I love theological gobblygook, also known as rabbit holes. You can call it a guilty pleasure, if you like. I suppose calling it gobblygook sounds a bit disrespectful, but I mean that in the sense of, oh what a tangled web we weave……when we try to lean into our own understanding. Faith is simply something that cannot be fully understood intellectually. You cannot really rationalize something like “hope” or “love.” It’s like believing God can be properly understood with an assembly book of IKEA instructions.
Watermelon ideas in pea brains, I like to say. Myself included.
I mention it too, because some people accuse Christians of being indoctrinated and I must say, every time I stumble into a raging, heated theological debate it makes me laugh because I think, Wow, epic indoctrination fail. Way to go!
Virgins in the volcano, penal substitutionary atonement, eternal submission of the Son, and the nature of the trinity, oh my. It’s like a whole island of rabbit holes just waiting to be explored. For those who don’t know there’s often some raging theological debates going on around these 3 primary ideas, as is evident in this article, “Enough Virgins in the Volcano Theology”
First let me say, no throwing virgins in the volcano. That’s pagan, violent, bad for the virgins.
Second, the Trinity stands just as is and always has been. There is great mercy and compassion in trying to wrap our brain around the idea, however. It’s designed to stretch us.
Third, I totally reject eternal submission of the Son, aka, ESS. I don’t find it biblical, not rooted in sound theology, or even rational. In fact, it’s very human and flawed. People always seem to insist on perceiving everything through a hierarchy, as if rank must be declared so we know which branch of the Trinitarian to start sidling up to. I think Jesus spoke about that problem often in the bible. “The first shall go last” and “what you do for the least of these you do for me.” He turned our own understanding of hierarchies on its head.
But when it comes to penal substitutionary atonement, I kind of sit on all sides of the issue. In a world full of linear thinkers where people demand cut and dry answers, that probably doesn’t sit well. It’s true however, I kind of look down on it all with a 360 degree view. I understand what people are saying, but they are often not seeing around the other side of the bend.
I really believe Paul Young, the author of the Shack, did a beautiful job addressing the nature of his own problem. Some people really do wrestle with the false idea that “the Father murdered the Son.” You hear this from atheists all the time and from some believers, too. I myself have never stumbled there, I’ve been too busy stumbling in multiple other places. I’ve always believed that we people sent Jesus Christ to the cross, not God. He died for our sins, our human authorities condemned Him. The world sent Jesus Christ to the cross, He gave His life for us. God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and works for good all things of course, but He was also on the cross Himself that day. He was not, “up in the sky torturing Jesus.” Some people really do believe that. “Here is my Son in who I am well pleased….” pretty much contradicts that false perception.
One reason why these things get so turned around and tangled up is that we are often looking for a theological solution to what is a personal problem, an emotional issue. If you know the nature of God, His kindness and mercy, you know He is not murdering His own Son in an act of wrath because He’s mad at us. His also didn’t drown His kids in a fit of temper when Noah built the ark. These are all emotional issues that color our perceptions of our Holy Father. They’re rooted in strongholds that cloud our understanding.
That’s one side of it. There’s another problem that often springs up on the other side, those heavily invested in the absolutism of penal substitutionary atonement, as if to say God sent Jesus Christ to the cross and poured His wrath out on a substitute. The problem with that is so often people will then adopt this attitude, I didn’t send Jesus to the cross, God did. It had nothing to do with me. Well, if Jesus Christ didn’t lay down His very life to save you personally, your entire theology begins to crumble all around you.
I really love the song, “How Deep The Father’s Love For Us.” Every word there says a mouthful. Behold the Man upon a cross, My sin upon His shoulders, Ashamed I hear my mocking voice, Call out among the scoffers. We must have the mindset that our own sin pinned Him there, that we were among the scoffers. Obviously, we were not literally in the crowd that day, but that is an example of how sometimes it takes a song and a metaphor to help you fully understand what simply cannot be drawn intellectually in a more linear manner.
I must say however, I simply cannot agree with the movement that wants to change, throw out, revoke, the whole concept of penal substitutionary atonement. That actually begins to disturb me, as if something has gone all awry there. It’s kind of interesting, so many articles begin with words like, “we must soften the atonement.” Whole lyrics to songs have now been changed so as to say things like, “Till on that cross as Jesus died, the love of God was magnified.” Well yes, that works just fine too, but please let’s not forget the cross was not “soft,” it was an instrument of torture, execution, and death. While I understand how lyrics like, “Till on that cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied,” can seem disturbing to some, heaven help us all if we ever begin to find it NOT disturbing. Soft. Comfortable. Easy. No.
There is no such thing as a “soft atonement and crucifixion.” Indeed, the love of God was magnified…. in the selfless sacrifice of Jesus Christ who died in a brutal, tortuous, and bloody manner. “The wrath of God was satisfied,” not because He hated you or His Son, but because He hated what sin and the enemy had done to you. Without the wrath of God, you have a God of complete indifference to what man has suffered, what the enemy has stolen.
From the Virgins in the Volcano article above regarding penal substitutionary atonement, “You’ve probably heard some version of that doctrine so often that it sounds perfectly normal, but listen to it with the ears of an outsider.” Why? Why listen to it with the ears of an outsider?? It wasn’t designed to be understood by the ears of “outsiders.” It just doesn’t compute from the outside looking in. It invites you in and then comes the understanding.
I really wish people would bring things down to an emotional and personal level, because often it is not our theology that is wrong, but rather our own perceptions of it.
Wally Fry said:
I’m not much interested in deep discussions about penal substitutuinary atonement. The idea that we owe a payment is clear in scripture. The idea that Jesus has made that atonement is also clear. People hate the idea of atonement as it requires that we admire we have something to atone for. Nothing ever changes
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mel Wild said:
Good points, IB. The problem is, we tend to overstate things we believe to emphasize our point and that causes pushback. For instance, people like RC Sproul saying emphatically that it was God who killed Jesus, which is a major overstatement.
Also, some denominations have described salvation itself in the specific language of PSA, which muddies the soteriological waters because now it become a required tenet of the faith. Hence, the pushback like the article you referenced.
I don’t know if most detractors of PSA are trying to soften the atonement for outsiders as much as put the blame where it belongs, squarely on us. The apostles were pretty clear that we crucified Jesus. But while I personally have been pretty hard on these more extreme forms of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) because of what it says about God as a Father, I also agree that it does contains truth.
We just need to remember that PSA, like any other theory of atonement, is only one of several theories held by devoted believers who hold Scripture in high regard, so we should keep them as theories, not rigid dogma. And, like you said, we know that Jesus atoned for our sins, and there was nothing pretty about it. We can all agree on that. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Well said, Mel. On the internet I often watch so many “things” become required tenets of faith, until we’ve finally built this giant tower of doctrine idolatry. Doctrine is awesome, don’t get me wrong, but when we start coming up with these endless lists of what people must believe, we’re soon crossing a line and earning our own salvation with our alleged “right thinking.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mel Wild said:
Amen, IB. We need to always remember we’re looking, through a glass darkly. God is first and foremost about relationship. Our relationship to God and to each other allows us to have diversity without division.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wally Fry said:
Well said Mel. We can all hold scripture in high regard, be devoted believers, and not agree on all points. What a concept!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Mel Wild said:
Amen! What binds us together is Christ’s great love.
LikeLiked by 2 people
mastersamwise23 said:
God came down in the person of Jesus to die for our sins so that we do not have to suffer the punishment (I.e. Penal substitution). “There is no remission of sin with the shedding of blood” but the Bible also teaches that Christ was “obedient unto death”. He was a willing sacrifice so therefore it was not murder.
LikeLiked by 1 person
craftysurf said:
Good Gravy, you just pissed off a lot of people with REALLY expensive degrees and a great thesaurus. 😂👏👏👏
LikeLiked by 1 person
Citizen Tom said:
Good post on a complex issue.
Scripture makes it obvious our sins created a problem. God — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — came up with a solution. The Father did not put Jesus on the cross. Jesus and the Father are One. Jesus made the sacrifice because He loves us.
We have to admit we don’t understand God or His attitude towards sin. Because the penalty for our sins is more than we could pay and the Son paid, we just know how much God loves us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Salvageable said:
Scripture and solid Biblical theology contain several images of redemption. Mel calls them “theories,” but I prefer to call them analogies. Each of them is helpful to grasp the big picture of redemption, and each can be twisted out of shape when it is pushed too far. The financial image of Jesus paying our debts and the judicial picture of Jesus taken our punishment are both good, but one does not have to stop there. One of my favorite analogies of redemption is Christ defeating all our enemies and sharing his victory with us.
Treating these analogies as mutually exclusive is a mistake. All of them are correct. Rejecting one analogy because one favors another, or because it can be twisted into something clearly untrue, is mistaken. J.
LikeLiked by 2 people
MJThompson said:
“I suppose calling it gobblygook sounds a bit disrespectful…”
I had a business partner who loved to chide me about my holding a degree in theology. Whenever I would tie some rational concept to a spiritual reality, he would resist by saying, “go share that ‘bubble gum theology’ with some one whose lost”.
Virgins in the volcano reminded me of the time a well-known womanizer came to me to proclaim that God had told him he was numbered among the literal 144000 ‘1st fruits’ of the redeemed. Funny to me because my ‘bubble gum theology’ read Revelation 14 where the 144K are all VIRGINS.
LOL, but the subject of your post is definitely NOT “gobblygook”, but rather some very well explained sound doctrine.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
LOL! Great story about the virgins. I give people a hard time about theology, but without it we would not have the skeleton in which to build our faith. It would be like one of those boneless chicken ranches where the poor creatures just have to lay around in the yard because they have no bones. An urban legend, I’m sure.:)
LikeLiked by 2 people
MJThompson said:
LOL – isn’t that where boneless chicken breasts come from?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RichardP said:
IB says: “please let’s not forget the cross was not “soft,” it was an instrument of torture, execution, and death.” “The wrath of God was satisfied [with the final sacrifice] … because He hated what sin and the enemy had done to you.”
Comments such as these address the attitude of God at the time of Jesus’ death on the cross. At the time of the death of Jesus, God “hated what sin and the enemy had done to you.”
But the cross, and Jesus’ role in it/on it were created BEFORE God created the people that made the cross necessary. God created a solution to the problem, and THEN created the problem. If God truely hated what sin had done to us, he didn’t need to put his son on the cross. He could simply have not created us. That seems the simpler and more effective solution.
I’ve always wondered, when folks emphasize the wrath of God at the moment of Jesus’ death on the cross, whether they think that wrath existed before the world was created, when God created that very plan of salvation – his son brutally tortured in the process of becoming the final sacrifice.
There is way more to all of this than “the wrath of God was satsfied when the final sacrifice was made”. God could have avoided the stuff that made him wroth by simply not creating the world, or by creating it to have different outcomes. But he didn’t. He created the solution to the problem before he created the problem. Intentionally. Consider these verses:
“For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen [as the final sacrifice?] before the creation of the world … “1 Peter 1:18-20 (NIV)
“For he chose us in him [Christ, the final sacrifice] before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will …” Ephesians 1:4-5 (NIV)
We cannot legitimately discuss the concept of God’s wrath at the time of Jesus’ death without first considering that God created that situation on purpose. He knew that, when he created the problem, he would need a solution. So he created the solution first (see the verses above), then he created the problem. God can do anything he wants to. And he did. Which makes me wonder how OUR concept of “God’s wrath” is a useful subject for discussion when God could have avoided the whole thing by not creating the problem? I’m not sure we understand, from God’s point of view, the concept of what his “wrath” really was or why it existed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
You’re quite right, He created the solution before the problem. What often happens to us is that we fall down rabbit holes trying to wrap our brains around the idea of God existing outside of our human perception of time and having the ability to see into the future. It’s so alien to our own experience that we can only begin to imagine it in little pieces. We people also have a tendency to want to fix it, to solve problems, so in the blink of an eye we can start second guessing God Himself and than judging Him as if to say, “well, He shouldn’t have put that tree in the garden if He didn’t want is to eat it!” There’s nothing wrong with exploring these ideas as long as we do it with some intellectual humility,some understanding that God is good always and that we are simply incapable of understanding Him fully, because as of now, “We see through the glass darkly.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
ColorStorm said:
I did something I rarely do. Erased a comment.
Took my own advice, lest I help to steer a good topic far into the weeds.
Sorry bout that msb, but good stuff. especially about not needing to understand with someone else’s ears……… 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
LOL! Don’t be sorry, Colorstorm. I’d probably be wise to delete a few of my comments myself. Alas, I’m not always so wise! On the other hand, there’s probably been a few times I’ve said nothing when I should have.
If I remember right, early Christians also had a hard time explaining communion to “outsiders.” Without understanding and the eyes to see, it seems like cannibalism or something. One thing I wish Christians would do is stop thinking we can present faith as a good public relations campaign that will appeal to the masses, kind of like selling paper towels does. The Truth is not really a brand that one can market. All we can really do is speak it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ColorStorm said:
Your communion to outsiders msb……….reminds me.
There is a Latin phrase which I love beyond words Primus inter pares. (first among equals)
He took Peter, James, and John……….. not that He appreciated less the others……. but when we speak of deep doctrinal truths, ‘outsiders’ (as in specifically unbelievers) need not feel compelled to engage in truths which they find revolting.
But when we believers speak of atonement for example, it is certainly true that while Christ made it…
… we can go further, inside the chamber as it were, where no unbeliever tread, and where some believers have not visited, simply because of unfamiliarity, and that is this:
The Lord Christ WAS the atonement, so sez scripture, that He was made TO BE the propitiation……..so we receive not only a good plea, but the plea giver HIMSELF. We receive Christ.
These fine points of doctrine are gems to faith, and unfold layer after layer of delight.
So we speak it! 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Amen! Primus inter pares, it is!
We receive Christ Himself. Double amen! That is one hard concept to articulate, so well done. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
theinfiniterally said:
Great post. I would say perfect, but frankly I don’t have a good enough grasp of the specifics of atonement to rate your theology. Should I? Absolutely. Will I? And HOW will I? ‘Well, if you were once-for-all saved, you would know,’ is the Protestant-perspective answer I hear in my head.
After reconsidering my decision to abandon Christianity entirely, I got serious about recommitting myself
about a year ago. This after a long sojourn in New Age and paganism. So where did I go upon my return? Skeptically, but far from obstinately (we New Agers will entertain just about anything), I considered listening to the Catholic Church. Let’s not jump down that rabbit hole, but I mention it because of the amount of second-guessing I’ve experienced as a former Protestant. The Protestant holdover part of my brain says, “You haven’t returned to Christianity! You are simply one step further down the path of paganism!” All this to say, with all sincerity, that because of things like this, I cannot imagine my reentry into the body of Christ without an interpretive tradition and authority.
So will I and how will I? Through an increase of understanding born from an increase of intimacy in a real and living relationship, is my hopeful answer. Or to really be set straight, if I’ve truly gone off the deep end.
LikeLiked by 1 person
theinfiniterally said:
Since I’m not sure if I’m making any sense this morning, i wanted to add, my understanding of understanding is that it could be thought of as a reward: whoever is faithful with a little will receive more. Not because of works, but because of grace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Ahhh yes Catholics. There’s some antiquity, continuity, history, within Catholicism that can be really valuable to become acquainted with. I’m always reminded that the protestants, the reformers, actually were Catholics. It’s a bit funny, but sometimes in the midst of rivalries and the divide, we forget that.
I know some awesome Catholics and then there are some like in my family who have totally missed the boat and seem to believe faith has something to with DNA and you’re just born into it. I really believe it’s so important we look up, build a personal relationship, seek His favor first, because the world of people and religion can be a bit of a mad house with the clowns running the asylum. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
theinfiniterally said:
Very well said! And can o worms saved for a better day. 😀
LikeLike
Tricia said:
I really admire how you take complex and rabbit hole diving subjects down to the personal level. It offers a clear perspective on things I don’t really understand and motivates me to learn more. Well done as always.
LikeLiked by 2 people