All Christians agree that the sinless man, Jesus Christ, died for to save Mankind from its sin. How that idea actually plays out has long been and remains a matter of debate. The two main points of contention are 1) the tension between ‘faith’ and ‘works’ and 2) the nature of and justification for His sacrifice.
As for the later, evangelicals overwhelmingly emphasize a substitutionary theory of atonement in which either 1) Christ dies to satisfy Mankind’s debt of sin (Genesis 2 paired with Romans 6:23) or 2) to appease the Father’s wrath (Ephesians 2:3). However, the ‘Christus Victor’ theory, in which Christ defeats the power of sin has a very long history and is much older than New Church doctrine. Proof-text examples include passages like Hebrews 2:14-15 and Colossians 2:15. Under Christus Victor, Old Testament references to the “strong arm of the Lord” (ex. Psalm 118:16-24) get interpreted as Christ defeating sin and empowering the beliers to have victory (Revelation 3:21).
I do not know any Christian that feels people can earn salvation merely by doing good deeds. The condition of the believer’s heart determines whether the action is, or is not meritorious. People can act in for the benefit of others for the wrong reasons: for show, to assuage guilt, as enlightened self-interest, evolutionary impulses, etc. Technically, these are the types of good deeds to which Jesus referred when saying, “…They have already received their reward…” (Matthew 6). The story of the widow’s offering (Mark 12:41-44) shows that good deed naturally follows from the character of the believer’s heart.
In some cases, a person, like the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43), is not capable of expressing that character. This story lends some supports the faith-alone doctrine, but just as easily shows that the thief’s perfect contrition meant that he purged himself of all the evil desires that would prevent him from entering paradise.
A persons will, intellect, and actions are discrete degrees and there is a natural progression from desire, through thought, and into action. What someone loves guides what a person thinks. What a person thinks guides what they do. Intellectually, you can know what is true and still not have the will to do it. Thus belief on its own does not keep (save) you from sinning.
Overall, I feel that New Church doctrine provides the most balanced approach to atonement, which follows from one key insight in particular. Salvation is not a “Geo-Out-of-Hell-Free” card; but rather freedom from sin. You no longer desire sin, are not swayed by the lies that tempt, and will not continue to do evil. This explains why sin does not enter Heaven; good spirits do not carry wicked desires in with them. As such they can be instructed in the truth and shed false doctrines and beliefs (like heathen religious ides). On the other hand, evil spirits have not purged themselves of wicked desires and thus continue to be filled with ‘burning’ desires for evil. They cannot be instructed in the truth; but rather, hold fast to the lies that justify their infernal desires.
As for the later, evangelicals overwhelmingly emphasize a substitutionary theory of atonement in which either 1) Christ dies to satisfy Mankind’s debt of sin (Genesis 2 paired with Romans 6:23) or 2) to appease the Father’s wrath (Ephesians 2:3). However, the ‘Christus Victor’ theory, in which Christ defeats the power of sin has a very long history and is much older than New Church doctrine. Proof-text examples include passages like Hebrews 2:14-15 and Colossians 2:15. Under Christus Victor, Old Testament references to the “strong arm of the Lord” (ex. Psalm 118:16-24) get interpreted as Christ defeating sin and empowering the beliers to have victory (Revelation 3:21).
I do not know any Christian that feels people can earn salvation merely by doing good deeds. The condition of the believer’s heart determines whether the action is, or is not meritorious. People can act in for the benefit of others for the wrong reasons: for show, to assuage guilt, as enlightened self-interest, evolutionary impulses, etc. Technically, these are the types of good deeds to which Jesus referred when saying, “…They have already received their reward…” (Matthew 6). The story of the widow’s offering (Mark 12:41-44) shows that good deed naturally follows from the character of the believer’s heart.
In some cases, a person, like the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43), is not capable of expressing that character. This story lends some supports the faith-alone doctrine, but just as easily shows that the thief’s perfect contrition meant that he purged himself of all the evil desires that would prevent him from entering paradise.
A persons will, intellect, and actions are discrete degrees and there is a natural progression from desire, through thought, and into action. What someone loves guides what a person thinks. What a person thinks guides what they do. Intellectually, you can know what is true and still not have the will to do it. Thus belief on its own does not keep (save) you from sinning.
Overall, I feel that New Church doctrine provides the most balanced approach to atonement, which follows from one key insight in particular. Salvation is not a “Geo-Out-of-Hell-Free” card; but rather freedom from sin. You no longer desire sin, are not swayed by the lies that tempt, and will not continue to do evil. This explains why sin does not enter Heaven; good spirits do not carry wicked desires in with them. As such they can be instructed in the truth and shed false doctrines and beliefs (like heathen religious ides). On the other hand, evil spirits have not purged themselves of wicked desires and thus continue to be filled with ‘burning’ desires for evil. They cannot be instructed in the truth; but rather, hold fast to the lies that justify their infernal desires.
