mylifemyfaith (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mylifemyfaith) wrote,@ 2008-09-01 16:38:00 |
|
PSA and CV vs. Abelard
Penal Subsitutionary Atonement and Christ the Victor atonement have something in common - they both posit the atonement for our sins of a Christ who is both Human and God at the same time. There is, however, a third vision of the Atonement, that of Peter Abelard, who posited that Jesus died to show us the vision of radical self-denial that we should endeavor to live by. In this view of the atonement Jesus dies for our sins not to appease the justice of the father or to destroy the dominion Death and the Devil have over humanity, but to show us how to live a sinless life. I dislike this third position, which seems to be that of John Shelby Spong and many other modern liberals just as much as I dislike penal substitution. My dislike is rooted in two issues:
1. Following the example of Christ perfectly is impossible- we have all sinned, we all know it. Therefore Christ must have to be God to have lived a sinless life, and He would not ask of us something that is impossible.
2. Seeing Christ's death as an example of love in the face of hate but nothing more obliviates the necessity of the resurrection (some forms of PSA also do this) - if Jesus had not risen from the grave, he would have been just one of many victims of Roman cruelty. Risen, he shows that the power and love of God is greater then any human cruelty.
Penal Subsitutionary Atonement and Christ the Victor atonement have something in common - they both posit the atonement for our sins of a Christ who is both Human and God at the same time. There is, however, a third vision of the Atonement, that of Peter Abelard, who posited that Jesus died to show us the vision of radical self-denial that we should endeavor to live by. In this view of the atonement Jesus dies for our sins not to appease the justice of the father or to destroy the dominion Death and the Devil have over humanity, but to show us how to live a sinless life. I dislike this third position, which seems to be that of John Shelby Spong and many other modern liberals just as much as I dislike penal substitution. My dislike is rooted in two issues:
1. Following the example of Christ perfectly is impossible- we have all sinned, we all know it. Therefore Christ must have to be God to have lived a sinless life, and He would not ask of us something that is impossible.
2. Seeing Christ's death as an example of love in the face of hate but nothing more obliviates the necessity of the resurrection (some forms of PSA also do this) - if Jesus had not risen from the grave, he would have been just one of many victims of Roman cruelty. Risen, he shows that the power and love of God is greater then any human cruelty.
