- Jun 22, 2022
- 27
- 18
- 33
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The lack of a clear atonement theory in the Bible has bothered me for a long time. It seems like the purpose of Christ's death is central to how one sees being a Christian. For instance, do I believe that he lived and died in order to have a positive influence on our moral behavior (this would make works more important), or do I believe that salvation is contractual based on faith? There are many atonement theories, and it seems like believing one over another would depend on faith in the testimony of men rather than in God.
I think I have a good case that salvation cannot be contractual in nature. In order for any kind of contract to be valid, the terms of the contract have to be explained in DETAIL. It doesn't seem to me like this was done in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, in contrast, the proper way to do sacrifices was explained in very great detail. So, I believe that if there was a contract involved in Christ's crucifixion, humanity was not one of the parties involved.
This would mean that the idea of substitutionary atonement does not really make sense. It certainly says in the New Testament that Christ died for our sins, but the exact relationship between him dying and our sins does not seem to be explained. If there were some particular phrase I had to say in order to be saved, such as, "I believe that Jesus Christ is my savior", then wouldn't it be extremely important for Jesus to talk about this in great detail?
Also, substitutionary atonement makes it sound to me like a father says to his son that he deserves to be beaten, so the father beats himself in place of his son. It is strange. Why can't the father just forgive? It also does not seem right to me that many Christians seem to believe that they can still be A*holes and get to heaven, so long as they believe in the fact that Jesus is the son of God.
It seems to me that a lot of the things that Christians argue about are pointless. I think Christians don't pay anywhere near enough attention to John 14:15 (“If you love me, you will keep my commandments”) in comparison to other Bible passages. He didn't say, "If you love me, you will espouse the correct Christology," nor "If you love me, then you will sign a supernatural contract with me recognizing me as the Son of God." It also seems to me that most of Jesus' sermons dealt with proper behavior, and very little with atonement, and very little on Christology. If I believe that Jesus chose to talk about what was important to him, then I have to believe that proper behavior was near the top of what was most important.
I have developed my own atonement theory, which I will describe below. I am not aware of having any revelation. I'm also aware that it's possible to come up with a thousand plausible explanations for any given set of facts. I think it is logical though.
It seems to me that heaven ought to have at least these two properties:
1. You have the power/freedom to do those things that you want to do
2. You are not abused by other people
These two properties come into conflict when someone wants to abuse other people. If a cruel person were let into heaven, it would not be heaven anymore. The presence of sin would break heaven.
But there is the problem that nobody is perfect. Even if you wouldn't commit murder in a million years, heaven is supposed to be eternal (longer than a million years), so even a little whiff of sin would probably cause problems eventually.
This leads one to the idea that a person cannot be in heaven unless he behaves properly. But we can't behave 100% properly. So what is there to do? It could be that submitting to Christ solves this problem. Maybe we still have freedom to do dumb stuff in heaven (according to our weakness or ignorance), but only people who are willing to be corrected can be let in, so that the bad behavior is nipped in the bud and can't propagate. Or maybe Jesus can cast some kind of magic spell on us that prevents us from having sinful thoughts, but he only does this with our permission (out of respect for our free will). This means that salvation depends on a willingness do be corrected. Honestly, I think a lot of people would not want to go to heaven in this case, because they don't want to be corrected. Or it may be that a very sinful person who was still willing to be corrected might have a hard time in heaven (at least initially) because so much of who he was would have to be cut off in order to be let in.
In this case, I imagine that Christ's crucifixion sent 2 messages. It told the current residents of heaven, "I am willing to be abused for the sake of these people," and it told humanity, "I am the perfect moral role model which you ought to submit to."
I think this submission theory solves several problems:
I think I can anticipate a counter-argument. Most protestants today believe that faith alone saves them. They have to believe in Jesus. But when one of your Earthly loved ones ask, "Do you believe me?" I don't think most of the time they mean, "Do you believe in the fact of my existence?" So, it seems silly to me that you get to heaven merely on account of believing in the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus as a fact. I think "Do you believe me?" usually means "Do you believe in the truth of my words?" As I mentioned before, most of Jesus' sermons dealt with proper behavior (or inward moral orientation). So believing in Jesus means (at least in part) believing that the way of being he described is good.
In summary, it makes sense to me personally that salvation depends on a willingness to have one's bad behavior be corrected, and on a willingness to let Jesus (on account of the fact that he is the only perfect human) be the final arbiter of what is good.
I think I have a good case that salvation cannot be contractual in nature. In order for any kind of contract to be valid, the terms of the contract have to be explained in DETAIL. It doesn't seem to me like this was done in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, in contrast, the proper way to do sacrifices was explained in very great detail. So, I believe that if there was a contract involved in Christ's crucifixion, humanity was not one of the parties involved.
This would mean that the idea of substitutionary atonement does not really make sense. It certainly says in the New Testament that Christ died for our sins, but the exact relationship between him dying and our sins does not seem to be explained. If there were some particular phrase I had to say in order to be saved, such as, "I believe that Jesus Christ is my savior", then wouldn't it be extremely important for Jesus to talk about this in great detail?
Also, substitutionary atonement makes it sound to me like a father says to his son that he deserves to be beaten, so the father beats himself in place of his son. It is strange. Why can't the father just forgive? It also does not seem right to me that many Christians seem to believe that they can still be A*holes and get to heaven, so long as they believe in the fact that Jesus is the son of God.
It seems to me that a lot of the things that Christians argue about are pointless. I think Christians don't pay anywhere near enough attention to John 14:15 (“If you love me, you will keep my commandments”) in comparison to other Bible passages. He didn't say, "If you love me, you will espouse the correct Christology," nor "If you love me, then you will sign a supernatural contract with me recognizing me as the Son of God." It also seems to me that most of Jesus' sermons dealt with proper behavior, and very little with atonement, and very little on Christology. If I believe that Jesus chose to talk about what was important to him, then I have to believe that proper behavior was near the top of what was most important.
I have developed my own atonement theory, which I will describe below. I am not aware of having any revelation. I'm also aware that it's possible to come up with a thousand plausible explanations for any given set of facts. I think it is logical though.
It seems to me that heaven ought to have at least these two properties:
1. You have the power/freedom to do those things that you want to do
2. You are not abused by other people
These two properties come into conflict when someone wants to abuse other people. If a cruel person were let into heaven, it would not be heaven anymore. The presence of sin would break heaven.
But there is the problem that nobody is perfect. Even if you wouldn't commit murder in a million years, heaven is supposed to be eternal (longer than a million years), so even a little whiff of sin would probably cause problems eventually.
This leads one to the idea that a person cannot be in heaven unless he behaves properly. But we can't behave 100% properly. So what is there to do? It could be that submitting to Christ solves this problem. Maybe we still have freedom to do dumb stuff in heaven (according to our weakness or ignorance), but only people who are willing to be corrected can be let in, so that the bad behavior is nipped in the bud and can't propagate. Or maybe Jesus can cast some kind of magic spell on us that prevents us from having sinful thoughts, but he only does this with our permission (out of respect for our free will). This means that salvation depends on a willingness do be corrected. Honestly, I think a lot of people would not want to go to heaven in this case, because they don't want to be corrected. Or it may be that a very sinful person who was still willing to be corrected might have a hard time in heaven (at least initially) because so much of who he was would have to be cut off in order to be let in.
In this case, I imagine that Christ's crucifixion sent 2 messages. It told the current residents of heaven, "I am willing to be abused for the sake of these people," and it told humanity, "I am the perfect moral role model which you ought to submit to."
I think this submission theory solves several problems:
- Christ's crucifixion isn't arbitrary
- God isn't vindictive and blood thirsty
- Having exactly the right theology isn't very important to salvation, which would explain why God allows confusion in the Church
- Faith isn't a get-out-of-jail free card (you have to actually try to behave properly)
I think I can anticipate a counter-argument. Most protestants today believe that faith alone saves them. They have to believe in Jesus. But when one of your Earthly loved ones ask, "Do you believe me?" I don't think most of the time they mean, "Do you believe in the fact of my existence?" So, it seems silly to me that you get to heaven merely on account of believing in the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus as a fact. I think "Do you believe me?" usually means "Do you believe in the truth of my words?" As I mentioned before, most of Jesus' sermons dealt with proper behavior (or inward moral orientation). So believing in Jesus means (at least in part) believing that the way of being he described is good.
In summary, it makes sense to me personally that salvation depends on a willingness to have one's bad behavior be corrected, and on a willingness to let Jesus (on account of the fact that he is the only perfect human) be the final arbiter of what is good.
