Subject: Re: God
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 9:10:39 +0800
From: Nigel Mitchell
Newsgroups:
aus.religion.christian

Rowland Croucher wrote:
> Re the atonement. I remember a Reformed professor of theology (Klaas
> Runia) giving a talk to the effect that there are _three_ generic views
> of the atonement in the Bible and through Christian history. First, the
> classical model (Jesus died to defeat death/hell) - beloved by the
> Eastern church. Then there’s the sin/redemption model (the Western
> church). And finally the relational model (God’s love reconciling us to
> himself) espoused by liberal Christians...
> 
> Who’s right? You guessed it: all three!

Since some of us seem wedded to the vocabulary of legal 
process in this discussion, how about expressing the 
three ways like this:

1.
God demands propitiation, and only the sacrifice of 
Jesus will pay the penalty. God gives careful written 
instructions to humanity about how they can claim the 
benefit of what Jesus has done on their behalf.

2.
God settles out of court, allowing Jesus to pay the 
penalty for sin on behalf of sinners. God enters into a 
covenant with humanity in which he will keep his side of 
the bargain so long as they keep theirs.

3.
God refuses to press charges because of his love for 
the ‘accused’, and sends his son to tell them 
of his decision. Even though they do not believ him, and 
kill him, God raises him from the dead to show that he 
will not change his mind. God opens the door to his 
kingdom and invites all humanity to enter.

It is clear to me that although it would be relatively 
easy to quote proof-texts in support of all three of 
these models, only number 3 offers hope of a loving 
relationship with God in this world and the next. With 
either of the other two options, the aspect of fear 
(which may lead to unquestioning obediece, which is 
slavery) would be ever present.

cheers
N+