Soteriology is the study of salvation. It is "salvation theory" or the doctrine of salvation. It can be a sore spot of division, but there are some clear Biblical teachings which everyone should be able to agree on.
The first question is "Why is salvation needed?" or "What are we saved from?". This is an important question. It defines what our problem is, and influences what we need to do to solve it.
First off, we are not saved from illness and poverty. There's an excellent quote they play on the Way of the Master radio: "Anyone who says, 'Get saved and live a better life' - has never read the New Testament." (Unfortunately, I cannot identify the speaker). The Bible is clear, get saved and receive tribulation and persecution (John 16:33, the parable of the sower, Acts 14:22, Romans 5:3, Mark 10:30).
We are saved from Hell. But why are we in danger of Hell? For the average person, this seems unreasonable. Ask any 10 people on the street, and probably at least half of the them will say they are good people who deserve Heaven, not Hell.
But the Bible makes it clear: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). God is perfect, and so must we be perfect. How many murders make you a murderer? How many lies a liar?
"murderers, ... and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone" (Revelation 21:8)
Paul uses the analogy of a courtroom (how many laws do you have to break to end up in court? Is the judge impressed that you usually do not break laws? That you believe he is good? That you won't do it again?).
We are the defendants, and we are guilty.
There must be a price paid (more like our civil court than criminal). That price can only be paid by the blood of Jesus.
When we realize that we are sinners, in need of salvation, and that Jesus has paid our price in full, turn from our sins, and trust in God - we are saved. Our "criminal" record is applied to Jesus, and His perfect life is applied to us.
Another analogy used is that of a slave auction. As sinners, we are owned by sin. Jesus' blood "purchases" us. We receive the seal of the Holy Spirit as evidence of this "down payment" against an inheritance of eternal life with Him.
15 comments:
If we must be perfect, then why did god create us as imperfect beings? By doing that, he requires that we be judged by standards that are impossible to fill. Hence, the - and by your own logic and words - default condition is that we go to hell. Should a loving god use hell as the default position? Does that make any sense? The inescapable conclusion is that if god exists, he is not all loving.
Another question, which you have never answered...How does the blood sacrifice of Jesus do anything to help me? How does killing a supposedly completely innocent man somehow absolve others of their alleged crimes?
And, what makes you think Jesus was perfect? Did he not physically whip people? Yes, he did. Did he hold higher morals than anyone else, ever? No, he did not, as evidenced by his turning a blind eye to slavery, his treatment of women, his actions behind the whip, and his endorsement of the OT law which is cruel and petty.
God created us imperfect primarily to demonstrate His attributes of mercy, patience, and justice (the Trinity demonstrates love in itself).
The certainty of Hell is meant to drive us to our Savior, Jesus.
The sacrifice of Jesus demonstrates the perfection of God (the price paid for an offense is proportional to the status of the one offended).
Jesus in the temple demonstrates either righteous anger (for us) or is possibly only demonstrating God's wrath. I think a good argument can be made that we should not be angry in this manner. But God certainly is.
We've discussed slavery before. Jesus' first coming was not to overthrow governments.
Jesus treated women far better than societies at that time did, do you have a particular encounter in mind?
If god created us as imperfect merely to demonstrate his abilities, then we are nothing more than pawns.
Hell is meant to drive us towards Jesus? Well, that doesn't get god off the hook, now does it? He is coercing us by gunpoing into believing. He is also still sending multitudes to hell. What a monster.
"The sacrifice of Jesus demonstrates the perfection of God (the price paid for an offense is proportional to the status of the one offended)."
What? So if I kill a rich man that's worse than killing a poor man? And, this doesn't answer my question. How does the sacrifice of Jesus demonstrate the perfection of god? I would argue it demonstrates the exact opposite, because it shows that god is a poor planner, so poor he had to come kill himself when he couldn't get us to worship him and behave. Also, you still haven't told me how killing Jesus did anything. How is the murder of someone a redemptive action for others?
Why do we let god/Jesus off the hook for demonstrating wrath? Jesus whipped people in the temple, yet we just say, "Oh, it's god's wrath so it's OK." Would you similarly let a husband off the hook for beating his wife because he was just demonstrating his wrath?
We've discussed slavery, but never to my satisfaction. Why did god not simply outlaw it? Why wouldn't Jesus teach against it? He taught against all manner of other things, so why not slavery too?
Jesus also was somewhat better with women, but far from what we would consider moral in this day and age. His laws on marriage were draconian towards women though, and he did have some reservations about women in church. Paul certainly had some as well, going so far as to say that women should not be allowed to speak, IIRC.
"He is coercing us by gunpoint into believing."
I don't buy it. If you really believed that, you would do something. To continue your analogy, you'd just turn your back on the gun and walk out of the room.
So, you don't believe in God. I assume you don't believe in an afterlife? Do you 'believe' in entropy?
"I don't buy it. If you really believed that, you would do something. To continue your analogy, you'd just turn your back on the gun and walk out of the room."
What in the world are you talking about? You don't buy what? That god is coercing your believe at the point of a gun? How else could you describe it? You either believe and go to heaven, or you go to hell. This is exactly the same as believe or I will shoot you/kill you/torture you/whatever you.
If I really believed what, and what is it I'm supposed to do? I don't believe in god, so I'm wondering what you think I'm supposed to do here. I'm telling you that it is not loving, kind, just, or anything else that is good; isn't that doing something?
And, your continuance of my analogy doesn't hold because I don't believe there is a gun or a gun holder. I'm just pointing out what YOUR theology states, and how you can't logically claim that god is good, just, loving, etc.
"So, you don't believe in God. I assume you don't believe in an afterlife? Do you 'believe' in entropy?"
I don't believe in god, I don't believe in any afterlife, and I don't 'believe' in entropy. I know that entropy is a natural result of natural laws, so there is no need for belief, unless you are being so esoteric as to make the argument that we can't really "know" anything because we might all be living in some matrix-type world. So, I really have no idea what entropy has to do with anything.
Entropy can be summarized as "a game where you can't win, you can't break even, and you have to play".
Eventually, all free energy in the universe will be used up. Everything , everywhere will die. Even matter itself will break down, be converted to energy, which will be uniformly spread through space.
Agree?
If the universe is a closed system, that much is true, unless the universe collapses in on itself before that happens. I believe that the expansion of the universe is also a counter-acting agent as well, so we might not be facing this problem. I still fail to see your point, and I still fail to see what you were trying to get at in the previous comment.
The question is, if you're right, what does everything mean?
If you're right, everything, everywhere will die.
What possible meaning does anything today have?
Why argue with me?
We are arguing whether certain photons should be here or 3 meters to the left 1e40 years from now...
"The question is, if you're right, what does everything mean?"
Why does there have to be some cosmic meaning? Does it devalue my life at all for me to find my own reason for being? To do what makes me happy? I'd say that pining for an afterlife that probably isn't there is devaluing life. Certainly, it is also devaluing life to claim that all people are corrupt, evil, bad, etc.
"If you're right, everything, everywhere will die."
So, what will you do with your life while you have it?
"Why argue with me?"
Because I value truth. Because I wish for you and your kind to stop trying to negatively influence my life. Because maybe I want you to value your fellow human beings and your own life.
"We are arguing whether certain photons should be here or 3 meters to the left 1e40 years from now..."
Huh? That's not what I'm arguing about. I'm arguing about your theology that informs you that all people are evil and that we are somehow deserving of eternal punishment and torture. You don't have to hate like that.
"We are arguing whether certain photons should be here or 3 meters to the left 1e40 years from now..."
If you are right, then I could "party 'til I'm broke and they drag me away (Weird Al - Dare to Be Stupid)". Or I could dedicate my life to stopping global warming.
Either way, in 1e40 years, everything , everywhere is still dead.
How does what you do today matter in any way (beyond immediate gratification)?
How does anything matter?
Well, that's up to you. Do you want to leave a mark on the world? Do you want to simply be happy and live a good life? Do you want to do something good for the world and the people around you, including those you love? Like I said, it's all up to you. Immortality doesn't give you meaning, you give yourself meaning. Sure, you can borrow someone else's meaning from some book that was written ages ago, and pretend that it is your meaning, but that would be lying to yourself, wouldn't it?
"you give yourself meaning."
Ok, so under your system, I get meaning by "pretending" that God exists, and that the Bible is His Word to us. It's kind of like a live action role-playing game. I preach to people and try to convert them.
You get your meaning by saying nasty things about my "pretend" God.
But, that impairs me giving myself meaning. How do you justify that under your system?
At the same time, I don't particularly care if my preaching offends you. In my role under your system, any hurt feelings are far outweighed by the possible gains (to me) of conversion.
In short, I am being consistent under my own system, and yours. But you are inconsistent in both...
"Ok, so under your system, I get meaning by "pretending" that God exists, and that the Bible is His Word to us."
No, I think you really believe that your god exists. This, however, is not what gives you meaning for your life.
"You get your meaning by saying nasty things about my "pretend" God."
Hey, I wouldn't have nasty things to say if your god didn't depict himself as a genocidal maniac.
"But, that impairs me giving myself meaning. How do you justify that under your system?"
Because you don't get meaning for your life by this method. That's where you are going off the rails.
"At the same time, I don't particularly care if my preaching offends you."
It only "offends" me when it affects me negatively.
"In my role under your system, any hurt feelings are far outweighed by the possible gains (to me) of conversion."
Nice try, but incorrect. You do not have the right to take away my rights or cause me harm. This is morality. So, no, if I do suffer wrongs at your hands, it is not outweighed by any possible gains by you. Besides, what possible gains do you get from converting me?
"In short, I am being consistent under my own system, and yours. But you are inconsistent in both..."
Only in your strawman representation of my system are you "consistent". Unfortunately for you, you are not consistent in the actual system that I am talking about. As to whether you are consistent in your own system, well we haven't been discussing that, but I'd say that you are not consistent in that either.
"Hey, I wouldn't have nasty things to say if your god didn't depict himself as a genocidal maniac."
Don't I get to dictate the attributes of the God I believe in?
"This, however, is not what gives you meaning for your life."
You mention this a couple times, but you didn't tell me what it is you think gives me meaning.
"You do not have the right to take away my rights or cause me harm."
I don't want to harm you. Where do rights come from? What do rights even mean in a meaningless world?
How does my having a blog discussing the Bible and God infringe on your rights?
"Don't I get to dictate the attributes of the God I believe in?"
You can try, but if you say that you believe in the god of the Bible, then you have to answer to what the Bible says about that god. If you want to make up your own god, go right ahead, only you'll have to explain to me what this god's attributes are and how you know these things. At least those who believe in the Biblical god can point to the Bible as some sort of record of their god. What do you have?
"You mention this a couple times, but you didn't tell me what it is you think gives me meaning."
I most certainly did. Here's is what I said:
"Like I said, it's all up to you. Immortality doesn't give you meaning, you give yourself meaning. Sure, you can borrow someone else's meaning from some book that was written ages ago, and pretend that it is your meaning, but that would be lying to yourself, wouldn't it?"
"I don't want to harm you. Where do rights come from? What do rights even mean in a meaningless world?"
Good, because I have no wish to be harmed by you. As to where rights come from, they come from society. They come from the realization that if I want my self and my wishes, ambitions, etc. to be respected, then I too must respect the wishes, ambitions, self, etc. of others. You can't claim that my philosophy says that we should all go out and do whatever we want, because that's simply not true. At some point, the realization has to sink in that if I harm others or take their rights away, what keeps others from doing it to me? Luckily, we've evolved as social animals that understand this very basic tenet (like our cousins the apes and chimps, as well as many other animal groups).
"How does my having a blog discussing the Bible and God infringe on your rights?"
Your specific blog probably does not. Your theology, however, does and your propagation of it spreads the "disease" - for lack of a better word. If Xians all kept to themselves and didn't try to influence the people around them through enacting laws, proselytizing, etc. it wouldn't be an issue. As it is, however, I have your god on my currency, I have your god showing up in the pledge of allegiance, I have your god being thrust at me from all angles, I have a president that claims your god told him to get into an ill-advised war, etc. etc. etc. It's not just your god, however. Other people's gods tell them to fly planes into buildings, for instance. When will the madness stop? When will we stop fighting over who has the better invisible friend - a "friend" who sends hurricanes to wipe out major cities, a "friend" who sees us as guilty unless we grovel at his feet, etc.
Post a Comment