EXCELLENT QUESTION. Substitutionary atonement or substitutionary sacrifice, the understanding of Jesus's death continues to be bedrock for most conservative Christians. Many people think this is the orthodox and thus "official" Christian understanding of Jesus's death, including many of those who have difficulty with it. In it's fully developed form, it first appears in a book written 1097 by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury. It gradually became central medieval Christianity and then much of the theology of the Protestant Reformation. Over time, radical grace became conditional grace. But conditional grace is not longer grace. Mark's story of Jesus's death says nothing about su...

EXCELLENT QUESTION. Substitutionary atonement or substitutionary sacrifice, the understanding of Jesus's death continues to be bedrock for most conservative Christians. Many people think this is the orthodox and thus "official" Christian understanding of Jesus's death, including many of those who have difficulty with it. In it's fully developed form, it first appears in a book written 1097 by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury. It gradually became central medieval Christianity and then much of the theology of the Protestant Reformation. Over time, radical grace became conditional grace. But conditional grace is not longer grace. Mark's story of Jesus's death says nothing about substitutionary sacrifice. Of course, Paul does use sacrificial imagery. But it is one of several images and the language of sacrifice does not mean substitution. At the risk of being offensive, I see substitutionary atonement as bad theology and bad history. It says something both limiting and negative about God. It limits God by saying God can forgive sins only if adaquate payment is made.
I hope I've answered your question, Saigordon.

Excellent post, debbyski. If you look at this question from the point of view of, say, Luther, one of my theological heroes, then the paradoxical side of this understanding of the Gospel becomes a little clearer. According to Luther, fallen human beings (i.e. all of us) are so permeated by sin that we cannot do good; we can't please God in anything we do out of our own power. However, God is willing to forgive us and heal us if we come to realize our utter dependence on God's power and open ourselves to God's grace and the gospel call. We cannot earn salvation, in other words; it is a freely-given gift from God -- God doesn't owe it so us. So far, this sounds a little like "vampire Christia...

Excellent post, debbyski. If you look at this question from the point of view of, say, Luther, one of my theological heroes, then the paradoxical side of this understanding of the Gospel becomes a little clearer. According to Luther, fallen human beings (i.e. all of us) are so permeated by sin that we cannot do good; we can't please God in anything we do out of our own power. However, God is willing to forgive us and heal us if we come to realize our utter dependence on God's power and open ourselves to God's grace and the gospel call. We cannot earn salvation, in other words; it is a freely-given gift from God -- God doesn't owe it so us. So far, this sounds a little like "vampire Christianity," because it disconnects salvation from good or Christlike actions. But Luther then goes on to say that if a person is truly healed and saved, morally good and generous actions must necessarily flow forth from him or her. It's not that grace will prevent us from ever sinning again; sin is inevitable as long as we live on earth, and as Luther put it we continue to be simul justus et peccator (simultanously both just and a sinner) as long as we live. Grace is also not a momentary transformation (a born-again experience) but rather an ongoing God-ward struggle. At least that's my understanding of Luther's view.