T(r)oy's Marbles
how God atones (1st part)
This piece will appear in several parts, due to its length. It contains a brief review of the doctrine of the atonement as it has developed over the course of Christian history. I hope it helps in some way.
--Troy
How God Atones
a brief introduction
It’s a great question you asked, about Jesus’ death and our forgiveness. This question has been asked in various forms dating all the way back to the first century of the Christian church. And, you’ve put your finger on it (again). It isn’t all “black and white” is it? This issue is loaded with mystery and worthy of exploration.
You said: “If God can do anything…then he makes up the rules…so why did Jesus have to die in order that God can forgive us? Why can’t he just forgive us, without having to pay for it?”
As we delve into this, let's establish some foundational thoughts and principles to guide our thinking.
Some foundational thoughts and principles
I’m hearing a few things come out of your question. Chief among your presuppositions is an awareness that humanity’s relationship with God has been ruptured and is in need of repair. At the outset let it be noted that this presupposition is a certain and irrefutable fact. In light of that, I’ll suggest alternate ways of posing your question by way of clarifying the issue that’s being addressed.
Your question specifically deals with the process and means by which God repairs our relationship with Him. That is to say, you’re wondering how is it that we are forgiven? By what process does God forgive? What are His means and methods? I like to state the question different ways, because I think it can sometimes prove helpful in exploring the broader issue that’s at stake. When we pose the question in these alternate ways, we see that we’re really talking about what Christians have called “the atonement.” That is to say, “How does God repair the rupture in our relationship with Him?” Putting it more “theologically”, we would state the question this way: “How does God bring about our atonement?”
Another way of putting it is by asking, “How does Man become reconciled to God?”
As a general principle, let it be noted that reconciliation is indeed, first and foremost, a work of God and not of our own effort or goodness. God comes to our rescue. 2 Corinthians 5:19 corroborates this when it says, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself…”
St. Anselm (ca. 1100) wrote a treatise called “Cur Deus Homo?” to deal with the question of our atonement. In chapter V of that treatise, he notes “How the redemption of man could not be effected by any other being but God.” The discussion that ensues is enlightening. Anselm’s pupil (named Boso) is investigating alternate ways God could have brought about our atonement (which is what you’re asking: “Couldn’t we have become reconciled to God any other way? Did Christ really have to die?”). Boso’s alternate suggestion seems like a good one. In it, you’ll see he’s looking for a way to avoid the brutality of the cross. His intentions are good (as are yours). Look at his heart as he notes:
“Boso. If this deliverance were said to be effected somehow by any other being than God (whether it were an angelic or a human being), the mind of man would receive it far more patiently. For God could have made some man without sin, not of a sinful substance, and not a descendant of any man, but just as he made Adam, and by this man it should seem that the work we speak of could have been done.”
Boso says, in effect, “What if God had simply made another Adam, and then this man chose not to sin? Wouldn’t that have the same affect on the God-Man relationship as the cross (for then there would be no sin to separate Man from God)?” Anselm replies that our reconciliation had to come from God and not from another Man. He answers Boso:
“Anselm. Do you not perceive that, if any other being should rescue man from eternal death, man would rightly be adjudged as the servant of that being? Now if this be so, he would in no wise be restored to that dignity which would have been his had he never sinned. For he, who was to be through eternity only the servant of God and an equal with the holy angels, would now be the servant of a being who was not God, and whom the angels did not serve.”
Hence, only God can save.
Later in his treatise, Anselm goes on to note that legitimate forgiveness must have its origin in God because God is the one who has been offended. Remember when Jesus said to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven”? The religious leaders scoffed at this because they knew two things:
1. Forgiveness can only be granted and offered by the offended party. It doesn’t make sense to have a third party, who hasn’t been offended, granting forgiveness on behalf of the person who was actually offended. For example, if I am sitting in a room with a rapist and his victim, it would be inappropriate for me to say to the rapist, “I forgive you”. If I were to do so, the victim could reasonably respond, “Excuse me? You forgive him? I’m the one who was raped. Only I can pardon his offense.” And, of course, she would be perfectly right. That’s why…
2. God is the only one who can pardon all of our sins, because, no matter what sin I commit, it is always a sin against Him (because it is always a deviation from the way He wants us to live). In our example, then, we can see that the rapist sins against both a person and the living God. Every sin is an offense against God.
The religious leaders of Jesus' day rightly understood this when they scoffed at Jesus forgiving the paralytic. “Who is he to pardon this man’s sins?” they thought. Jesus, claiming divinity, also claims the authority to forgive all sin.
This tells us: Only God can forgive, since all legitimate forgiveness must find its source in God. This is because, ultimately, God is always and in every case the party that has been offended.
Now: by the way you state your question it is clear that you have an understanding of this (that is, true reconciliation always has its source in God). It is still worth keeping in mind, though, so that we can move forward with your question on solid ground.
Well, that's enough for now, I think. Tomorrow we'll look more specifically into "the question at hand."
Until then, cheers.
teachings | Comments (0) | March 09, 2006