Diagnosing the problem is half the battle. We all know there’s something wrong with the world. We all know there’s something wrong with us. Just watch the news, read a magazine, or walk out your front door and you’ll see. Creation is broken. So, what’s the solution?

I once sat with another parent at a playground making small talk about religion. (I know, right?) He was a Progressive Christian who didn’t believe in Original Sin. He pointed to his daughter playing sweetly with another girl and said, “See her? She’s innocent. She has to be taught to do bad things.” At that very moment, I kid you not, she had a Toddlers and Tiaras-level meltdown, tantruming all over the playground. He sheepishly chuckled and said, “Well, maybe you’re right.”

As I revealed in my last post, progressives typically deny the doctrine of Original Sin. But historically, Original Sin is how Christians have answered the question, “What’s wrong with the world?” In today’s post, we’ll look at the historic and progressive understandings of redemption and restoration.

Redemption

Diagnosing the problem is half the battle. We all know there’s something wrong with the world. We all know there’s something wrong with us. Just watch the news, read a magazine, or walk out your front door and you’ll see. Creation is broken. So, what’s the solution?

Historic view

In him we have redemption through his blood.—Ephesians 1:7  

He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross.—1 Peter 2:24

For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.—Matthew 26:28

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.—1 Corinthians 15:3

These are just a few of many Bible verses indicating that Jesus died for our sins—in our place—as our substitute. Christians refer to this as Substitutionary Atonement. This isn’t all the Bible has to say about what happened on the cross. But historically, (and according to the earliest creed found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5), this is how Christians have understood it. The atonement certainly means a lot more, but it can mean no less than this.

Progressive view

This concept is something many Progressives refer to as “cosmic child abuse.” The idea that God would require the blood sacrifice of His only Son is seen as immoral—nothing more than a pagan idea early Christians adopted from the culture around them.

Progressives Robert Felten and Jeff Procter-Murphy claim that this view of redemption is archaic and in desperate need of a make-over. They write:

People are simply no longer moved by the notion that they are horrible sinners from birth, redeemed only by the sacrifice of an impossibly perfect man at the hands of a bloodthirsty, tribal God. (1)

And the resurrection? As I noted in a piece I wrote about Rob Bell and the Bible, the resurrection is viewed as non-literal by many in the Progressive Christian movement. Felten and Procter-Murphy claim that none of the resurrection accounts in the New Testament can be taken as historical. (2)
​For the most part, progressives seek to heal the world through humanitarian efforts like environmentalism, embracing the “oneness” of all humanity, social justice, and political activism. (For the record, I’m not saying Christians shouldn’t promote justice and seek to do good in the world. If you’re tempted to send me a nasty email, please read this first.)

Read More