Note: CRN doesn’t play by the rules (yes, there are rules). Among those rules are, if you’re a blogger, you should allow comments, especially if you comment on others’ posts.
"EMERGING CHURCH LEADER TONY JONES DISCUSSES ‘A BETTER ATONEMENT’
BY ERIN BENZIGER
The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement is made quite clear in Scripture and has been affirmed by Christians throughout church history. In a recent interview with Drew Sumrall of The Harvest Show, emerging church leader and author Tony Jones, in typical postmodern fashion, seeks to question and redefine this core tenet of the Christian faith.
During the interview, Jones and Sumrall discuss Jones’ newest ebook, A Better Atonement: Beyond the Depraved Doctrine of Original Sin. Jones claims that the idea of the penal substitutionary atonement is a modern one that “began with Anselm in the Middle Ages” and that the first 1,000 years of church history knew nothing of the doctrine of the atonement as most Christians understand it today.
Below, Christian apologist and host of Fighting for the Faith, Chris Rosebrough, addresses the bold and erroneous claims of Jones:"
Tony Jones is not the first to deny or question the atonement of Jesus Christ. Most recently, gay-affirming “evangelical punk preacher” Jay Bakker acknowledged in an interview with the Christian Post that he is “definitely questioning the atonement and trying to discover how we can see it in a different way.”
Note: You are free to comment on our blogs anytime. EOAN
I Think Your Atonement Might Be Wrong [VIDEO]
Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/
'via Blog this'
What an interesting post. I have been doing research on the ULC for my religion class, and your article came up. I really enjoyed reading your article. Thanks so much for this lovely article.
ReplyDeleteYou can find the complete answers to atonement in a kindle book called Renegade Gospel The Jesus Manifold by Jamey Massengale.
ReplyDelete1. God is the creator completely soveriegn
2 My separation from God is due to my knowledge of good and evil because i use it to judge god i.e. why do the innocent suffer etc. is an accusation in interrogative format.
3 If God is omniscient I cant do other than what God KNEW i would do before He created me and He created me as He did; therefore God is responsible for my sin
4 If God is responsible for my sin then God should die for my sin
5 In Jesus God did die for my sin or Jesus as god died for all sin ( which is by the way the ultimate statement of soveriegnty, where God says in essence “I do it all” cause effect and resolution.)
6 However Jesus the man did not sin nor was He under original sin so He didn’t deserve to die, but being God as man, now by the rule of equity, all men are equal to God, syllogism: Jesus is a man and all men are human therefore Jesus is human and Jesus is God therefore all men are in Jesus equal to God in their HUMAN/GOD rights.
7 Therefore since only God as the “potter” had the rights of life, liberty, and property; and since Jesus transfers to all humans like Himself those rights, we don’t need a law saying by fiat “thou shalt not kill”, because all men now have the right to life; I know I violate that right if I kill a man. Thereby the law is fulfilled in right-eousness, or “the having of the rights of God”.
That’s it in a nutshell and it explains a lot of ambiguous statements Paul makes. I haven’t quoted much scripture for brevity’s sake but I find the Jesus manifold completely supported from genesis to revelation. It affirms the homoousion, it satisfies the complete taxonomy of sin(ontologic, deontic, and relational), and it satisfies all of Abelard’s criteria: 1. it’s logical 2. It’s not arbitrary if God is omniscient, therefore actions are predestined, and love demand’s it to satisfy the human cry of injustice. 3 It’s intelligible being stated capable of syllogistic treatment in plain unambiguous language. The implications to a multiverse for an omniscient God require He know everything in all possible universes, this single incarnation would then only be required in this one to satisfy it’s precise constraints, as it exists within the multiplicity of universes in God’s consciousness.
I apologize if the first part is ambiguous as to the idea of multiverse. Only in science fiction and thought experiment is a multiverse with divergent timelines considered. This universe has the timline it does because of physical constraints that cannot be changed if human life is to exist as it does(see Anthropic principle). There are approximately 20 such constraints that are so precise the universe would cease to exist as it does if they varied even one plank measure. Those multiverses actually possible would be defined by changes in those constants. Therefore there can be no other universe which would value the atonement as this one does(anthropically); however these constants do not forbid interactions at the quantum level, and may derive their stability from these interactions. In that case the incarnation in this universe has it’s meaning only in this universe but would have implications to all other possible universes.