Ask a non-believer questions on Christian Theology

[Tinker Grey]

How does Jesus' sacrifice on the cross lead to the salvation of humanity or anyone?

Except for the book of Hebrews, which strongly connects the Christian story to the temple system, not much elsewhere in the NT delves into what the mechanics of salvation are. It is, however, made clear that it was necessary. Paul speaks routinely of "Christ crucified" as well as "if Christ be not raised, we are of all men most miserable."

There are three theories of salvation that I can remember off the top of my head. The first is the theory of substitutionary atonement. That is, as we are sinners we have sin that requires atonement. God, as a type of judge, has condemned us. Jesus then volunteers to take our punishment and this pleases God who then, after the sacrifice, imputes Christ's righteousness to us. This imputation is almost always considered to be conditional. We don't get the imputation without belief.

Some Christian scholars complain that this doesn't make sense, for reasons I'll let go. So secondly there is what is known as Christus Victor. Essentially, Jesus conquers. He conquers both (and 'both' is essential) life as well as death. You could say we are imprisoned both by life and eventually by death. Christ knocks down the prison walls. Christ's death on the cross is obviously necessary for the second part--the conquering of death. The conquering of life, so to speak, is covered by Jesus' example of how to live on earth.

A third theory is propounded by C. S. Lewis. (It may not have been original with him, but it is from Mere Christianity that I learnt it.) This is called the Perfect Penitent. Because we are sinners, we need to repent. However due to the corruption of sin, we are incapable of the appropriate repentance. Jesus became human to be the perfect penitent. To repent for men in general since we could not. This repentance carried out both by his life and death.

Brian McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy (which I highly recommend) lists at least two more theories, IIRC. But the above, I think is representative. I apologize however if I over simplified.

In my experience, most Christians subscribe to the idea that our sin requires payment and that Christ paid it. His perfection and perfect death is sufficient to cover all those who want it. For universalists, it covers all. For others, it is sufficient to cover all but is only effective to those who desire it. To a strict Calvinist, Christ's death pays only for the elect.

 

[ElijahW]

So you don't believe his sacrifice has anything to do with the coming of the kingdom of heaven? God should be understood as a person who feels that humanity owed him something for their bad behavior and that Jesus' self-sacrifice was taken as payment so God forgave everyone, or something like that?

 

[Tinker Grey]

So you don't believe his sacrifice has anything to do with the coming of the kingdom of heaven? God should be understood as a person who feels that humanity owed him something for their bad behavior and that Jesus' self-sacrifice was taken as payment so God forgave everyone, or something like that?

I'm not sure what you are asking. I believe I noted both in the OP and in the thread title that I am a non-believer. So, I don't believe anything about it at all.

You asked about salvation and so I addressed the classical discussion. I presented what are common Christian theories of salvation are. You can take your pick as to which you think suits you best. Part of both Lewis' statements and McLaren's are that God doesn't really tell us how it works just that it does and we are to trust him (have faith).

There are some fringe groups that frame the conversation about salvation in terms of the salvation of humanity as a whole. The a-millennial eschatological stance usually includes the phasing in of the Kingdom of God. I had a friend who 30 some years ago took that stance and was more or less censored (or at least told to keep it to himself) by the fundamentalist/evangelical school I attended. He was a teacher. I guess they should be credited since they didn't summarily fire him. Perhaps he was up front at his hiring; I don't know.

Is it the ideas in this paragraph to which you are referring?

 

[ElijahW]

Salvation as a whole, or salvation of the individual, whichever you believe is correct. Not “believe” as in something you implement into your life, but what you believe is the correct understanding of Christianity. I don’t know what you believe Jesus was trying to accomplish on the cross. What other Christians have stated on the subject is irrelevant to what your understanding is.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What I am presenting is my understanding of what Christians believe is true. I am demonstrating that I understand that Christians have a varied understanding of salvation (with respect to your particular question).

I don't have a position on what is "true" Christianity. If Christians don't have a consensus on what "true" Christianity is, who am I to say one understanding is better than another.

Well respected theologians have presented each of the ideas on salvation I have mentioned. Given that I don't believe in God, I can't even begin to imagine what a "correct" understanding is. I don't believe any of it. No understanding is correct (IMV). The point of the thread is to demonstrate that non-believers understand Christianity. The only thing to be said about a correct understanding of salvation is that the Catholic church, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Lewis, et al., don't have a consensus.

Saying "what Christians have stated on the subject is irrelevant" is like saying to you, a Christian, that what Hindus believe about karma is irrelevant.

N.B. You use the phrase "other Christians". Again, I am not a Christian.

 

[ElijahW]

It is irrelevant because it is committing an appeal to authority fallacy. The question isn’t what any Christian or the majority of Christians think, it is, do you understand Christianity correctly. If you can repeat a bunch of opinions that people have expressed about Christianity but don’t know which ones are “true” then you obviously don’t have any actual understanding of Christianity. You being a Christian or not, has no bearing on your ability to understand what is going on with Jesus on the cross.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

It is irrelevant because it is committing an appeal to authority fallacy.

That is not really applicable here. In order to commit a fallacy you need to make some sort of argument. Giving a description, or trying to give a description, does not fall into that category.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I have a question too. And this is actually somewhat serious and not merely to test you.

What does 'infinite' mean when it is applied to God?

 

[ElijahW]

That is not really applicable here. In order to commit a fallacy you need to make some sort of argument. Giving a description, or trying to give a description, does not fall into that category.

The argument is, does the poster understand Christianity correctly. Putting forward someone else's opinion (begging the question you understand that opinion) as if it is the correct understanding, is appealing to the authority of that opinion, as if it is correct, without validating that opinion.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The argument is, does the poster understand Christianity correctly.

'Kay. Now which authority is being appealed to in order to support that argument? I tell you. None.

Putting forward someone else's opinion (begging the question you understand that opinion) as if it is the correct understanding, is appealing to the authority of that opinion, as if it is correct, without validating that opinion.

There is no appeal to, but a descrition of other people's opinion. Which is fair enough if said people's opionions is subject matter.

How can people's beliefs not matter, if people's beliefs is the topic, huh?

 

[juvenissun]

N.B. I am answering these questions more toward general Christianity. It is worth noting that not all Christians take the stories that Juvenissun mentions as either mysterious or literal.

Answer: The Bible's primary value has never been as a text book and certainly not as a science book. It is the history of man's relationship with God as described by those either describing their relationship with God or the stories of others' relationships with God as they had been handed down.

The story of Adam for example is about obedience and conditions for fellowship.

Mythology in general (and I am not using that term pejoratively) is about a framework by which we interpret and explain our experiences.

These stories persist because they continue find traction with some as a useful rubric for understanding the world.

You failed on this one. You did not answer the question at all.

Of course this "mysterious" descriptions were written and were kept with a good reason. But, the questions is why are these unreasonable, unrealistic "stories" allowed, through time and intensive study (may involved intelligent filtering of the content), to become an important part of the fundamental doctrine. What is the basic reason for people who compiled the Scripture NOT to edit them out?

 

[Theofane]

@Tinker Grey

How do you reconcile all you know about Scripture with your lack of belief?

 

[KCfromNC]

You'll to demonstrate that there is a conflict in my answer.

Note that even if there is a contradiction in your answer it doesn't necessarily prove you're not accurately representing Christian theology.

 

[juvenissun]

It is sometimes alleged that non-believers just don't understand Christianity.

So for as long as this thread remains open, I will answer questions on Christian Theology. I will do so with straight answers and no snark.

ETA: Questions are welcome both from believers and non-believers.

My fourth question to you:

"To be more like God" is the prayer of all Christians. But does this prayer make sense? It means a Christian constantly asks for some nature that belong to God. Not only one or two, but the more the better.

God is God and we are we. In a religion, this line should not be confused. If we pray to be more and more like God, would this prayer be out of line? Why would, or how could, Christians pray to become God-like?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I have a question too. And this is actually somewhat serious and not merely to test you.

What does 'infinite' mean when it is applied to God?

As a Christian I wrestled with this. I came to the conclusion that the term infinite in a mathematical sense (the only real sense, I think) didn't and couldn't apply). What would it mean to have infinite power or have infinite knowledge.

THe problem I think arises from sloppiness. The technical terms applied to God are omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. The latin prefix omni means "all". So if we understand these terms as all-powerful (not infinitely powerful), all-knowing (not infinite knowledge), and preset everywhere (not infinitely preset, though I don't think anyone applies infinite here), then the weird problems of infinite with respect to an entity go away.

The sloppiness comes in when we say something like "God having all the power makes him so powerful and our power so insiginficant that he is essentially infinitely more powerful than we are." The sentiment makes sense for convey awe but not, I think, reality with respect to any possible being, God included. Unfortunately, I have heard people talk as if attributing to God various infinities is a tenet of Christianity. But this is a misunderstanding.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You failed on this one. You did not answer the question at all.

Of course this "mysterious" descriptions were written and were kept with a good reason. But, the questions is why are these unreasonable, unrealistic "stories" allowed, through time and intensive study (may involved intelligent filtering of the content), to become an important part of the fundamental doctrine. What is the basic reason for people who compiled the Scripture NOT to edit them out?

I think the problem is with the quetioner not the with my answers.

Do me the favor of refraining from "grading" me. If you have something you want to get at, you'll have to do a better job of framing the question.

I did answer the question. Myths persist because the continue to help people frame the reality of their relationship with whatever--in the case of the Bible stories, it is their relationship with God.

I gave an example of Adam and how it frames a sense of our relationship with God. This frames our doctrinal understanding of the rest of scripture--whether or not the story actually happened.

If this isn't what you are after, ask a better question.

 

[Tinker Grey]

@Tinker Grey

How do you reconcile all you know about Scripture with your lack of belief?

Not really a theological question, but ...

I was raised a Christian. I made a personal decision at age 8, and baptized at 9. I rededicated my life on at least 2 occasions.

For as long as I continued to answer questions about Christianity from within the framework of Christianity I was ok.

Once I started trying to understand how someone outside the faith should be convinced of the truth of Christianity, it began to unravel. Eventually it totally did.

If we are to make a theological question as how this could happen, this depends on your free-will answers:

1) If you believe in free-will, I fell away of my own choice.
2) If not, perhaps God hardened my heart. Or perhaps, I was never saved even if I were a Christian in my beliefs. (I strongly contend that there is a difference between "saved" and "Christian.")

"Innocent as lambs and as wise as serpents" sort of compels one to study. But, in contrast, being "like a child" doesn't. I thought I was relying on the Holy Spirit to guide me. And as long as I continued to think that I could arrive at "THE" answer, that might have been a fair assessment. Given I don't believe in God, I obviously don't believe I was being led by the HS. Given that YOU believe in God, you too can conclude that obviously I wasn't led by the HS. You might also contend that I "Leaned unto my own understanding."

 

[Tinker Grey]

Note that even if there is a contradiction in your answer it doesn't necessarily prove you're not accurately representing Christian theology.

True.

 

[Tinker Grey]

My fourth question to you:

"To be more like God" is the prayer of all Christians. But does this prayer make sense? It means a Christian constantly asks for some nature that belong to God. Not only one or two, but the more the better.

God is God and we are we. In a religion, this line should not be confused. If we pray to be more and more like God, would this prayer be out of line? Why would, or how could, Christians pray to become God-like?

There is an entire doctrine built around this concept. I believe Wesley formulated it. It is called Entire Sanctification. (Wesley, IIRC, never claimed to have reached this state.)

The doctrine of sanctification runs through the NT. Romans 12:2 say we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. Entire Sanctification would be the completion of this process that perhaps is only theoretically possible.

In any case, if Spirit is fundamentally other (other than physical reality) and that Spirit that we have is, say, on loan from God. Then perhaps the prayer to be more like God isn't so far out of line.

When I was an elder I some times taught like this: When we become saved we are adopted into the family of God (adoption language runs through Paul's letters). As we are sanctified, that is to say, transformed, the miracle of salvation is our transformation into the "Blood" children of God. This isn't to say that if you die "early", you won't get to go to heaven. This is just a metaphor about what the process is about.

But all of the above is more mystical than necessary. To be like God can be simply interpreted as being more loving, more just, more merciful, more patient, more all-of-the-fruit-of-the-spirit.

So, in either case, a justification can be made to pray "Let me be more like you." In the first case, you are praying that God "continue that work which was begun in you." The second case is like the first, but without the mystical overtones.

 

[Jade Margery]

I have been reading the new testament, on and off, and something on the very first page struck me as a little odd. It starts off with a long genealogy connecting Joseph to several old testament kings. Why was Joseph's heritage considered relevant if he was not Jesus's father? Why trouble to trace a royal bloodline if Mary wasn't part of it? Was there a time when Jesus was considered Joseph's son, rather than being born of a virgin? Or is there some other reason why we should care about the ancestors of a man Jesus wasn't related to, whom hasn't been mentioned again (at least as far as I've read). Or is that just a normal thing for that period in culture, to start off listing everyone's 'begat's as far back as one can reach?

Not nearly as deep as the other questions you've been getting, but that detail always just seemed irrelevant to me.