T(r)oy's Marbles
how God atones (third appendix)
Upon reading the "Latin" approach to the atonement, an observation was made: "...man is finite, and biting the wrong apple was a finite action, so are all our sins, we disobey God often, but sometimes we obey, what makes anyone say that any of these actions are infinite, and why should anyone pay for ALL eternity for our FINITE sins, however gruesome they may be?" This last section deals specifically with that question.
There are two other parts to this appendix, which arose out of more observations/questions regarding the Latin theory.
To read the first part of the appendix (in which clarifications are made as to Anselm's thought), go here.
To read the second part (in which is contained a brief assessment of Anselm's thought as compared to Protestant thought), go here.
And now...the final part.
--Troy
“Finite” actions
I love the first scene in the movie Gladiator. It is just before a great battle. The men are lined up, ready to go to war for the glory of the empire. And Maximus reminds them, “What you do in this life echoes in eternity.”
I think that’s true. And here’s why: actions have meaning. Words have meaning. Eternal meaning.
Look at my wedding ceremony as an example of this. On August 17, 1991 I made a promise to Heather that I would love her and cherish her until death parts us. That was a finite action. An action committed in a particular time and in a particular place, with limited words that, naturally, have a limited (and perhaps obscure) range of meaning. Yet, there is something about that contained action that is infinite in nature: it spilled over into the rest of my life, and on into eternity. Now, because of that decision, we have two children today, and so that event suddenly takes on dimensions that quite literally endure. And not only that, but our decision to marry has impacted (and will continue to impact) others in ways I can’t even begin to enumerate.
There’s a mystery to it, isn’t there? Finite actions really do bear infinite power.
Look at Schindler’s List as another example. What’s the famous quote from that movie (which is actually a quote from ancient Jewish literature)? “He who saves one life, saves the world entire.” At the end of that movie you see only the beginnings of the results of Schindler’s decisions. And it’s staggering. Maximus is right: “What you do in this life echoes in eternity.”
Or, look at Jesus. How could a man who lived 2,000 years ago say things and do things that carry eternal consequences? Yes, part of it is because He is God and He is infinite by nature, but part of it is because actions, even those committed by humans, have eternal consequences. The cross is a great example of this: some time before 6 pm on a Friday—just before the commencement of the Jewish Sabbath—a man, whom few in the world even knew existed, died willingly, of His own accord. And that decision is still impacting the world. And it always will. Even on into eternity.
Now, those examples cited are all, admittedly, unique situations in that they all deal with “momentous” sorts of issues. And what I hear in your statement has more to do with the “everyday” kinds of things we do. So, let’s address that now.
Let me say that I do understand your critique of Anselm’s thought. It seems “out of proportion” that something as mundane as “lying” should incur an infinite sort of punishment. But perhaps that’s because we don’t always grasp the full meaning of everyday sorts of actions. For my part, I think this is the case. And I think this is so because one can’t go around everyday life thinking, “If I do this or don’t do that, it will have eternal consequences.” One needs to simply get on with the business of living and not trouble oneself all the time with the “heavy” realization that “what one does echoes in eternity.”
But just because it's impractical to live life that way, doesn't mean that our everday actions don't naturally bear the weight of eternity.
For example, right now my kids are upstairs. And, being the age they are, they are play-acting with each other. One of them is pretending to be Action Man and the other is pretending to be a doll called Rosy. Now, Action Man seems to be setting the tone of this interaction. I deduce as such because the two of them end up wrestling with each other and struggling to overcome some kind of obstacle. They are grunting and shouting and all that. And then, one of them says to the other, “You’re a really good killer.”
Now, before I go on, understand: they are just playing, they are just being kids. And they are probably not going to grow up and become “really good killers”, even should we choose at this juncture not to say anything to them. But, Heather decides this needs to be addressed. We need to talk to them about this kind of talk. And suddenly I realize: how we talk to them matters. There are any number of options, at this point, in that regard:
1. We can shout at them from downstairs while we sit on the couch.
2. We can shout at them to their face.
3. We can engage with them in controlled tones and with body language that communicates we love them (but, either way, the statement “You’re a really good killer” does need to be addressed).
I can’t see the results now in terms of how we responded (and, no, I’m not going to tell you how we responded!), but how we handle these everyday situations has an effect on them as they grow up, and they will carry these situations and conversations on into adulthood.
I was talking with someone the other day who started out his life story by saying, “I grew up in ‘the projects’. My mother was on welfare, single, trying to raise four kids.”
He was ready to continue his story from there (as if how they got into that situation didn’t matter) when I stopped him and said, “Hold on a minute. Where was your father?”
“Oh, my mom and dad divorced just before I was born.”
I found out later that his dad was abusive and that he had rarely talked with his dad (even though his dad lived in the same town, fifteen or so minutes away, all his life). I also learned that his mom didn’t get married again until he was in his twenties. Do you see? All of these situations involved certain decisions. And all of those “everyday” kinds of decisions and situations have contributed to the “shape” of this particular individual today. And the “shape” he takes impacts others. And on and on it goes into eternity.
There really is no such thing as an “isolated” incident. It’s all connected in terms of space and time. There really is no such thing as an action that is merely “finite”. Everything we say and do bears the weight of eternity. I know that sounds “heavy”, but there is no getting around it, really. That’s the nature of life.
Anselm, in describing the “infinite” nature of sin, may have been talking about a kind of “sin-stockpile”, a certain “quantity” of sin; and in that, he may have misjudged. But do you see that, even if Anselm is incorrect in describing the situation in those terms, that still does not change the fact that our actions, all of our actions, whether we realize it or not, have an eternal quality to them? And, in that sense, there is no action that is merely finite.
In light of that, I tend to agree with you that sin’s punishment is best viewed in the terms of “natural result”. It isn’t that God is saying to us, “You’re going to burn in hell for all eternity for that hateful thought you just had.” It’s more like: “That hateful thought you just had is killing your soul and, whether you realize it or not, it may even kill others.”
Either way you look at it, though, the fact is: sin carries a wage, a cost, a price. And Anselm is right that “the price must be paid.” The wonder and mystery of the cross is: Jesus pays the price for us. How that works and why that should be so, quite honestly, does not make sense.
But can you see that, in the end, we don’t need to make sense of it? All we need to know is that it is true and it is good news and, if we accept that gift, we will be free of sin’s penalty, we will be declared “just” (even though we’re not).
And, in conclusion, can you see that there really is no conflict in affirming all three “types” of the atonement?
1. Christ reconciles humanity by gaining a victory over the devil, thus liberating us from the devil’s power. That is good news.
and
2. Christ pays a penalty on mankind’s behalf. He dies in the place where we rightfully should have died. And that is good news.
and
3. Christ gives us an example. In following His example, we become more like Christ, and thus we are saved. And that is good news.
There is no conflict. We can embrace all three. And it is my conviction that it is wise to embrace all three. We need to embrace all three. And we should embrace all three.
I hope this helps.
--Troy
teachings | Comments (0) | March 21, 2006