Re: Atonement theories and debt forgiveness true BIBLE

On 9/4/2022 9:59 PM, Steve Hayes scribbled:
> I've been seeing a lot in social media recently about the different
> responses of some American Christians to the idea of debt forgiveness.
>
> It seems that the difference in the response is linked to the
> different atonement theories that people hold, and that the dominant
> atonement theory among American Christians is the "penal substitution"
> theory.
>
> The following, posted on Facebook, explains why those who hold the
> penal substitution theory of the atonement are often vociferously
> opposed to debt forgiveness.
>

  "5 These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into 
the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye 
not. 6 But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And 
going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8 Heal the 
sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have 
you received, freely give. 9 Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money 
in your purses: 10 Nor scrip for your journey, nor two coats, nor shoes, 
nor a staff; for the workman is worthy of his meat."

God does not need money.

The true Bible states,  after 7 years the church is to forgive the debt.
It also speaks old testament of how much is a legit profit for a 
business.  And its not to exceed 6 percent a year.  From the best I can 
understand it.    I know, you all ran a runaway train in your sins, and 
still do.  Its a sin to collect more than the law of the Bible says. 
Even today.  So, our government is the largest thief on the planet next 
to the oil cartel and the phony lawyers...   None of them will make it 
to Heaven.  The Bible is very clear about the eye of the needle and the 
Camel.   The Rich, they go to hell.  No way back.   Because they reject 
the teaching of Jesus.






> -----
>
> Phil Snider
>    ·
> Sharing one last thing on debt forgiveness from one of my favorite
> theologians, JL Pearl. It’s the best take I’ve seen on this topic thus
> far, and is well worth reading:
>
> “Here is my inevitable contribution to the Loan Forgiveness discourse:
> tl/dr - American Christian resistance to debt forgiveness isn't
> hypocrisy; it is the unironic outworking of American theology.
>
> ---
>
> The American Christian resistance to loan forgiveness isn't ironic or
> surprising—and not just because American Christianity mostly worships
> whiteness and/or capitalism (though that's also true). Rather, it
> isn't surprising because there is probably no theological idea that is
> more deeply ingrained in American theology than substitutionary
> atonement ("Jesus paid it all"). This isn't just a protestant thing. I
> was, for example, talking about theology with my Russian Orthodox
> sister-in-law, who having lived in the US for like 15 years has so
> thoroughly imbibed American theology, that she instinctively
> recapitulated substitutionary atonement, despite that not being the
> preferred atonement theory of the Orthodox church. Substitutionary
> atonement dominates American lay-theology (even if not American
> academic theology) across basically every denomination, race, and
> class. It is the soil of American theology.
>
> This is particularly relevant in the current debate because, despite
> its use of the Biblical language of "forgiveness," NO ONE IS FORGIVEN
> under substitutionary atonement. This isn't a rhetorical flourish. I
> mean this in the most literal sense. No one, including the "saved"
> Christian, is ever forgiven.
>
> This was first pointed out to me by my friend Joe who noted that, at a
> most basic level, forgiveness means that there is a debt that needs to
> be paid, and the person to whom the debt is owed says: "you don't have
> to pay it; it doesn't need to be paid; it is forgiven."
>
> This ISN'T what happens in substitutionary atonement. There, the debt
> IS PAID. It just isn't paid by the person who owed the debt. Rather
> than being forgiven, the debt is instead transferred to a third party
> (Christ). That isn't debt forgiveness that's debt transfer.
>
> Someone might point out that under substitutionary theory, the debt
> holder (God) and the payer (Christ) are, ontologically speaking, the
> same. But that's irrelevant to the question of forgiveness. For,
> nonetheless, God isn't canceling the debt, but paying it; the debt is
> still being payed! No one is forgiven.
>
> And so, in the same way, when American Christians hear that economic
> debt is being forgiven, they assume that economic debt forgiveness
> must work the same way as substitutionary theological forgiveness. If
> someone says "forgiveness", they must actually mean "debt transfer."
> Thus, you get discourse that says things like "why do I have to pay
> for someone else's gender studies degree!?" Here, they see themselves
> as the innocent third party (theologically speaking, they see
> themselves as Christ) who is paying someone else's debt. Except where
> Christ willing did so; they don't. (which is probably the most direct
> note of hypocrisy; no cross-taking-up here. But that's a separate
> point)
>
> This isn't, despite well-meaning progressive Christian rejoinders, a
> simple hypocrisy of those who fail to live up to the message of debt
> forgiveness at the heart of the gospel they affirm ("forgive us our
> debts as we forgive our debtors"). Rather, the refusal of economic
> debt forgiveness—and its replacement by debt transfer—isn't a
> hypocritical failure to live up to their theology, it is the direct
> enactment of American substitutionary gospel. American Christians
> reject debt forgiveness because American Christianity, as a
> lay-theology, rejects forgiveness.
>
> In America, no one is forgiven, every debt is paid. No matter how much
> suffering or blood is spilt, the debt must be paid.”
>
> ------
>
> Some comments:
>
> As an Orthodox Christian myself, I was rather saddened to read in the
> article how an Orthodox Christian had been indluenced by the pressure
> of the dominant culture to accept at least some of the assumptions of
> the penal substitution atonement theory.
>
> I'm not quite sure how many different atonement theories there are,
> and there are variations within each of the major types, but I've
> written about some of the differences I see between the Orthodox
> understanding of the atonement and that of the penal substitution
> theory here:
>
> <https://khanya.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/salvation-and-atonement/>
>
> and, if you think a picture is worth a thousand words, and would
> prefer the shorter graphic version, see here:
>
> <https://khanya.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/salvation-in-the-orthodox-tradition/>
>
>