Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Reader Question- The Role of Atonement

David lived before ever seeing the most important in event in all of history. Does it make spiritual sense, let alone logical sense, to discount the atonement? He can uproot the sycamore tree and move any mountain. Are we to believe some things are impossible for God?

Why didnt Paul have at least an entire letter talking about being tormented night and day by remembering his sins "despite" the finished work of the atonement. The church was hesitant but God arranged his acceptance! -Richard

-----

Thanks for writing in, Richard.

I read your question a couple of times and was uncertain of what exactly you were pushing at... if you were implying that -I- was discounting atonement, or society in general, or what. I often feel like I am in an ongoing conversation with people who I read regularly, and so I suppose it is possible that this is a continuation of a conversation you've been having with me through reading my posts... in which case, thanks for reading, but I'm not dead sure where we are at.

As it happens, Atonement plays a key role in my theology, for the very reasons you posited in your question. David, who never knew Jesus, is believed to have received atonement, and Paul was able to do his work without being crushed by the guilt of his previous life, meaning that atonement played a real part in who he was... his sin wasn't just forgiven, it was removed from him entirely.

I believe both of those things 
intrinsically.

For my other readers who may not know, Atonement is the theological code word for the forgiveness of sin, the sealing of the rift that separates humanity from God. There are thousands of variations on how precisely this works, but I have rarely found much value in that particular conversation... the theological details are just that, details. Stuff worked out by God that can be fun to talk about, but since it is by God's action, we don't need to know HOW it works, only that it does.

As I reread your question now it occurs to me that your question might be in response to an earlier comment I made in condemnation of those who commit "sins against the Spirit," that is, use the Word of God to separate people from the Love of God, like those who use scriptural arguments to drive people away from the church or hate others. This is mentioned in three of the Gospels and what exactly they are talking about is open to interpretation.

At the end of the day, I do not believe that any Sin is unforgiveable, and I certainly do not believe anything is impossible for God, but I was working within a worldview where certain sins are treated as differently from others, less forgiveable, etc, and therefore pointing out that the only sin ever described as "unforgivable" is the sin people commit when they use God's message of Love as a vehicle of hate. 

My theology of atonement tells me that judgement belongs, always and only, to God. That people do not need to use or even know the correct names and forms to receive it, and that no sin is powerful enough to remove us from the influence of God's love. But in the end, that isn't my call. I'm not here to tell God how things should work, but to tell people how to behave towards others.

At the end of the day, the people who use the Scriptures as a tool of hatred and division are, in my theological understanding, committing the greatest sin possible to commit, in that they are presenting a version of the church that, rather than being a welcoming beacon to all who seek it, is instead seen as a force of judgement, illogic, and derision.

That sin will probably be atoned for, in the end, though it will be God's call, not mine. But that certainly doesn't mean that I am not called to draw attention to the sin, and where possible, preach against it.