As for his views on atonement, he posits nothing new to the conversation and sees Jesus as the prototypical example both of how to live with others, obey the Father and as a human insight into the love of God. In fact, it is the love of God which the author sees as the quintessential attribute of God to the negation of every other attribute illuminated about God in the scriptures.
But, while I could go through almost every paragraph in the pastor's post and show how scripture clearly highlights the idea of substitution throughout the entirety of Scripture, I want to concentrate on the real issue which is why this person even feels it necessary to address other Christians in how they should view the atonement.
I say this because of other quotes from the pastor's own blog which I found with little time searching his archives. The first quote I have states "We can also draw the following analogy: It’s important for disciples of Jesus today to respect the totality of Scripture, even the parts that have no authority in our lives. It is clear, in light of the revelation of God’s will in Christ, that there are Scriptures that are inadequate, deficient, and stand in direct opposition to the gospel of Jesus. Their teaching value is in showing us how people of faith can misunderstand and deviate from God’s will, how faithful people can regress and completely miss what is redemptive and transformative. Even regressive laws and Scriptures serve a purpose."
One, this pastor believes that there are parts of scripture that have no authority in our lives. Given that foundational belief, how can he make any statements drawing logical conclusions as to what and what is not covered in the atonement if there is no boundary as to what is and what is not worthy of having authority over the lives of believers. Next, he states it is clear that there are Scriptures inadequate, deficient and in opposition to the gospel of Jesus. Again, what are the totality of these scriptures and who is the person with the final authority on staking such a claim.
The second quote states, "But God is not limited to the Christian way and path. When Christians claim that there is salvation in no other name, they are speaking of what is true for Christians. No exclusivity need be implied. God can be encountered in innumerable ways. God can be accessed by many names and the Spirit can work in numerous ways. There is a perennial, transformative wisdom that transcends particular religious beliefs and traditions."
To borrow from his own earlier words, it is clear that this pastor has no business being ordained in any Christian denomination and this is the reason that I find it totally unnecessary to go line by line contrasting his views of the atonement against the totality of scripture. I guess that Jesus' own words claiming that "no man may come to the Father but through Him" is one of those inadequate or regressive scriptures. Christianity is a religion of exclusivity, and no honest person would conclude that the Bible declares anything closely resembling this pluralistic view of salvation.
Does this man have a right to believe and write anything he wants? Absolutely. The problem is that he holds views that call into question Christ and his mission on earth utilizing the very same scriptures that he holds in such low esteem. You can't have it both ways pastor and in the end, the most damaging part of your view on the atonement is that it neglects the sinful nature of man, the need for radical transformative grace through the new birth and instead places the entire salvific weight on the shoulders of the person who tries to live up to the example and standard of Christ as a way to earn their salvation. And that is something every Christian knows is impossible.
No comments:
Post a Comment