faith plus works is the difference between a true gospel and a false one. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:8-10).

2. As for faith in the blood of Christ, Lewis said that it is not an essential part of Christianity. He taught that it does not matter how one defines the atonement, and as near as I can tell he himself did not believe in the substitutionary blood atonement. His words from MC:

“You can say that Christ died for our sins. You may say that the Father has forgiven us because Christ has done for us what we ought to have done. You may say that we are washed in the blood of the Lamb. You may say that Christ has defeated death. They are all true. IF ANY OF THEM DO NOT APPEAL TO YOU, LEAVE IT ALONE AND GET ON WITH THE FORMULA THAT DOES. And, whatever you do, do not start quarrelling with other people because they use a different formula from yours”.

This is rank heresy. Lewis wrongly claimed that it does not matter if a person believes that he is washed in Christ’s blood, that this is a mere “formula” that can be accepted or rejected at one’s pleasure. He said that it is just as well to believe that “the Father has forgiven us because Christ has done for us what we(?) ought to have done.” That is a bloodless salvation through Christ’s life rather than through the Cross, which, according to Paul is no salvation at all. The “blood” is mentioned almost a hundred times in the NT, and that is no accident. “...all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).

Our man Lewis believes that the central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Okay, but then he keeps going and tells us that the theories as to how it did this are another matter, and that the theories are quite secondary to the fact of it having been done. If one wants to stop there I suppose I should have no problem with it. The fact remains, however, that it is unscriptural teaching. God has revealed exactly what Christ did and what the atonement means. It is not a matter of theorizing or believing one “formula” over against another. The Bible says our salvation is a matter of a propitiation, a ransom, whereby our sins were washed away by Christ’s bloody death, which was offered as a payment to satisfy God’s holy Law. (I know some of you might have noticed that my preference quoting OT to NT, but I've got to put Rom 3:25 here). Through Christ's blood a Christian has eternal redemption, this blood being analogous to the blood of goats and calves that was sprinkled on the mercy seat in satisfaction of God's law.

This is not a theory or a formula. It is straight from the Word of God. True, one can believe it or not, but it is a simple, straightforward testimony of Scripture; a doctrine called propitiation, and it has been believed by the church for centuries.

3. Among other subjects Lewis believed, but which to the proper Protestant should be considered heresy, are: scripture was not literal or inerrant and infallible (he said he believed in "the myths of scripture"); he believed in Purgatory, a Catholic doctrine in which the saved spend an unknown amount of time being cleansed of their sins before going to Heaven (see The Great Divorce); he said prayers for the dead, and to pagan gods; etc., etc.

How much further should we go on with this?

If you don't care, I shouldn't either.

Your Friendly, Neighborhood Apatheist,

~Bill


"It's all in Plato. It's all in Plato."

[Dolfan]

Just a quick note about Lewis "considering theism in general and Christianity in particular to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt"


It is important to read the Preface to this book. It is clear that Lewis' intentions in writing this book was not to convert anyone or to provide an apologetics for Christianity.

In fact, it is clear by the title "Mere Christianity" that he is describing Christianity. Going into the book, we should have not expectations of reading an apology on Christianity. So, of course he is "assuming" that theism to be proved...his target readers are Christians. If what we wanted is an apologetics...then we are reading the wrong book.

[williamdlongworth]

Dolfan,

I'm not sure exactly what you meant about reading the Preface. We did. And it actually does seem pretty clear that he was trying to give reasonably reasonable reasons for Christianity, even if he didn't come straight out and say so. That is one reason the BBC asked him to guest these radio talks. Of course he is not trying to make an extensive apologetics for Christianity, but he does follow a common practice of apologists, trying to convince of the existence of God first; and then trying to convince of the Christian God next, along the way trying to get everyone to see that we all can do no good of ourselves. What other reason can you think of for having spent so much time (the whole first book) doing just what I said he has done? Anyone else think so? Remember him talking about coming into the hall?

Also, in the Preface, he says he wanted to make clear his intent on writing the book, "to explain and defend Christianity". Hmmm.
Also, I was looking at recommended reading lists in a couple of other books last night. Funny thing, listed under the apologetics topics in each one was "Mere Christianity". Hmmm.

Yes, of course we have talked about his circular, begging the question, I'm going to prove what you already believe, arguments. It is just that at this point in the book, he feels that part of the job is over, and he can go on to other things such as behavior and the theology of the Trinity. So certainly it should be acceptable to address his change in strategy in the middle of the book.

Certainly, if we wanted real apologetics, not the cotton-candy kind we find here, we should have gone with a book written by someone who was a bit more orthodox than Lewis. He believed a few quite strange things to your modern-day Protestant, which I have outlined; and he also believed in a Christianity that was so ecumenical to almost be considered Universalist.
So my point is that this classic "Christian" book should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt and under close scrutiny. Incidentally, since it is considered by the masses today to be an apology, and it has been cited by a good number of folks to have been influential in their search, then I think it is fair we at least consider it to be on that front.

By the way, most apologetics are written for/to Christians.
Who do you think buys all those "Case for..." books?

Like I said, if you don't care, I shouldn't either.

Apatheistically yours,

~Bill

P.S.
From dictionary.com:

a·pol·o·get·ics 1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the the truth of Christian doctrines.
2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.

[robertp]

Before I jump in here, let me just say that Bryan invited me to join in the conversation, so I hope I don't come across as an unwelcome intruder. I am honored to be a part of the dialogue, and I am humbled and pleased that this group has flourished so wonderfully under God's guidance of your cooperative efforts. Blessings to the Bridgers!

I mainly want to jump into the Atonement discussion (Bill's Aug.8 post). Before we bind Lewis to a stake (btw, "heresy" really is a Roman Catholic idea connected with "ex cathedra" decrees, and has no place in Protestantism--technically, to deny papal infallibility would be "heresy," and there are many formerly "heretical" ideas that are no longer so)...anyway, before we bind Lewis to a stake, it might be helpful to examine some of what is being written here.

First, there are many "formulas" in Scripture that attempt to explain what happened in Christ's passion. There is commonly considered to be five image pools borrowed from ancient Mediterranean life to describe the saving effects of Christ's death: law (e.g. justification); commerce (e.g. redemption); relationships (e.g. reconciliation); worship (e.g. sacrifice); and battle (e.g. defeating evil). As can be seen, "penal substitution" is only one of several images used to understand this puzzling event.

Second, it is NOT the blood that is important. If it is, then we are without hope, because I have never literally taken a shower with Christ's sticky, red blood pouring over me. It is figurative. As Bill rightly says, it is Christ's "bloody DEATH" that is at the heart of the matter, and the metaphor of being "washed in the blood" is just that.

Third, Bill himself, quoting the popular MODERN theory of "substitutionary atonement" or "penal substitution" actually combines several different image pools by saying, "The Bible says our salvation is a matter of a propitiation, a ransom [commerce], whereby our sins were washed away by Christ's bloody death [OT worship], which was offered as a payment to satisfy God's holy Law [law]." This proves Lewis' point: which formula is correct--ransomed from captivity to sin? cleansed by ritualistic sacrifice? legally deemed justified according to divine Law? Or is it some combination, as Bill has chosen here?

Fourth, Bill has chosen to quote Heb. 9:22 and Rom. 3:25--both of which are marvelous scriptural choices! However, both of these actually point to another orthodox view of atonement: expiation. Where the currently popular "penal substitution" THEORY of propitiation is juridical, the "vicarious sacrifice" theory of expiation is relational. Where propitiation focuses on satisfying divine wrath, expiation focuses on reconciled relationship. Where propitiation focuses on changing God, expiation focuses on changing humans. I merely offer this as an orthodox, scriptural option that actually buffers Lewis' point.

Finally, I could use clarification on a few things. What exactly is a "proper Protestant," and how are you discerning what would and wouldn't be deemed Protestant "heresy"? What is wrong with not taking all of Scripture as literal and with reading some as "myth," and what do you mean by "inerrant" and "infallible"? And last, could you back up the statements that Lewis believed in Purgatory, prayed for the dead, and prayed to pagan gods?

Happy to be in the discussion,
_________________
Robert Pelfrey
Co/Co/Co...-Founder, Bridgers Class
http://unveiled-faces.blogspot.com

[williamdlongworth]

Robertp! I should have been able to guess who that was! Glad to have you around in the ether!

I like to go point by point, Robert, so here we go.

Yes, officially heresy was defined by Rome (what wasn't? it's where so much of what we know as Christianity started, and for that we owe a great debt). However, heresy is a commonly used word even in evangelical circles (among those who care, anyway). The common definition would be something along the lines of "opposed to orthodox religious belief". I think it is safe to say that Protestants do possess some common, or "orthodox" beliefs. (Unless you're Unitarian). So I believe there is justification for using the word. Speaking of RC, "ex cathedra" is one of the issues that I would expect the proper Protestant to have a problem with. Ex cathedra decrees, and papal infallibility, have not only to do with the Pope's official statements regarding morals and doctrines, but also refers to Church Councils, such as Nicea, Trent, Vatican II, etc. Going back to the day, I think it is plainly visible to me that, along with personal abuses by the Church (some of this directly related to the politicization by Constantine, which I think is one of the worst things to ever happen), one of the most important factors invoved in the Reformation (protest against Rome) runs parallel to a similar difficulty we have today: the problem with authority. No one then, and no one now, wants to be told what to do or what is right. So back then the common thing to do was to destroy churches, embattle an entire continent, and create zillions of little denominations, each with their own particular brand of heresy and infighting. Hence, my opinion that it wasn't all about theology, but about power. Come to think of it, what would be a proper protestant? I mean, given that Luther was an extreme anti-Semite, (read "The Jews and their Lies"), what could be so proper about that. If it isn't already evident, I tend to be sympathetic to the RC, and if there is an issue up for debate I believe it best to look to Rome for guidance.

Yes, I know that there are many formulas about Christ's work. You even left out a few: The ransom theory of Origen(I don't see how this is commerce, other than in Sicily), the recapitulation theory by Iraneaus, Anselm's satisfaction theory, the moral influence theory, and the example theory. So saying, I wish to explain how I see it. Propitiation, expiation, ransom, atonement, all run around in a little circle (in dictionaries, thesauri, and scripture) that exhibits a common theme: the willing, appeasing sacrifice. All of those theories are attempts, maybe each with some truth to them, to explain Christ's work of being the willing sacrificial lamb whose blood was shed to appease God's stringent law and requirements of justice. I refer to it as the scarlet thread, beginning with the sacrifices made haphazardly from Abel (probably the only time they were truly worship) until codified by the Mosaic law, and seen as the blood of goats and calves, the Passover lamb, the Lord's Supper, and mentioned most often in scripture as a sacrfice for the remission of sins. Until then the sacrifices had merely covered sin, biding time as it were, until the One sacrificed Himself for their remission. Still, all having to do with the willing, appeasing sacrifice. Yeah, today the blood is metaphorical (except in the Eucharist), but without it's presence in history all we can be left with is the Example theory and the Moral Influence theory, both of which leave us depending on Christ's life instead of his death, and leave the door open for a gospel of works; a door which btw has been flung wide open and walked through too many times. We see these faulty formula's effects today when a person says that if they live a good life they will make it to heaven.
So, could I have been too harsh on Lewis when he gave short shrift to the differing theories? Yes. On the other hand, I hope that we can see how some of the false theories could lead to heresy and falling away.

I am a bit puzzled how you say that propitiation focuses on changing God, but expiation focuses on changing humans. I don't see any of them requiring God to change. Besides the fact that I view them all as explanations for the willing, appeasing sacrifice, I would never propose that God change. As I have vigorously stated before, I believe any elevation of man is pure arrogance. Propitiation, as I think you mean it, puts the emphasis on satisfying God's demands, not changing Him.

Proper Protestant? Besides the few cardinal doctrines, I think this mainly has to do with the extreme reliance on personal revelation and interpretation of scripture, and rejection of church authority. Probably too wide a definition, but all the same I think most protestants would agree on a few issues as heretical: denial of Christ's divinity, among others.

Inerrant? I mean where the Bible states something, whether scientific or historical or other, the Bible is right. Infallible? I mean where the Bible states some moral rule or other, the Bible is right.

Do I mean that this is all literal? Of course not. Parables in any form are not literal. Poems and songs are not literal. Some of the visual images of prophecy are not literal. Unless we have reason to believe something in the Bible is not literal, we should take it as literal. Certainly, many people would put into the category of myth, the creation stories, Noah, Jonah, Job. However, a lot of these are referred to later in scripture, and they seem to be referred to as historical. I would say that lends great weight to their being literal.


I'm getting tired, but let's trudge on.
"C.S. Lewis was anything but a classic evangelical, socially or theologically. Though he shared basic Christian beliefs with evangelicals, he didn’t subscribe to biblical inerrancy or penal substitution. He believed in purgatory and baptismal regeneration” (“C.S. Lewis Superstar,” Christianity Today, Dec. 2005).

Lewis believed in prayers for the dead. In Letters to Malcolm, he wrote, “Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter men. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden” (p. 109). He believed in purgatory. In Letters to Malcolm, he wrote” “I believe in Purgatory. ... The right view returns magnificently in Newman’s Dream. There if I remember rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer ‘with its darkness to affront that light’. ... Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they?” (pp. 110-111). Lewis confessed his sins regularly to a priest and was given the Catholic sacrament of last rites on July 16, 1963 (Roger Lancelyn Green and Walter Hooper, C.S. Lewis: A Biography, 1974, pp. 198, 301). Lewis denied the total depravity of man and the substitutionary blood atonement of Christ. He believed in theistic evolution and rejected the Bible as the infallible Word of God. He taught that hell is a state of mind: “And every state of mind, left to itself, every shutting up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind--is, in the end, Hell” (Lewis, The Great Divorce, p. 65). D. Martin Lloyd-Jones warned that C.S. Lewis had a defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement (Christianity Today, Dec. 20, 1963). In a letter to the editor of Christianity Today, Feb. 28, 1964, Dr. W. Wesley Shrader, First Baptist Church, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, warned that “C.S. Lewis ... would never embrace the (literal-infallible) view of the Bible” (F.B.F. News Bulletin, Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, March 4, 1984).

Lewis never gave up his unholy fascination with paganism. On a visit to Greece with his wife in 1960, Lewis made the following strange, unbiblical statement:

“I had some ado to prevent Joy (and myself) from lapsing into paganism in Attica! AT DAPHNI IT WAS HARD NOT TO PRAY TO APOLLO THE HEALER. BUT SOMEHOW ONE DIDN’T FEEL IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY WRONG--WOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN ADDRESSING CHRIST SUB SPECIE APOLLONIUS” (C.S. Lewis to Chad Walsh, May 23, 1960, cited from George Sayer, Jack: A Life of C.S. Lewis, 1994, p. 378).

"What happens in the Lord’s Supper is a mystery, and so the Roman Catholic conception of the bread and wine becoming the actual body and blood of Christ might be just as valid as the Protestant view of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial" (Letters to Malcolm, chapter 19). ...

From the 1940s to the end of his life, Lewis’s spiritual advisor was a Catholic priest named Walter Adams (The Narnian, p. 224). It was to this priest that Lewis confessed his sins.

Roman Catholics love C.S. Lewis as much as evangelicals. His books are typically found in Catholic bookstores. Michael Coren, a Roman Catholic, wrote a biography of Lewis entitled “C.S. Lewis: The Man Who Created Narnia.” The Catholic news agency Zenit asked Coren, “What do Catholics need to know about C.S. Lewis?” He replied: “They should know he wasn’t a Catholic, but that doesn't mean he wouldn’t have become one eventually. G. K. Chesterton became a Catholic in 1922 but had really been one for 20 years. ... Lewis was born in Belfast, in sectarian Northern Ireland, so he was raised anti-Catholic like most Protestant children there. He was a man of his background but HIS VIEWS WERE VERY CATHOLIC: HE BELIEVED IN PURGATORY, BELIEVED IN THE SACRAMENTS, WENT TO CONFESSION” (“The Subtle Magic of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia: Michael Coren’s Perspective as the New Movie Looms,” Zenit, Dec. 7, 2005).

OK, most of the last part of this (about Lewis) is not my own. I told you I was tired, and legwork for research bores me to tears sometimes.

Anyway, I'm still glad you are here. I hope you are, too.

Your Friendly, Neighborhood Apatheist,

~Bill

P.S. Somewhere near the end of The Last Battle, I remember someone talking to Aslan and saying that he had been a follower of Tash and so had no hope of being saved. Aslan tells him something to the effect that because he was so sincere in his search that he was in essence serving Aslan by serving Tash faithfully. If my remembrance is correct, does this sound fishy to anybody else? That a faithful follower of an enemy of God would be saved?

[jennsing]

Thanks for the research, dear. I appreciate your work on this. Helps to remind us that Lewis, was indeed, human too -- and that we need not set him on such a high pedestal as some would do.
-Jennifer

[williamdlongworth]

Bryan,

Thanks for the call-back post. Keep me in line! I would be glad to help expound on the theories of atonement that I put out there. Give me a little time to do that.

1) What I am suggesting is to read between the lines when we are looking at anything we are reading and supposed to be learning from. Like the cults are so proficient at, we have to be aware that people can use the right words in the right order, but not mean the same thing. I am not suggesting Lewis is intentionally trying to mislead us or anybody, only that he is a bit unorthodox in some views. Part of being faithful Christians would be to be able to identify the Trojan Horses in our midst, wouldn't you agree? For instance, I think we could even look critically at the "Purpose Driven" books and plans for growth in order to identify some of the symptoms of an over-emphasis on works and a watering down of Christ.

2) Good guess on the ransom---some say hostage to sin, some hostage to Satan. Moral Influence and Example Theory are similar in that they put an emphasis on Christ's life and sayings as the way to salvation. I am still planning to put more out there, and read other's opinions, on these and more if anybody is interested.

3) Have you ever heard the saying, "Consider the source"? Lewis was very likely a good man and a good Christian. However, when a person is writing profusely about so many topics that should be considered out-there, questionable, or even heretical, we are obligated to look at the rest of their body of work with even more scrutiny. I don't think time wasted talking about his other works, his personal beliefs, or his own religious practices are wasted time. That is part of the prudence we should practice. Ad Hominem attacks are not my style, but critiques of a person's practices and attitudes are fair game. Believe me, there was a lot more "dirt" I could have shovelled out there if that was my intent ( I read a ton of Lewis while I was recalled), and some of it is pretty important, especially when so many will just accept his word without a second thought. And you know there are folks that will do that. Remember the pedestal most wanted to put him on when it was suggested we read this book? People were a bit intimidated, and for no good reason. One of the values of this thread has hopefully been to justify intense scrutiny of any opinions, classic or not. BTW, the best-seller list doesn't qualify him or anybody else for anything except selling a lot of books. I went to his other works in order to show that in the places he did expound further on these topics, he tended to go further and further toward some strange thoughts. I find it incredible that noone else has been as critical of anything he has said in any of his works. Most especially in The Great Divorce, or the Narnia books, especially the last example from my previous post. That is some serious stuff to think about.
Praying to other gods? Enemies of God being saved? Come on now.

These are important doctrinal points to consider. I mean, do you want Christ to have suffered once for all, or do you want to have to work off your sins in Purgatory? The two lines don't intersect. Actual body and blood, or just symbolism? I mean, do you want Christ to have suffered and died only once, or do you want his suffering and death at each Communion? Again, the two lines don't intersect. Is man totally depraved, or is there some good in and of himself? Did Christ merely do what we should have done, or does that imply that we theoretically have the power to actually do that? When it comes down to it, being able to answer questions like this is important to our being able to understand why we accept it, and to explain it to others. Paul urged us to wean ourselves from the milk, and partake of the meat. Not accept blindly, but understand. Children do need to accept that parents require things from them for their best interest. However, it is preferrable if they know why certain things are bad for them, in order to apply principles for gauging future behaviors and thoughts, not simply for the sake of following a rule.


Interesting question, are RC and protestantism both Christian religions. We might explore that sometime. The official Vatican II position remains that all protestant denominations (among which they include Jehovah's Witnesses and others) are still in schism with the one true church, which is a way of saying heretical. Protestants, on the other hand, if they are willing to be heretical, must have some awfully strong opinions about RC, too, huh?

Always heretical,

~Bill

[robertp]

Exciting stuff (at least for theology nerds like me)! As a musician, I learned long ago that it's difficult putting stuff in concrete form. Once you've written and recorded a song, it's out there. I have songs that I wrote, introduced to my band, and we performed for hundreds of people within a couple days' time. I have other songs that I've been working on for years, trying to work out the theology and just not getting it quite right. Then, I have a couple of songs that we recorded, sold to hundreds of people, and now I totally disagree with the theology of the song. All this just to say, we have to allow Lewis some grace. Like Martin Luther, Lewis hardly blew his nose without someone--himself or otherwise--writing it down. While I agree with the Aristotelian idea that the life of the messenger is an essential part of the message, Lewis was growing in grace just like the rest of us.

I do think some liberties are being taken with the quotations being offered to somehow make a case for Lewis the "heretic." Going to the fiction works for clear articulations of theology is relatively pointless, because by their very nature, they are waaaay open to interpretation. Bill offers the Last Battle exchange about Tash and Aslan, yet I would say that Christ isn't really a Lion. Aslan is a product of Lewis' imagination, and he can bloody well do whatever he wants with the character. The same goes for the Great Divorce, Till We Have Faces, the Space Triology, etc. These are works in which one can allow oneself to enjoy the story and find Christ wherever he shows up for the reader, or one can tear apart every minutiae of plot and character looking for Christ and finding heresy where the story doesn't SEEM to jibe with the reader's understanding. My walk with Christ has benefited greatly by being the former type. Bryan's observations about Malcolm and the "pagan worship" were mine as well. Nevertheless, I think Lewis can do FAR more to point one to Christ than to detract from Christ, and I think MC is a wonderful step to take in exploring the faith--much more right than wrong.

My main point regarding the differing theories of atonement was to point out that Lewis is correct in his assertion that there are many "formulas," and that it is okay to choose one and go with it, as long as it falls within the bounds of orthodoxy. That being the case, the penal substitution theory is just a human attempt (as are the others) to formulate an orderly doctrine out of the scandalous mess that is Christ's passion. It serves its purpose, but it is not exclusive or more scriptural or more orthodox than some others.

For example, to expand on Bryan's understanding of expiation, and to explain what I mean by "changing God"... The idea of propitiation and penal substitution typically relies on belief in a blood-thirsty deity whose otherness (holiness) demands appeasement by animal (or human) sacrifice. This was common of the Ancient Near East in which Judaism emerged. The idea that Christ acted as a substitionary sacrifice (which Bryan picked up on) is not wrong. The error comes in thinking that it was his blood that had some magical power to "change God" from being angry with humanity to being able to relate to those who accept this sacrifice.

Where propitiation emphasizes the idea of appeasing an angry god, expiation is a better word for emphasizing the vicarious sacrifice that a sinful human can find in Christ. It was Christ's sinlessness and complete obedience that are at the fore--not his hemoglobin, plasma, etc. (which Bill acknowledges, albeit with an apparent nod to transubstantiation--a debate for another time perhaps?). In Christ, God's intended relationship of total submission is accomplished by the One (God himself), with the ability to bring others into right relationship that is expressed in growth in grace and sanctificaton. Again, penal sub./propitiation certainly has its place as a legitimate articulation of things. However, FOR ME, it seems more in keeping with God's character in the general tenor of Scripture to explain Christ's death in terms of both modeling and vicariously offering a life of perfect obedience unto death. As the writer of Hebrews most clearly explains:

"In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayer and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard BECAUSE OF HIS REVERENT SUBMISSION. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for ALL WHO OBEY HIM..." --5:7-9 (emph. added)
_________________
Robert Pelfrey
Co/Co/Co...-Founder, Bridgers Class
http://unveiled-faces.blogspot.com

[williamdlongworth]

I never have gotten exactly why some folks cannot abide by or be comfortable with, the idea of an angry God. Almost by definition, He would be the Supreme Wrath, encompassing and surpassing all human emotions, being the Creator of them. And by example, we have seen way too many instances of Him actually being the Angry God in Scripture.
The way I see it, I am willing to let God be seen for who He is, love and anger and compassion and hatred and all.; and not box Him up into the "God is love" category.

Perhaps it is with bias that I still do not see much of a difference between expiation and propitiation. What I mean is, what other reason would their be for the "vicarious sacrifice" of expiation, without the need to appease the never-changing Angry God and His never-changing law which required the blood of the sacrifice? This doesn't require any change on His part, does it?

When talk is made of Christ's sacrifice made through His perfect life, it makes me uncomfortable. I think this will lead/ has led many down the path chanting, "I've lived a good life and I'm going to Heaven!"

A question: We've talked a lot about divine child abuse, and His bloody death being for our salvation. Why do you think Paul tells us, among other thing, that if Christ is not raised from the dead then our faith is for nothing?

Oh, this is fun! (But I don't care!)

Apatheistically Yours,

~Bill

[robertp]

While I am not comfortable with an angry God (who would be!), I can certainly abide by it. I have no problem understanding God as angry, for that is how he is revealed in Scripture on several occasions. I don't think it is good to "box him up" into any category, but since the Spirit-inspired John chose to say that "God is love," and nowhere does Scripture say that God is anger, I think love is likely a deeper and much more profound concept with which to allow our own minds and lives to be filled regarding God. Further, since Christ often instructed his followers to love one another and even our enemies--NEVER to act wrathfully toward them--and since he also showed this (though, granted, the occasional apparent anger and ultimate divine judgment) in his earthly life, I would say love would be a pretty apt way of describing God. Hey, who knew? John was right! Nevertheless, again I do understand God as angry with sin and the disobedience and death it causes.

Regarding propitiation/expiation... Scripture does not present a God who is never-changing, especially to the extent of always being angry. I think what we probably mean for the sake of this discussion is that he is always angry toward sin/disobedience/death. And, yes, this is how I understand God. Further, "appeasement" by its very definition requires change. God is at once dissatisfied with a sinful person or sinful humanity--NOT appeased; then, after Christ's sacrifice, God can have a satisfied attitude toward humanity--NOW appeased. This IS a changed God.

I agree that there is much to be "uncomfortable" about regarding Christ's passion. Further, there are equal (or more) misunderstandings/abuses regarding penal substitution as with vicarious sacrifice--for example, the numerous (especially American) Christians who think Jesus did everything and nothing is required of me--Once saved, always saved. NOWHERE is this idea presented in Scripture. Abuses will happen no matter what. However, I think vicarious sacrifice brings the sinner into Christ's obedient suffering and death AND ALSO brings the now-former sinner into Christ's perfect life. Penal sub., on the other hand, really only brings the sinner into Christ's death--which is probably enough, but is highly questionable according to Scripture. Indeed, in many interpretations, penal sub. doesn't bring the sinnner into anything--it just looks at the Son and the Father. Again, the Father being "appeased" in his attitude toward fallen creation--or only the elect, for Calvinists.

Now, I think the idea of "divine child abuse" is laughable. Just like the sermon I've heard preached ad nauseum about Jesus bearing all the world's sin on himself so God had to look away. God can't look away from God! This is nuts! This is also the point with "divine child abuse." Sure, the Father and Son are seperate, but they're also one God. Yes, God did what was painfully necessary to set us right with him--as he said he would do in the covenant with Abraham--but this is not divine child abuse. This is the Son, fully God and FULLY HUMAN, making the way for humanity to live in right relationship with the Father. It's beautiful, not abusive.

So, Paul writes that faith is for nothing w/out the resurrection b/c, for one thing, Christ would be dead. Here, again, our hope is not just in Christ's passion, but also very much in his resurrection. The writer of Hebrews possibly indicates that Christ's resurrection is divine approval of his sinless and obedient life/death--so that now, through his vicarious sacrifice, we can anticipate resurrection and perfection in him. As Paul writes, Christ is the "firstfruits" of what we all will be. Again, here is Christ the MODEL and Christ the MODE.
_________________
Robert Pelfrey
Co/Co/Co...-Founder, Bridgers Class
http://unveiled-faces.blogspot.com

[jennsing]

Well, I'm certainly not planning to get in over my head in this discussion, but I just wanted to throw out there that God is a jealous God.
Ok - I'm not going to say anything more about that. Just a thought when I was reading.
_________________
Jennifer
Your #1 Dummy

[Terryhibpshman]

A rolicking good discussion. Thanks