I have just finished cutting the grass for perhaps the last time this year. I did that after coming back from the airport, having flown with Cindi to another airport for lunch. This is the first time in the air for about six weeks, which is much more time off in succession from flying than in the past ten years. The biggest reason has been bad weather, and of course the plane that I fly as a member of a flying club is in the process of getting a rebuilt engine. However, I do know another pilot who rents me his plane to fly, and so today was a cool, but sunny calm day to get back into the air.
This morning, before leaving for the airport, I continued re-reading the first book I had read by Brian Zahnd called "Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God". I wanted to read it again, since I have learned an abundance of things since then about Brian and his ministry, (having listened to his podcast sermons posted since 2016 in about 3 or 4 months as well as having read 1/2 dozen of his books) and I have even become familiar with some of the names of other authors he mentions throughout his book. I thought that by reading this book again, I will pick up much more insight than I did the first time. And that will be part of the reason for this post.
One of the major sticking points for me back at the start of the new year, when all of this intense focus on spiritual things for me began; that I talked about in a few previous posts; which has to do with many of these authors view on the atonement. They were united in their insistence that God didn't take His wrath toward us by killing Jesus. In other words, they would argue against the theological viewpoint that God had to sacrifice Jesus on the cross to appease his wrath against man because of their sin. The idea that God is so angry against sinners, that He would wipe them from the earth, except Jesus would step into our place and say He would take man's place in order to calm down a wrathful angry God! The idea that when God would want to destroy man, Jesus would step up and show the Father his nail scarred hands and feet, and then Jesus could appease God's rage against mankind. God forbid indeed! It is also not a legal contract, as is often taught. Jesus acting as a lawyer on behalf of the sinner, in defense against the Father, who wants to condemn them to a fiery torment forever in hell. I have heard these atonement theories taught. It sets up a paradigm that God is wrathful and Jesus saves us from God's wrath.
However, I did not find these author's atonement explanations provided in their books satisfactory either. I spend many weeks frustrated with trying to understand what the reasons they provided for the death of Jesus on the cross. As I was "hearing" it, Jesus died on the cross because man required a sacrifice, and not God. The parable of the prodigal son was provided as a example for when the son came home, the father did not go find a servant to whip them, before he could forgive the son. Which is not the point as I see it. And I was not able to wrap my head around their theology on atonement. It is much more involved than is possible to explain here, and can be better understood by reading it from the author's own words.
Cindi (my wife) will attest to the fact that I was very frustrated with trying to find the key to understand what their teaching is, that explained why Jesus died, and what part God purposed in this sacrifice. As it seemed to me, they dismissed the whole animal sacrificial system in the Old Testament as man's idea, and not God's. As if God was appeasing man's need for blood, and so God permitted the animal sacrifice, and that God didn't require it. And yet, the whole tabernacle in the wilderness was designed by God to institute animal sacrifices etc for the sins of the people to provide them with a constant reminder of their need for forgiveness and the seriousness of sin.
So what was I missing? I don't get it! Then one day it clicked! All of what they were arguing against, I did not believe anyway! I did not believe that God was taking His wrath against man for their sin and needed to torture His Son on the cross to accomplish His violent vengeance. While I do not doubt it is the mindset of some, it was not mine, and so much of their points did not apply to my atonement theology anyway. I leaned toward the legal atonement being taught, because of some mis-translations of certain words in Scripture. But then again, I still think that we still do not agree on some points. And it has become even clearer to me what I believe about the death of Jesus on the cross for the forgiveness of sins; which I will explain in the next post; and it all comes back to when God told Adam, "in the day that you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil You Shall Surely Die."
No comments:
Post a Comment