Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I think it's a slippery slope to go down if we think God wants us to do things that we don't understand why we're doing them.

J:Did Eve understand why God told her not to eat of a particular tree?

It wasn't hers to eat of. I don't think this would have been difficult for her to understand.

Quote:

God didn't tell Eve that she had to understand all of the reasons for the command before she should obey it.

There isn't much to understand here.

Quote:

Should people who don't understand why God commands them to keep the Sabbath on the seventh-day of the week do it anyway?

Why do you think God would desire that people do things they don't understand the reasons for?

When the disciples were walking on the road to Emmaus, Christ didn't immediately reveal Himself. Instead, He gave them a Bible study. Why? Because he wanted their faith to be based on evidence.

God never asks us to believe something without providing evidence for that (SC 105). Why does God do so? Because He wants us to follow Him because we are convinced that doing so is right! We can't be convinced that doing something is right if we don't understand what we're doing. How could we?

It's this sort of thinking that leads to all sorts of atrocities being committed in the name of God. God doesn't ask us to do something which violates our conscience. He wants us to do right because *we* are convinced it's right, not simply because He said so.

Quote:

Here is a test which all may apply if they will. None need be left in uncertainty and doubt. There is always sufficient evidence upon which to base an intelligent faith.(Signs of the Times, December 30, 1886)

Why does God provide such evidence? The following gives an insight into this question:

Quote:

God does not force the will or judgment of any. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes. (GC 541)

An "obedience" not based on reason would be precisely what God does not want -- a slavish obedience.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Yes, I agree with this. It means that if we truly have love for God and genuine faith/trust, we will obey Him.

But will we obey Him only when we agree with Him? (Is such obedience REALLY obedience?)

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Do you mean God wants you to do something which you think is morally wrong?

I'm not thinking of His commanding that we do something wrong, although it may appear wrong to some people. For instance, many people would say that it appears wrong of God to require people to risk losing their lives over the issue of the Sabbath.

Quote:

JOHN 3:17: Or will we obey Him even when we don't understand the reasons for His commands?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: God wants obedience based on reason.

Here's the question: What will we do when there appears to us to be a conflict between human reasoning and God's command?

That was Satan's temptation to Eve. He made her think that God's command was unreasonable.

Many people think it's unreasonable for God to command NT believers to keep the "Jewish Sabbath" or not to eat meat.

I know some people who believe it's not reasonable for God to command them not to commit fornication. Many people today would agree that it should be OK for them to do things the Bible says is wrong or immoral.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: He wants us to do what He thinks is best because we think that's best.

But what if we can't see that His way is best? What if His way makes no sense? Is it then OK to disobey God and His commandments?

Does it makes sense to you that the way of salvation requires faith in a man who died as a criminal 2000 years ago and who hasn't returned in all these years despite his promise to return "soon"?

This is foolishness in the minds of many who claim they will only believe in what seems reasonable. So they reject Christ. There are some on this Forum who think this way.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: "Come let us reason together."

It literally reads, "Let us settle the dispute." Is. 1: 18. See Is. 43: 26, where God says, "Let us contend together."

I'm not suggesting that God is "irrational" or "unreasonable." I am saying that His reasoning is not our reasoning, and some things that seem unreasonable to us are reasonable to God. 1 Cor. 1 says that God is saving the world through a message that appears foolish to the world.

It certainly does not seem reasonable to many people that God would make Adam and Eve leave their Eden home "just because" they ate fruit from a particular tree, and that this would result in death spreading to all the human race.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: "God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith." (SC 105).

God has shown us plenty of evidence in the Scriptures and in our lives for us to trust Him, but that doesn't mean we will need to understand every aspect of God's command before we will need to obey Him.

Abraham had lots of evidence to know he could trust God, but he didn't understand the command to kill his "only begotten son." Yet God still required Abraham to obey.

Similarly, now is the time for us to learn to trust God so that we will have no problem obeying Him during times of crises.

[John317]

Quote:

nattmbtc (quoting): "God does not force the will or judgment of any. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes." (GC 541)

An "obedience" not based on reason would be precisely what God does not want -- a slavish obedience.

What if someone's reasoning does not tell them that God is worthy of our love? There are many like this. They reject the God of the Bible. It makes no sense to them. Are they therefore right to reject the Bible and God?

I'm sure you've heard of young people who can't understand why God commands them not to marry non-believers. Does that mean they should disobey God's command and marry a non-believer?

To many people, "health reform" doesn't appeal to them and makes no sense, especially the parts having to do with animal flesh, coffee, etc. Some don't even see anything wrong with drinking some beer or whiskey now and then. Does that mean it's right for them to reject the counsels of Ellen White in regard to health reform?

I think it's important to base our obedience on reasoning, but on God's reasoning, not on our own. The kind of obedience that God is looking for is that which results from knowing Him, and when we really know Him, we will obey Him even when we don't understand the reasons for the command. If I will obey God only when I agree with Him and when it's according to human reasoning, then I am not obeying God but I'm doing what I think is good and what human reasoning tells me to do.

Isn't that what got Adam and Eve into trouble in the first place?

[Nic Samojluk]

I think it is fascinating that, although we are encouraged by Christ Himself to drink His blood (and if we don't, we have no part in Him,) yet He forbade the Jews to consume the blood of the sacrifice.

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: I think it's a slippery slope to go down if we think God wants us to do things that we don't understand why we're doing them.

Quote:

JOHN 3:17: Did Eve understand why God told her not to eat of a particular tree?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: It wasn't hers to eat of. I don't think this would have been difficult for her to understand.

Well, it evidently was difficult. And it is surely still difficult for people to understand when they hear of it.

The only reason given was that if they ate of it, they would die. The fruit wouldn't kill them-- they would die simply for disobeying the command. Why? It doesn't say why. And it also does not say the tree didn't belong to them or that it was God's tree.

So after a short conversation with the devil, Eve decided it made more sense to follow the devil's reasoning than to follow the command of God. Why? Because she thought it was best to follow human reasoning and her senses.

Quote:

JOHN 3:17: God didn't tell Eve that she had to understand all of the reasons for the command before she should obey it.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: There isn't much to understand here.

Really? Don't you understand a lot more than she did?

There's was a lot more to understand. For instance:

1) That God was testing them to prove their loyalty to Him before they would be made immortal.

2) That once they passed the test, Satan wouldn't have access to them or to the tree again.

3) That if they should fail the test, it would mean not only death for them but for all their future children, the animals, as well as for their Creator.

Quote:

John3:17: Should people who don't understand why God commands them to keep the Sabbath on the seventh-day of the week do it anyway?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Why do you think God would desire that people do things they don't understand the reasons for?

Are you saying that if a person doesn't understand why God says to rest on the Seventh day of the week, they should not keep it?

If I don't understand why God tells me not to have sex with a man, should I go ahead and do it? Lesbians ask the same question about having sex with women. What do we tell them-- go ahead until you understand why you should stop?

I don't think the reasons given in the Bible against homosexuality are clear and they don't make sense to a lot of people. Should I then practice homosexuality until I can understand the reasons for the command and they make sense to me? Or is it enough that the Bible says I shouldn't do that?

[pnattmbtc]

pnattmbtc: Do you mean God wants you to do something which you think is morally wrong?

J:I'm not thinking of His commanding that we do something wrong, although it may appear wrong to some people.

[pnattmbtc]

What if someone's reasoning does not tell them that God is worthy of our love?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: It wasn't hers to eat of. I don't think this would have been difficult for her to understand.

J:Well, it evidently was difficult. And it is surely still difficult for people to understand when they hear of it.

The only reason given was that if they ate of it, they would die.

The tree wasn't theirs to eat of. That's not difficult to understand.

Quote:

The fruit wouldn't kill them-- they would die simply for disobeying the command. Why? It doesn't say why. And it also does not say the tree didn't belong to them or that it was God's tree.

It needs to say that?! How is that not obvious? If it were Adam and Eve's tree, then they could have eaten of it.

Quote:

So after a short conversation with the devil, Eve decided it made more sense to follow the devil's reasoning than to follow the command of God. Why? Because she thought it was best to follow human reasoning and her senses.

No. She thought it was best to follow the devil.

[pnattmbtc]

Really? Don't you understand a lot more than she did?

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Why do you think God would desire that people do things they don't understand the reasons for?

Quote:

JOHN3:17 :Are you saying that if a person doesn't understand why God says to rest on the Seventh day of the week, they should not keep it?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: No, I'm asking you a question. The question is why do you think God would desire that people do things they don't understand the reasons for? Personally, I don't see any value in this. It doesn't seem to me like something that God would see value in. I'm asking you why you think God would see value in this.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: If I don't understand why God tells me not to have sex with a man, should I go ahead and do it? Lesbians ask the same question about having sex with women. What do we tell them-- go ahead until you understand why you should stop?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Do you think God provides evidence which applies to one's reason as to why one shouldn't do these things?

No, actually I don't. The Bible merely says it is wrong. It doesn't say why it's wrong, at least nothing that makes sense to gay people.

What evidence has God provided that explains why it's wrong, based on human reason?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: I don't think the reasons given in the Bible against homosexuality are clear and they don't make sense to a lot of people. Should I then practice homosexuality until I can understand the reasons for the command and they make sense to me? Or is it enough that the Bible says I shouldn't do that?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Do you think God has provided any evidence that homosexuality is wrong? Has He appealed to your reason? Or do you feel His appeal is an unreasonable one (i.e., not appealing to reason), but rather arbitrary (based only on His say so)?

It is based strictly on God's laws and His standards. Can you give a good reason for its being immoral or wrong on the basis human reasoning?

Quote:

pnattmbtc: What would it say about God's character if He desired us to do things we aren't convinced are wrong, or of which we have no understanding?

Let's say that I'm convinced there's nothing wrong with having a gay relationship and that I simply reject the Bible statements about it because they make no sense to me. According to your idea, that is what I should do if I honestly do not understand why the Bible commands me not to do those things. God does not expect me to obey laws I don't understand or agree with. Isn't that your position?

[Robert]

God does not expect me to obey laws I don't understand or agree with. Isn't that your position?

Absolutely! You see, John, the mind has to be illuminated by God's Spirit. First the mind must be redirected. If my mind has not been illuminated by God's Spirit then to obey a law just because it is there is nothing short of good old legalism.

[Nic Samojluk]

"I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures," 1 Cor 15:3,4 NLT.

[Nic Samojluk]

So does 1 Cor. 15: 17-22, which says that without Christ's death and resurrection, all humanity would have perished.

[Nic Samojluk]

. But the Godhead's plan of redemption was conditioned upon Christ's successful completion of His mission to earth. Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection was at the center of that plan.

You keep omitting God’s original plan for Israel and for Jerusalem. Read my previous posts. God promised that there would never fail to be a descendant of David sitting on his throne in Jerusalem and Gabriel’s promised to Mary that her son would reign from Jerusalem.

[Nic Samojluk]

Were those men-- Enoch, Elijah, and Moses-- sinners?

Were they children of the first Adam?

Upon what basis were they saved-- upon their obedience or upon Christ?

They were saved on the basis of God’s gift. A gift does not require a payment. When you receive a gift, are you required to pay for it?

[Nic Samojluk]

Good answer. Nevertheless, given Ellen White’s explanation for the cross, the passage could be interpreted as applying to God’s pain and suffering which started when rebellion broke the harmony in heaven.

Quote:

Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ's agony; but that suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God.. {Ed 263.1}

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

wayfinder: John317, I agree with the idea that strict obedience, for the sake of obedience is not what God requires, but obedience that comes from love for God and trusting in His word.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): i think we should obey God because Hes right and satans wrong...that isnt to discount the love and trust issue, but God is either right--or Hes wrong...

Yes, true, but there can be times when it appears that maybe God is not right. Do we trust Him enough to believe God is right even when it appears that He's not?

For instance, Ellen White wrote that masturbation is sinful and harmful. Many people today dispute those statements and say that Ellen White was wrong.

Do we trust God and His prophet enough to obey His revelations about health, including masturbation, even when we don't have scientific proof? Or do we have more faith in "science" than in the Bible and in the Spirit of propehcy?

John, suppose Ellen had told us that emptying the bladder is a sin. Would you accept this by faith? Imagine the stress you are imposing on a soldier who might be away from his wife for many months! It seems to me that you are working under the assumption that Ellen White was infallible, and that everything she borrowed from others was infallible.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Do you think God provides evidence which applies to one's reason as to why one shouldn't do these things?

No, actually I don't.

Then you believe God asks us to believe things without giving us any evidence to do so. You believe He wants us to have a faith not based on reason.

Why do you think God would do this? What does it say about God that He's like this? (assuming He were; I disagree that this accurately represents God's character).

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Do you think God has provided any evidence that homosexuality is wrong? Has He appealed to your reason? Or do you feel His appeal is an unreasonable one (i.e., not appealing to reason), but rather arbitrary (based only on His say so)?

John:It is based strictly on God's laws and His standards. Can you give a good reason for its being immoral or wrong on the basis human reasoning?

It's not my desire to discuss homosexuality. If you wish to do so, you could start a thread on it. I'm discussing the idea that God wants us to do things without providing us any evidence for why He's asking us. I believe this has profound implications as to God's character. Especially when you combine this with what He will (supposedly) do to you if you don't do what He says.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: What would it say about God's character if He desired us to do things we aren't convinced are wrong, or of which we have no understanding?

J:Let's say that I'm convinced there's nothing wrong with having a gay relationship and that I simply reject the Bible statements about it because they make no sense to me. According to your idea, that is what I should do if I honestly do not understand why the Bible commands me not to do those things. God does not expect me to obey laws I don't understand or agree with. Isn't that your position?

No. It's my position that God does not ask us to do things without providing us evidence to do so, and furthermore that God has given us a conscience, and that He appeals to our reason and our conscience through the Holy Spirit. I don't believe He asks us to do things which we believe are morally wrong. I believe God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith.

By the way, you've not addressed the questions I've been putting to you regarding God's character. This is the part of the discussion I think is really interesting. What is God like? That's the crucial question. What does it say about God if it's true that:

a)God tells you to do things without appealing to your reason or conscience, and without providing evidence upon which to base your faith.

b)God will burn you alive for days if you don't do what He says.

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding Christ's mission, here's something from EGW:

Quote:

(God) was pictured as one who could take pleasure in the sufferings of his creatures. The very attributes that belonged to the character of Satan, the evil one represented as belonging to the character of God. Jesus came to teach men of the Father, to correctly represent him before the fallen children of earth. Angels could not fully portray the

character of God, but Christ, who was a living impersonation of God, could not fail to accomplish the work. The only way in which he could set and keep men right was to make himself visible and familiar to their eyes...

Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God. In Christ was arrayed before men the paternal grace and the matchless perfections of the Father. In his prayer just before his crucifixion, he declared, "I have

manifested thy name." "I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." When the object of his mission was attained,--the revelation of God to the world,--the Son of God announced that his work was accomplished, and that the character of the Father was made manifest to men. (ST 1/20/90)

I believe this provides the proper framework for understanding the atonement. Satan had misrepresented God's character, so that God was misunderstood. God sent Jesus Christ to reveal to man what God is really like. This was the whole purpose of His mission, of which Christ death was a part.

Quote:

(M)an was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. (DA 762)

As Peter put it:

Quote:

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. (1 Pet. 3:18)

Christ died to "bring us to God." This is atonement, or "at-one-ment."

Quote:

The true idea of the atonement makes God and Christ equal in their love, and one in their purpose of saving humanity. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.” The life of Christ was not the price paid to the father for our pardon; but the life was the price which the Father paid to so manifest his loving power as to bring us to that repentant attitude of mind where he could pardon us freely. The contrast between the true and the false ideas is tersely stated by the prophet in these words: “Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.”(Fifield:God is Love)

[Gerr]

Quote:

I agree. The question is, why did that plan from the very beginning mean that Christ "had to" die? As Jesus said, it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and die. But why?

I suggest the reason has to do with God's righteous, loving character, His government and His laws.

Not only that, per the rule of substitution, if the one substituted for was sentenced to die, then the Substitute had to die.

[pnattmbtc]

Here's some more Fifield:

In Christ Jesus we who were sometimes afar off were made nigh by the blood of Christ, so that we are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth into an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." This is as near to the Lord as we can get. This is the at-one-ment; this is why he bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, that he might do that for us by breaking down all those things which separate hearts from hearts, both human and divine.

Notwithstanding this, we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. That was what we thought about it. We said, God is doing all this; God is killing him, punishing him, to satisfy his wrath, in order to let us off. That is the pagan conception of sacrifice. The Christian idea of sacrifice is this. Let us note the contrast. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That is the Christian idea. Yes, sir. Indifference keeps, hatred keeps, selfishness keeps, or gives, if at all, but grudgingly, counting the cost, and figuring on some larger return at some future time. But love, and love only, sacrifices, gives freely, gives itself, gives without counting the cost; gives because it is love. That is sacrifice, whether it is the sacrifice of bulls and goats, or of him who is the Lamb of God. It is the sacrifice that is revealed throughout the entire Bible....

Now, every text in the Bible that speaks of reconciliation, makes God the one who makes the reconciliation, - God in Christ. Every text in the Bible that speaks of the atonement, when we get it right, makes God the one who makes the atonement in Christ; not Christ simply, but God in Christ; just as God in Christ creates, redeems, reconciles, he makes the atonement. And every time the atonement, reconciliation, or propitiation are mentioned, it leads us right back to the character of God. (From a sermon at the 1897 General Conference Session)

[pnattmbtc]

Not only that, per the rule of substitution, if the one substituted for was sentenced to die, then the Substitute had to die.

Nobody thought in these terms. Sacrifice didn't have this meaning either for the Jew or any other culture.

[Gerr]

Nic, have you ever been on a long straight road and looked at the telephone poles? They all seem to run so close together and at the farthest, the poles just touch each other? I suspect that future events tend to blur the distances in between to the prophet, so that to some of the prophets, depending on what strikes them the most, may have missed the sufferings of the Messiah and saw only one long continuous reign.

Consider the following.

1. The proto-gospel found in Gen 3:15 antedates ANY of the prophecies that you say provide an alternative ending. This passage predicted an injury (serpent bruising his heel) to the Messiah. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

2. The atonement sacrifice of Abel and the patriarchs that prefigured a sacrificed Messiah antedates any of those you call alternative scenarios.

3. The call for the sacrifice of Isaac prefiguring the Father's sacrifice of His Son antedates any of the so-called alternative scenarios.

4. Isa 53 is unequivocal about what was to happen to the Messiah.

5. And John says the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. He was predestined to die.

6. Which leads me to believe that those so-called alternative scenarios were the earth-made-new or the restored state that the prophets were seeing.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

Not only that, per the rule of substitution, if the one substituted for was sentenced to die, then the Substitute had to die.

Nobody thought in these terms. Sacrifice didn't have this meaning either for the Jew or any other culture.

Nobody? When an Israelite brought a lamb to the brass altar, laid his hand on the head and confessed his sins, what was he doing? It seems to me, the idea of substitution went hand in hand with the institution of the sacrificial system. Look at Lev 17:11, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. ESV. Sin is serious, and sinners cannot provide the remedy without giving up their own lives. Instead of the sinner's blood, someone else's blood is substituted for his!

[Gerr]

Who was the debt paid to ... and what was the debt? We are keep making these financial analogies, which I'm not sure are quite applicable here in this case. With physical debt you have something that you are given, which you owe as a result... OR you have damaged a property and a financial retribution is asked of you by the damaged party.

"If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?" Ro 8:31-32 ESV. If the Father is for us & gave His Son for us, the payment then can't be to Himself. Sin comes to life through the law. It is therefore to the law that the disobedient incurs a debt. However, the payment of this debt is not literal like paying your rent. Satisfying the demands of justice, righting a wrong, is an abstract concept. Besides, there is "an accuser of the brethren" who would cry "Foul" if sinners are taken back into God's favor only the basis of his word that he's sorry. It is the devil who wants his pound of flesh and would like to see that sinners ARE punished.

Quote:

Here's the reason why I don't think that this analogy does not hold in terms of literal repayment.

1) There's no indication that death of 1 man can be accounted as a righteousness to several billion. No matter how sinless He was, it still leads me to believe that 1 sinless life vs 1 sinful life would be somewhat a measure if we count it by those terms.

I have wondered about the same thing. My only answer is that

the righteous life of ONE can substitute for the many is because it is the very life of our INFINITE CREATOR that was shed and therefore efficacious to stand for a finite number of sinners.

Quote:

2) Christ is not some entity separate from God. He is a visible manifestation of God. To say that it was some sort of "sinner for my son" literal substitution would mean that God in a sense paying to himself. If Christ is a right hand of God (so to speak), then he's merely passing the money from one hand to another. That's not a literal payment. The big picture is that it's forgiveness. I really don't want you to miss this point.

See my answer above.

Quote:

3) In that context of re-payment of debt... there's a clear analogy:

Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

The spirit and attitude of forgiveness is what God certainly commands us to have. As I said already, the payment of debt is NOT to the Father who loves us. It was He who paid the debt and suffered loss by sacrificing His own Son to satisfy the demands of justice and also to answer Satan's charge that if God is to be just, He must also administer the punishment.

That is how I understand it.