Please remember that we are the just and the unjust.
God’s ultimate punishment is to isolate the damned in Hell where they can “enjoy” each other’s company. That is why prison makes some sense as a timeout for some people. However it is also a place where others can learn more about how to steal and others do not receive the training they need to make it on the outside.
Also it is often true that the little guys get caught, but the masterminds do not.
Thank you.
The article relates to it found here: Environmental Epigenetics and a Unified Theory of the Molecular Aspects of Evolution: A Neo-Lamarckian Concept that Facilitates Neo-Darwinian Evolution | Genome Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic was excellent.
Yes, and No. Yes, our sin is fully paid for, but so is the sin of everyone else. Right?
The reason why we are okay with God is that Christians are in Christ. Thus it is important that we really be in Christ, instead of just saying we are or thinking we are. Do we have the Holy Spirit in our hearts and show forth the fruit of the Spirit which are the true signs of keeping the New Covenant of Jesus Christ and being in Him?
The goal of being in Christ is sharing the good news of salvation and bringing others to Christ, rather than pronouncing judgment on them, which Jesus forbid. Judge not that you be not judged.
@Relates
The sin of Gods people is paid for, meaning past, present and future, against God and man. Regarding the former, in Romans 8 we are regarded by him legally as glorified, completed work. Regarding the latter, we are responding to that completed work, no
matter how imperfectly. It is not our place to condemn but it is our place to use wise judgment and discernment. If we have trusted in Him, our lives by His Spirit will be changing. This is the process we find ourselves.
We are called to strengthen the brethren and call the lost. It is vitally important thatwe retain that distinction.
Joseph, I like the essay; it has some very good critical thinking. I’d like to suggest some other thoughts to add to the discussion. Let’s start with some other possibilities for the reason for the incarnation. We start from the acceptance that evolution happened. That means that we were designed by natural selection. Yes, we believe this was the secondary cause God used to create us, but still the primary cause is natural selection. Humans have recently begun to use natural selection to design things. We do so when the design problem is too tough for us. However, we have observed a previously unforeseen side effect: when natural selection finishes with the design, WE DON’T KNOW HOW IT WORKS. For instance, when AI Samuel had natural selection work out a computer program to play checkers – it eventually beat the human checkers champ – and examined the code afterward, there were large sections of code that Samuel had no idea what they did (AI Samuel, Some studies on machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM Journal of Research Development, 3: 211-219, 1964. Reprinted in EA Feigenbaum and J Feldman, Computers and Thought, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964 pp 71-105.). Adrian Thompson had natural selection design a programmable computer chip to distinguish sounds. But Thompson prohibited a clock and the chip used only 32 logic elements. Thompson can’t figure out how it works and suspects possible new laws of physics (G Taubes, Evolving a conscious machine. Discover 19: 72-79. June1998.).
So one possible reason for God becoming human is that He didn’t know how we worked! If you look at the theological messages in the OT, you see God trying various ways to reach humans and failure each time. God talks to Adam and Eve and gives them commands, but they disobey. He intervenes in human history in the Exodus and gives Laws. The Hebrews disobey. God communicates with prophets to try to get Israel back with the Law – and Him – and it doesn’t work. Finally God becomes human so that He can fully understand us. As you said “Christ connects to humanity in a new and powerful way.” Also, in Jesus’ life, He shows us that we can (if we choose) live a life that God would like us to life.
So instead of teaching us “how to be fully human”, I would say Jesus teaches us how God would have us live. That mode of life is not necessarily “human”, but more God-like. I do like your idea that God could reliably predict that behaving as Jesus did would result in execution by other humans, but that death was not the intended endpoint. I would submit that, having faced an unjust death, God shows that He can forgive even that, therefore demonstrating that He will forgive any sin we may commit.
One more idea: the authors of Genesis 2-3 and the advocates of atonement did, IMO, capture a truth. Natural selection has no choice but to design organisms that are inherently selfish. A purely altruistic individual or population will not survive to pass on that trait. Much of what is considered sin is selfishness: putting our desires above those of other people and thereby hurting them. The story tells us Adam and Eve (who are allegorical for all of us) put their desires above God and disobeyed. That selfishness was built into us by evolution by natural selection. We really do have a “sinful” nature and it was original long before H. sapiens.evolved. So you can view atonement not as Adam and Eve, but for our inherent makeup (from natural selection).
I can certainly agree with the first part. I am not so sure about the second. It seems that we need to be reminded about our call to follow Jesus from time to time. We do need to remember from where we have come and know that by the grace of God there go I. When we call others to follow Jesus, we should not condemn them for doing wrong, but helping them to live a better life in God.
@Relates
Maybe we’re talking past each other, maybe not. I definitely agree that change should come in the life of a believer. I also know that there are times It comes slowly. I guess the issue is how it comes. If you believe it comes just through encouragement to strive
for what is good then I respectfully disagree. But, if you mean that we should mutually be reminding each other of Gods love that He demonstrated through His substitution on the cross and the gift of His righteousness that came from it, both as sinners seeking to live lives that are pleasing to Him, I wheheartedly agree. We can’t please Him by our works, only the Son can and did for us. We please Him by faith trusting in His Son heb. 11:6)
Thank you for your response.
In some sense may be we are talking past each other, but I think that it is important that we try to get on the same page. Paul and Hebrews say we please the by trusting in the Son, while James days faith without works is dead. It is clear that both faith and works are important, so what is the relationship between faith and works.
Works in the Christian sense are not an effort to earn salvation, but grow out of salvation. As it says in 1 John we humans are able to love God because God first loved us. Only when we accept and know that God’s Love can we truly love God, ourselves, and others.
The Fruit of the Spirit which are listed by Paul in Galatians are not works, but evidence of a positive relationship to God and others, which result in good works. Paul begins with “love, joy, peace” which are gifts from God through faith. Now John says, if someone says that they love God, Whom they have not seen, but hate their neighbor who is created in God’s Image and they have seen, they are not telling the truth. Loving God leads to loving one’s neighbor.
Paul in Romans 6:1-11 says we die with Jesus on the Cross so we may be resurrected with Him into Eternal Life with God. Repentance is accepting ourselves as sinners unable to save ourselves. Baptism or being born again is giving our lives to Jesus, and dying to our old selves.
That makes possible for us to open our hearts to receive His forgiveness and the Holy Spirit that comes with it. Please do not forget the Holy Spirit which forms an unbreakable bond which unites us with God the Father through God the Son, and thus full fellowship with God the Trinity, which is the essence of Eternal Life.
If you have a covenantal theology, which you should, but most do not, you should know that Christians live in a covenantal relationship with God. The beginning of this relationship is when we are born again as I just indicated, which is marked by baptism is some places or the profession of faith where an infant baptism is affirmed.
Weekly services should be a real affirmation and renewal of this covenantal relationship to God and others, while the Lord’s Supper is an explicit renewal of our covenant with God based on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The difference between us seems to be the understanding of this covenantal relationship, which is often the case in today’s world. The Bible is divided between the Old Testament or Old Covenant and the New Testament/Covenant.
God the Father created a relationship with the Chosen People Israel through the Law/Torah as found in the OT as part of God’s Salvation plan. Then at the right time God the Father sent God the Son to create a New Covenantal relationship through the Holy Spirit with humanity which set up God’s Kingdom of Love. Humans do not achieve goodness, but must allow God’s Love to act through themselves through faith and loving God with all our hearts, minds, and strength.
Covenantal theology recognizes that we as individuals and the church have a living relationship with God. At times it can become weak and needs to be strengthened or even repaired, but God is always Good.
@Relates
I think I agree with what you wrote. I indeed hold to a covenant theology which makes for understanding the fall in regards to evolution much easier.
But in getting back to the main point, my concern with this thread has been that some are abandoning the essential doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement (whether or not they hold to limited atonement) and that is dangerous. I just wanted clarification in our dialogue that you held to that though terms like Gods love and justice have other ways of being understood and expressed.
I think David raises good points. Though I am open to various views on the atonement and actually agree somewhat with prof. Bankard’s philosophical issues - I still see problems with the arguments. First, Prof. Bankard raises a philosophical issue that is a bit of a straw man it seems to me. If one defines Substitutionary Atonement (SA) a certain way - yes, there are problems. But, there are multiple ways to describe substitution and the arguments only speak to one particular “take.” Substitution does not imply all that prof. Bankard argues. It doesn’t require original sin. It doesn’t imply all that it seems about God, either.
Further, I’m not sure why Prof Bankard does not address particular texts. It seems to me that any legitimate critique has to start with explaining texts in Scripture that speak to substitution ideas. It is very difficult to really discuss the issue without addressing texts (though Dr. Bankard only address two of those above); but I’d also include Romans 3 as one that needs to be exegetically explained as to why it, and others, do not teach substitution in any form. Thanks.
[quote=“Paul_Lucas, post:52, topic:612”]
So instead of teaching us “how to be fully human”, I would say Jesus teaches us how God would have us live. That mode of life is not necessarily “human”, but more God-like.
[/quote]“That selfishness was built into us by evolution by natural selection. We really do have a “sinful” nature and it was original long before H. sapiens.evolved. So you can view atonement not as Adam and Eve, but for our inherent makeup (from natural selection).”
In my estimation, Paul, these two quotations from your recent post show the way to a clearer understanding of Jesus suffering and death than does linking it to the atonement for the disobedience of our ‘first parents’–a sin that isolated us from God’s goodness. Christians cannot say they accept evolution as God’s method for creation without admitting the fact that ‘selfish genes’ guided the process. (Sorry, Roger, but most scientists agree with Dawkins in this respect.) When archaic Homo sapiens crossed the threshold into consciousness, they wanted to know Who created them. Having been given this gift of Mind and the means of enjoying a relationship with their creator, these, our first truly human ancestors, too often used the gift to maximize the selfish pleasures and power instead. To show us that a human could choose to act in opposition to selfish genes, He sent His Son, Jesus, who lived the sinless life we can all aspire to. Our biologically driven human nature does little or nothing to encourage universal love and compassion, but we can respond to God’s invitation to spiritually encouraged human nature that is far superior.
Al Leo
I’m interested where you got this idea that sin at its essence is being self-centered. Surely not all “self-centeredness” is sinful. And surely some sin doesn’t have anything to do with selfishness. (One could very selflessly worship idols for example.)
I think one thing this discussion has pointed out is that people are not all on the same page as to what constitutes “sin,” and if people don’t even have the same concept of the essence of what they are discussing, it makes it hard to move on and talk about the particulars original sin or the fall or what Jesus’ death atones for.
What is sin (or what was the original sin) at its essence? Pride, selfishness, disobedience, rebellion against God’s sovereign rule, breaking a covenant, failure to meet God’s standard for image bearing? I am interested what people’s definitions are and where the ideas come from.
This an excellent point. Sin is generally defined as breaking God’s Law. The term however has also been used when discussing the law Moses gave to Israel as part of the covenant, and it is often used in the context of what Moses provided as law within the Temple activities. The theological meaning is an articulation of the Law of God, which requires a human being is both righteous in a legalistic sense, and also as that which constitutes the human being, as the Gospels show. Thus we may consider the general understanding of sin as involving intent and act, and this includes the heart and soul of a human being. We have thousands of years of human history to show us human beings perform evil/sinful deeds, so a discussion on this matter appears pointless. This is why Christianity teaches that we are baptised in the death of Christ, to erase the old man of sin, and are resurrected into Christ, as the new man. The death of Christ is central to this, as is the resurrection; the Law of God in toto cannot be broken without incurring death – we can understand this by analogy to say the law of gravity – we cannot walk of a cliff without falling down and perhaps killing ourselves. The end result is not the fault of the law, as our own action caused the end result. However, since Christ did not break the Law, He could not be subject to death as a result of the outcomes of the Law – God had willed this all along. God provided a means by which we may be forgiven for breaking His Law – these discussions are so inadequate because without the doctrine of Grace, we will not understand the central massage of the Christian faith.
Would you say “Do not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil” was God’s law for Adam and Eve then? Or was that one command representative of something larger? For those who see Adam and Eve as allegorical not historical, how did humanity become law-breakers before the Mosaic Law was given?
I think the inadequacy of the discussion stems in part from the fact that a doctrine of atonement makes sense in its theological system and you can’t just pluck it out and discuss it in isolation. Someone from an Arminian tradition like Dr. Bankard (I assume, though I guess you could teach at a Nazarene college and not be Nazarene) is going to have a whole different set of theological presuppositions that underlie their atonement theology than a conservative Presbyterian like Dr. Keller.
The “doctrine(s) of grace” has a precise theological meaning for five-point Calvinists, but a much more general meaning for those in other traditions. The “law” means something different to the NPP folks who see the Mosaic Law as being about marking community membership in God’s covenant people, not salvation. Christ did more than just avoid breaking God’s law. When Scriptures talk about him “fulfilling the law” lots of people see Messianic and eschatological claims, not just a statement about achieving legalistic righteousness. I doubt we even have the same idea of the “central message of the Christian faith.” Is it “Jesus died for your sins so you can live eternally”? Is it “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life”? Is it “Jesus is Lord and his Kingdom is coming”?
Thank you for your comment and question. First let me say that Christians are not called to be “selfless.” We are called to love others as we love ourselves. If we love ourselves we are not selfless.
The word “altruism” is considered to mean “selflessness.” or loving others more than ourselves. When defining Christian agape love in this non-Biblical way, people are either ignorant or resorting in trickery.
Is worship of idols meaning false gods a sin, like committing murder and if so then how? In my opinion worshiping a false god is a sin, of you know or should know that it is a false god. Worship a false god when one has no reason to suspect that it is a false god, is a mistake, not a sin, which must be intentional. Mistakes have consequences, but they are not sins per se. Accidents sometimes kill and can be caused by mistakes, but they are not murder.
When Paul preached in Athens he did not berate them for worshiping false gods. Instead in a sense he praised them for being religious, for worshiping the gods they knew, and offered share with them the news and knowledge of the One True Unknown God Who should replace all these other gods. Sadly most of these philosophers preferred to worship their false gods, rather than to worship the true God.
Their sin was not the worship of false gods in ignorance, but rejecting the good news of Jesus Christ out of hand. Jesus died because people, Jews and Romans, preferred their false self-centered gods, rather than accept Him as the Messiah or Savior.
When people honestly seek the Truth of an idea that is different from theirs, whether they be scientists or Christians, they look at all the evidence and try to make an objective decision based on the evidence. Sadly in the world today and most likely in the world forever most people do not react that way. This is real sin, not making a mistake, but failure to admit making a mistake and justifying that mistake, which comes out of pride based on selfishness.
Your questions and comments are (in a general sense) the reason why the Church laboured for so long to achieve Orthodoxy. I am reminded of a comment by Fuller in his book dealing with science and religion, in that Christianity seemed to have obtained a great number of controversies and heresies, so much so that it became a custom for an Orthodox Christian to make a confession of her faith. I also ask myself why so much controversy regarding science and faith? The Church has, from the time when philosophy and primitive science became relevant to Christian discussions, adopted a positive view of the current and multi-various schools of thought. Yet nowadays we see people convinced that we have a war between science and faith. And why are aggressive atheists so keen to enter such a war, when the question of faith should never arise amongst them?
@Relates
It seems to me that you are defining sin as something that hurts another person. But sin is defined biblically as primarily an offense against God, not others. Hurting others can be a sin is when it is a rejection of God’s rule/law/justice (pick your favorite term for God’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven) and therefore an offense against God.
I don’t think we can draw the conclusion that idol worship with the proper level of ignorance is not a sin from Paul’s tactful apologetics in one instance. Worshiping anything other than God is a violation of the first commandment. It is clearly correlated with sin by Paul in Romans 1. In fact, it is listed as the number one reason God is angry with “sinful, wicked people” (Rom 1:18-23). Idol worship is repeatedly associated with incurring punishment and judgment in the Prophets, and Israel/Judah is not the only nation being judged.
This confusion between secular concepts of altruism (which is not the same as righteousness) and selfishness (which is not the same as sin) makes it hard to discuss the theology inherent in the questions about atonement and original sin. You can’t have sin, in the biblical sense, inherent in humans, because of selfish genes or drive to survive or whatever, before God chooses to relate to humans (i.e. with Adam and Eve). Sin and sinfulness only exist in relation to God and his self-revelation.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.