annie's view on the atonement and life of Jesus Part 1

I am going to post the following view on atonement written by my best cyber buddy, annie. Life has been really, really confusing and mixed up lately. My mind has been on the never ending merry go round of issues...to the point of distraction. I originally typed obsession, which might perhaps be the better word, but decided to downgrade it to distraction. It sounds better :) This was posted on Emerging Universalist in response to a request for resources on the atonement. We asked annie for her summarized version...and here it is:


okay, i'll try... i just realized that i've never attempted this... i mostly post [lengthy] snippets (i know, an oxymoron LOL) addressing varying aspects of what i believe are misrepresentations of "the atonement". i don't think i've ever tried to compile them before, so bear with me and feel free to offer corrections.


first, i'm passionate, even dogmatic about only ONE thing: God is Love, he is Light, and in him is NO darkness at all. i don't base my views of God solely on scripture, but rather base my interpretation of scripture on that view of God. if a thing seems to deny his divine nature, i believe it cannot be true, no matter what scripture APPEARS to say. due to mistranslations and misinterpretations, even original error by those who were quite certain they were hearing from and correctly representing God, i don't think we can place the entire weight of our faith in words on a page, but rather, only in the PERSON of the Living God. anyways, as one who claims the status of seeker rather than knower, the rest of my views are subject to change with progressive revelation. all we can do is walk in the light we have thus far....


i'd like to address a couple of errors in interpretation that i believe have led to and supported the penal substitution theory of atonement:


1) "propitiation" as defined by fundamentalist tradition has come to mean that Jesus died in our place to PAY for our sins, to appease an angry god. i use a little "g" here for a reason. this view besmirches the character of God, who forgives because it is his nature to do so. there is NO unforgiveness (darkness) IN him, so it is impossible for him to hold a grudge or seek revenge for sin. and his chastening is corrective, not punitive. yes, scripture uses words like "ransomed" and "redeemed", which denote a "payment" of sorts, yet, these too have been misunderstood. i challenge anyone to find it stated explicitly in scripture that Jesus bought forgiveness from God, that God demanded blood and didn't care whose was spilt, whether from the innocent or guilty, as long as the accounts were "evened". at this juncture, someone inevitably quotes from hebrews, "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins". hmmm... just what is REMISSION? if i have cancer, is remission when i have paid my bill or when the cancer no longer ravages my body? selah. scripture clearly states that Jesus is the Lamb of God who TAKES AWAY the sin of the world (john 1.29, i john 3.5), who was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil (1 john 3.8). the TRUE intent of "propitiation" is found in the greek, "hilasterion" (strong's 2435). it is from the same root as "cheerful" or "hilarious" as in "God loves a cheerful giver" (see all the forms in strong's 2431-36). the true intent of the word is that feeling of relief one gets when certain calamity is averted or avoided. there is nothing cheerful or hilarious about a god who demands a blood sacrifice. save that view for molech. propitiation is about RESCUE (please read psalm 102.18-22 and isaiah 61), not the traditional fundy sing-song explanation of "i owed a debt i could not pay; he paid a debt he did not owe". there WAS no debt to be paid, because it was CANCELLED, FORGIVEN. in accounting terms, a debt may be forgiven, or it may be paid, but not both. even if it is paid by a third party, it would not be forgiven.


2) "wrath" of God has been confused with the human emotions of anger, malice, revenge. not so with God. God's "wrath" is a white-hot love that pursues his own to the ultimate length. his "wrath" does not target men, but rather the unrighteousness and ungodliness OF men (romans 1.18). he is a Consuming Fire that burns the dross, leaving his beloved children safe and purified (1 cor 3.15).


3) "grace" does not mean that God laughs at sin, ignores sin, or pretends we are righteous. grace (greek, "charis") is defined by strong as "the Divine influence upon the heart as reflected in the life". we will be changed into his likeness, not through external rules (the law), but through the indwelling Christ (the law came thru moses, but grace and truth thru Jesus Christ). God's grace does not cover up sin, but TRANSFORMS us and frees us from the power of sin. with being so hung up on getting off the hook for the PENALTY of sin, it appears to me that many fundamentalists aren't even concerned with being freed from the POWER of sin. truly, if we love God with all of our hearts, we would be willing to endure any fire of hell if it would eradicate sin. it is SIN itself that should be feared and detested, not the blessed fires of God's love. it is SIN itself that Jesus came to defeat, to take away.


4) "imputed" does not mean that God pretends we are righteous. he does NOT credit us with Christ's righteousness, but rather MAKES us truly righteous. a better translation of "imputed" in "inworked" or "interwoven". it is NOT a veneer, but making our complete substance righteous through and through.


okay, i probably left a bunch of stuff out, but this is getting long enough as it is and i haven't even started LOL.


in the beginning, God stated his plan and purpose for mankind: "let us make man in our image". adam was the BEGINNING of that process. he did NOT "fall". he was not created perfect, but rather "very good". the fact that adam was sinless before partaking of the "fruit" is based solely on the technicality of being a clean slate - he had as of yet not had any real opportunity to sin. i liken it to the american indians before the euros came and brought smallpox. they had previously remained disease free only because they had never been exposed. yet they were forever vulnerable. remember the original Plan. for God to create us in his likeness, we must, of necessity, have the same freedom of self-governance that he has. it was never God's intent to create little automatons, but rather, sons and daughters. that free choice made us vulnerable to sin. it's the reason God put us in these disposable bodies and created this time and space as sort of a quarantine. can you imagine if he'd granted us immortality BEFORE he'd dealt with the sin-sickness? it was not his design that we be forever protected from sin (like the boy in the bubble with no immune system), but rather than we become IMMUNE to sin. we contract the dis-ease, are cured, and then are forever after immune - fully in his own likeness. this was why Jesus came, as stated in scripture. "he was tempted as we are, yet without sin", now he is able to save us to the "uttermost" as the "captain of our salvation". "you shall be holy as he is holy". "beloved, NOW are we the sons of God... and it does not yet appear what we shall be, but when he shall appear, we SHALL BE LIKE HIM, for we shall see him as he is. and every man who has this hope in him purifies himself even as he is pure". we are co-laborers, co-creators with God, submitting our will to his divine will, cooperating in the process of going from mere "living souls", in adam's likeness, to mature sons and daughters, redeemed and perfected, in Christ's likeness. we are traveling something of an ellipse. we had to "go out" from God in our orbit, to become those "separate" living souls that we might have a self-will as God does. i use "separate" in quotes, because, it is truly only an illusion. we are, and have always been, his children and it is in him we live and move and have our being (acts 1), yet somehow we imagine an independence that empowers us to rebel if we choose. but, as we repent and return, we begin our journey back home to his heart. it is Jesus who is the reconciler - who causes us to "turn the corner". God was never estranged from us and never needed to be reconciled to us, but rather, it was WE who needed to be reconciled (made at-one). this is done through repentance. many would accuse universalists of leaving this out, but repentance MEANS to turn around. we stop moving away from our Father and return to him. and we are ALL predestined to this return trip according to romans 8.29. just who would it be that God didn't "foreknow"? thus, he also predestined us to be conformed to the image of his dear Son. this has been God's plan all along. which part of creation do we think was "plan B", because God somehow got caught off-guard and had to come up with a contingency plan? if it's his will that none should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance (2 peter 3.9), just who would be left out? duh. paul spells out many of the "steps" in the process in 1 corinthians 15 - first the "earthly", then the "heavenly". going from little adams to little christs is as normal and planned as a caterpillar becoming a butterfly. nothing is impossible for the God of the universe and beyond.


i hope in my effort to offer a condensed version, i didn't leave out anything vital... all of youse guys, feel free to offer additions/corrections, and of course questions. perhaps i can answer them satisfactorily. if not, i imagine someone else can :). -annie