Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[pnattmbtc]

Where is your Bible evidence that deity had to die?

He's arguing *against* the penal substitution idea. Given this to be the case, how could you possibly expect him to provide an answer to this question? That would be like someone asking you, "Where's your Biblical evidence that Christ didn't have to die as the payment of a penalty so that God could forgive us?"

[pnattmbtc]

I don't think we should ignore the fact that in the verses dealing with Christ's purpose in dying, Jesus tells us that he gave his life a rasom for [huper] for many. Matt. 20: 28; Mark 10: 45.

There is no doubt that these verses signify that Jesus came to give His life "a ransom [lutron] in exchange for and instead of many."

If it were "instead of" that would mean Jesus was giving his life as a ransom instead of many people giving their lives as a ransom. The ransom is to liberate the many, not a payment that He renders so they don't have to render it (which is what "instead of" would mean).

[pnattmbtc]

We tend to view the cross as an event in time. Actually the cross is a symbol of a process. This is described very well in a passage found in the book Education by Ellen White:

Quote:

Few think of its relation to God. 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}

This is my favorite explanation for the death of Jesus. God's pain and suffering did not begin on Calvary, but in heaven when Lucifer rebelled against God’s just government. From that moment onward, God has been subjected to suffering because the Bible tells us that “in all their afflictions he was afflicted.”

I believe that the sacrificial system was designed to teach the lesson that when we sin we inflict pain and suffering on innocent people and on God who loves every human being he has created. In this sense, the cross was not a payment, but rather an overpayment. If we had understood what sin does to God, Jesus would not have needed to subject himself to torture and death.

That's one of my favorite passages too! It's the truth that we seldom think of things in terms of God. We're so selfish that even when we think of salvation or Christ it's in terms of what good it will do us.

[pnattmbtc]

As I understand the OT sacrificial system, it looks to me, IMHO, that Aulen made a mistake in identifying the classic view of the atonement with the Ransom theory, and the Satisfaction view with the substitution theory.

[pnattmbtc]

You are assuming that it was not! Where did the very IDEA of offering come from? And if the offering was not for sin, why was Cain's fruit offering rejected? Cain's subsequent conversation with God provides the reason for the offering & the rejection - "sin lies at the door."

[John317]

Quote:

John: A similar question is, what was the reason Joseph was sent as a slave to Egypt?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I do not believe that God incited Joseph's brothers to treat him with such cruelty and to sell him as a slave. This incident shows that God can bring something good in spite of our mistakes and errors.

I also don't think God incited Joseph's brothers to do evil.

But when you say God merely reacted to what those brother did, you are disagreeing with what Joseph said:

Genesis 45:7-8

And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors. [8] So it was not you who sent me here, but God. He has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt.

We need to understand that God is able to fulfill His will without violating human choice. God works through it and in it. God doesn't just come through after a mess has been made and sweep up the pieces. He's there the whole time the mess is being made and He is even involved in it, whether we realize it or not. He was with Joseph the entire time. He was also with Christ the whole time.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: The question is--- if God is forgiving, why did Jesus have to die?

It was God's original plan. Jesus had to die. No doubt about it.

The Bible says plainly that Jesus "had to suffer and die and rise again." It says it was "necessary."

Luke 24:26

In Jesus' own words: "Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"

Acts 17:3

NIKJ-- Paul was "explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead..."

ESV--- "explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead..."

Acts 2:23:

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

It was the "pre-determined plan" or "fixed design" of God.

Rev. 13:8

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

It says as clearly as can be that Christ's death on the cross was "the definite plan" of God.

Ellen White is even clearer:

The broken law of God demanded the life of the sinner. In all the universe there was but one who could, in behalf of man, satisfy its claims. Since the divine law is as sacred as God Himself, only one equal with God could make atonement for its transgression. None but Christ could redeem fallen man from the curse of the law and bring him again into harmony with Heaven. Christ would take upon Himself the guilt and shame of sin--sin so offensive to a holy God that it must separate the Father and His Son. Christ would reach to the depths of misery to rescue the ruined race.

Before the Father He pleaded in the sinner's behalf, while the host of heaven awaited the result with an intensity of interest that words cannot express. Long continued was that mysterious communing--"the counsel of peace" (Zechariah 6:13) for the fallen sons of men. The plan of salvation had been laid before the creation of the earth; for Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8); yet it was a struggle, even with the King of the universe, to yield up His Son to die for the guilty race. But "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. Oh, the mystery of

redemption! the love of God for a world that did not love Him! Who can know the depths of that love which "passeth knowledge"? Through endless ages immortal minds, seeking to comprehend the mystery of that incomprehensible love, will wonder and adore.

God was to be manifest in Christ, "reconciling the world unto Himself." 2 Corinthians 5:19. Man had become so degraded by sin that it was impossible for him, in himself, to come into harmony with Him whose nature is purity and goodness. But Christ, after having redeemed man from the condemnation of the law, could impart divine power to unite with human effort. Thus by repentance toward God and faith in Christ the fallen children of Adam might once more become "sons of God." 1 John 3:2.

The plan by which alone man's salvation could be secured, involved all heaven in its infinite sacrifice. The angels could not rejoice as Christ opened before them the plan of redemption, for they saw that man's salvation must cost their loved Commander unutterable woe. In grief and wonder they listened to His words as He told them how He must descend from heaven's purity and peace, its joy and glory and immortal life, and come in contact with the degradation of earth, to endure its sorrow, shame, and death. He was to stand between the sinner and the penalty of sin; yet few would receive Him as the Son of God. He would leave His high position as the Majesty of heaven, appear upon earth and humble Himself as a man, and by His own experience become acquainted with the sorrows and temptations which man would have to endure. All this would be necessary in order that He might be able to succor them that should be tempted. Hebrews 2:18. When His mission as a teacher should be ended, He must be delivered into the hands of wicked men and be subjected to every insult and torture that Satan could inspire them to inflict. He must die the cruelest of deaths, lifted up between the heavens and the earth as a guilty sinner. He must pass long hours of agony so terrible that angels could not look upon it, but would veil their faces from the sight. He must endure anguish of soul, the hiding of His Father's face, while the guilt of transgression --the weight of the sins of the whole world--should be upon Him. PP 63, 64

[karl]

It's a relative "have to." Jesus did not have to die. He had options (if He didn't, He would not be God.)

He CHOSE the plan of salvation, which included His cruel death on the cross, to save mankind and to make the universe forever safe from sin. A relative "have to" is: IF you want to accomplish this, you HAVE TO do that. It was the Godhead Who determined what the "have to" would be in order to accomplish the objective.

[fccool]

Karl,

I was about to make the same point. Jesus Had to die based on the plan.

________________________________

Christ's death was not merely from the necessity to make a substitution for death of sin. It was a plan which was part of the God-Satan game IMO. Satan's view was that God is unjust, controlling, and that he can do things better. God let him, knowing all the death and destruction that will follow.

Satan's thoughts are similar to those of Job... Of course they will follow you when you are all-powerful sitting on your throne and handing out commands, and hovering over them to teach them your ways. But, would they follow you, if you were one of them and if they did not feel threatened by you?

So, God demonstrated exactly that, that people will follow Him... because He is one of them, and they should not follow Him because they feel threatened (fear of hell and judgment).

That's why I believe, in light of the bigger picture, the substitution atonement theology does not quite fit. It would give Satan more reasons to accuse God of injustice.

Christ's death would be an overkill for any death penalty. When I watched "The Passion", I think it's clear that God does not demand torture as a payment for something. Where does torture fits in God's idea of justice? Perhaps I could understand the "death by substitution" ideology, but torture? God never demanded it, and I don't think He would ever accept it as a sacrifice. I don't believe that torture was incidental.

The reason that Jews condemned Christ to death was Blasphemy. It was based on the command that God himself gave them... see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism%27s_view_of_Jesus

That's why I believe death of a cross is a symbol that goes beyond the substitution atonement. It's a symbol of humanity's historic relationship to God.

0) Love and communion and celebration as a king

1) Disbelief and fall

2) Unjust accusation

3) Rejection and torture and mockery

4) And lastly, killing Him in a sense that they treat Him as though He does not exist (I.E. God is Dead - Nietzsche)

Christ resurrection is a symbol that likewise goes beyond resurrection itself. From the other thread (Can God die?)... it's a symbol that man can and will die, but God can't die. He IS THE LIFE itself.

So, even Christ man typifies something greater... which is the Father and our historic relationship. He came to draw people to the Father through himself, and non-resistance to the point of death is a part of it.

[fccool]

John,

Not to go off-tangent here, and it does not disprove what you are saying, because the plan was laid out before universe was created.

Rev 13 is interpreted in various ways because of the punctuation issue.

Here's ASV:

8All who (U)dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone (V)whose name has not been [a]written (W)from the foundation of the world in the (X)book of life of (Y)the Lamb who has been slain.

Here's NLV: They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was made—the Book that belongs to the Lamb who was slaughtered.

Here's ESV: Everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in(N) the book of life of(O) the Lamb(P) who was slain.

I'm not saying that this is the correct translation either. But it seems like the same issue that we see with "Surely I say to you, today..."

[pnattmbtc]

Continuing from post #372671. The cross was an execution by the Roman government, used upon those who would defy Roman authority. When a person heard of Christ, and that He had been crucified, it would have been immediately clear that He was an anti-imperial figure. Rome had rejected Christ, but God vindicated Him by resurrecting Him. Rome stands for the world, being no worse than any other world system based on domination and violence to uphold order. Christ's kingdom was based on different principles, which Christ made clear in saying that His kingdom was not of this world, for if it were, He would instruct His servants to fight (or He could have called legions of angels to protect Him).

The world rejected Christ, and killed Him, but God vindicated Him and resurrected Him.

Regarding the plan, God certainly knew what was going to happen, in terms of the world rejecting Christ, because that was inevitable. Israel could have accepted Christ as Messiah, and the world still would have rejected Him. The world and Christ's kingdom are two antithetical systems based on different principles. It was inevitable that they two would enter into conflict, and, indeed, that conflict exists until today. Many get the principles of the two kingdoms confused, and want to win the fight for Christ's kingdom using the principles of the world. This was the same problem that happened in Christ's time. His kingdom and its principles were misunderstood, even by His followers.

We have the same problem today, which is why Christ hasn't come again. When His kingdom and its principles are understood, then there will be the revival which will prepare the way for His Coming again.

[John317]

Quote:

wayfinder: Revelation 13:8 NAS

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain

It depends on the order in which it is translated, was the Lamb slain before the laying of the foundation of the world or were the names written in the Book of Life before the laying of the foundation.

The actual order of the Greek words are:

"... whose names in the book of life of the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world."

Some translators decide to change it in order to harmonize it with Rev. 17: 8. In this text, the order of the words is different from those in Rev. 13: 8.

Rev. 17: 8 gives the order as "whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world..."

But in Greek, since the order in which words are written is not determinative syntactically, both ways of translating Rev. 13: 8 are grammatically accurate.

[John317]

Quote:

karl: It's a relative "have to." Jesus did not have to die. He had options (if He didn't, He would not be God.)

He CHOSE the plan of salvation, which included His cruel death on the cross, to save mankind and to make the universe forever safe from sin. A relative "have to" is: IF you want to accomplish this, you HAVE TO do that. It was the Godhead Who determined what the "have to" would be in order to accomplish the objective.

Yes, it was God's plan.

But the only way God could save us was for that plan to be fulfilled.

If there was some other way to save us without the Son of God suffering and dying, you may be sure that would have been God's plan.

God did not send Jesus to die when God had an alternative that would have made it possible for Jesus not to die.

Jesus prayed, "Father, if it is possible, let this cup [the cross] pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."

It was not possible for Christ not to die. It was God's will that Jesus suffer and die. It was the only way humanity could be saved.

What would have happened if Christ had either decided it wasn't worth the cost or if Christ had failed the test and sinned?

The only possible answer is that we all--- ALL humanity-- would have perished eternally.

The next question is, why? Why does the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy say that it was necessary for Christ to die? Why was it God's will?

[fccool]

John,

This would be what I call an oversimplification of this concept. I don't believe God works in a way that you do, or in a way that I do. For God, all of the variables are calculated... and the best one is chosen for a certain situation.

If we speak in the terms that you are laying it out, then God was absolutely constrained to creating humanity the way that they were, and God was absolutely constrained to creating fallen angels. God could have choose to avoid the fall of ours by tweaking a variable here and there and just skip to the end... I.E. Don't create angles... just create humans, and it would not take away anything from his nature of being just and letting people have a choice.

God is not constrained to anything. He wiped out our world with flood to practically start over with a handful of people again. He is not held back by any constraints that we impose on Him through our thinking. He chooses to operate a certain way because He is God, not because He absolutely has to.

Jesus did ask for another way, but chose to go through with the Cross as planned, so in that sense, you are absolutely correct. In the plan, there was no room for diviation. Yet, at the same time to limit God to one certain action would impose a constrain that is not there. It would be akin to saying... well, God absolutely had to create the universe and humanity... it was inevitable. If we logically trace it back, that's the kind of outlook that we are left with... a deterministic view that God himself is constrained to.

[teresaq]

...The world and Christ's kingdom are two antithetical systems based on different principles. ...Many get the principles of the two kingdoms confused, and want to win the fight for Christ's kingdom using the principles of the world. This was the same problem that happened in Christ's time. His kingdom and its principles were misunderstood, even by His followers.

We have the same problem today, which is why Christ hasn't come again. When His kingdom and its principles are understood, then there will be the revival which will prepare the way for His Coming again.

yes....which is why it can be so hard giving up wanting to defend oneself, or be topdog, or whatever, that would lead us to crucify Christ...

anyway Christs ways have to be attractive to us, more attractive than satans....

we have to be willing to go through pain and mistreatment for the sake of others around us, if by any chance that will lead them to Christ...we have to be willing to make ourselves nothing, just as Christ did...

[teresaq]

This would be what I call an oversimplification of this concept. I don't believe God works in a way that you do, or in a way that I do. For God, all of the variables are calculated... and the best one is chosen for a certain situation.

If we speak in the terms that you are laying it out, then God was absolutely constrained to creating humanity the way that they were, and God was absolutely constrained to creating fallen angels. God could have choose to avoid the fall of ours by tweaking a variable here and there and just skip to the end... I.E. Don't create angles... just create humans, and it would not take away anything from his nature of being just and letting people have a choice.

God is not constrained to anything. He wiped out our world with flood to practically start over with a handful of people again. He is not held back by any constraints that we impose on Him through our thinking. He chooses to operate a certain way because He is God, not because He absolutely has to.

Jesus did ask for another way, but chose to go through with the Cross as planned, so in that sense, you are absolutely correct. In the plan, there was no room for diviation. Yet, at the same time to limit God to one certain action would impose a constrain that is not there. It would be akin to saying... well, God absolutely had to create the universe and humanity... it was inevitable. If we logically trace it back, that's the kind of outlook that we are left with... a deterministic view that God himself is constrained to.

i would disagree with the bolded part, tho not necessarily with the points you may be trying to make...

God is constrained by His character--it could be said, perhaps, that Christ died because He would not retaliate.

in the cross, and Christs life in general, we saw the contrast in two types of characters....at looking at both we choose which we shall have...

not to be preaching at you, just learning.... :)

[fccool]

Teresa,

Sure, but His character here is not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing "the plan" . God is not in any way Had to go about it, just like He did not have to create anything.

Consider it in terms of human rescue plans. We discuss what would be the best plan and we do it. It does not mean that there are no other plans... perhaps the other ones would not work as well as the one chosen.

The issue of character is very different though when we consider it philosophically. It's not the same as "a stereo can't possibly be a TV because it does not have the screen". God, potentially has everything He needs to tell a lie, in that respect he is capable to do that. But He won't. I does not mean that He physically can't.

Think of the environment of Heaven. Will we be sinless because we physically can't sin? Or is it because we will not want to. God is a moral free agent, just like we are moral free agents. Just because He won't do something, does not mean He does because of his disability or impotence to do so, but because He does not want to. That's not His character.

[teresaq]

ahhh, ok, youre making a point about the "best plan".

Quote:

God, potentially has everything He needs to tell a lie, in that respect he is capable to do that. But He won't. I does not mean that He physically can't.

not physically, but i wonder about mentally-perhaps only created beings have the "choice" to do wrong...perhaps God is incapable of doing wrong...

[pnattmbtc]

Yes, it was God's plan.

[teresaq]

Quote:

Why was it God's will?

It wasn't God's will, in the sense that it was something that God intended should happen. It was His will only in the sense that He permitted it to happen. He permitted it to happen because that was the only way to solve the sin problem.

the same has always happened...watching the martyrs die has converted many...

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

If God had not taught them the sacrificial system and the principle of substitution, why would He kill some animal to clothe them?

Why do you think God killed an animal?

I tend to agree with most of the commentaries that suggested that it was for the purpose of sacrifice. That man lost his innocense, that now he needs a robe provided by someone else and at another's expense of its own life, that sin causes death as He said before. I can't build a doctrine on this act alone, it is true. But taken along with other passages in Scripture, it seems like the first clue.

[pnattmbtc]

p:Why do you think God killed an animal?

G:I tend to agree with most of the commentaries that suggested that it was for the purpose of sacrifice. That man lost his innocense, that now he needs a robe provided by someone else and at another's expense of its own life, that sin causes death as He said before. I can't build a doctrine on this act alone, it is true. But taken along with other passages in Scripture, it seems like the first clue.

I'm not asking for what purpose you think God killed an animal, but why you think God killed the animal. I made clear what I was asking in my post, where I pointed out that God could have used an animal that was already dead, if one even assumes that an animal had to have died, which I don't believe is clear from the Hebrew word used. I explained all this in the post.

[Gerr]

Quote:

I'm not asking for what purpose you think God killed an animal, but why you think God killed the animal.

1why \ˈhwī, ˈwī\ adv

[ME, fr. OE hwȳ, instr. case of hw+t what — more at what] bef. 12c : for what cause, reason, or purpose 〈why did you do it?〉

———————

2why conj

bef. 12c

1 : the cause, reason, or purpose for which 〈know why you did it〉 〈that is why you did it〉

2 : for which : on account of which 〈know the reason why you did it〉

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Quote:

I made clear what I was asking in my post, where I pointed out that God could have used an animal that was already dead, if one even assumes that an animal had to have died, which I don't believe is clear from the Hebrew word used. I explained all this in the post.

So I gave you what I thought was the reason, the purpose.

[karl]

This seems like a fitting symbol, but there's no reason to equate a robe of righteousness with God's killing an animal.

Yes, if this were the message, don't you think God would have stipulated the message by, say, requiring that the sinner wear the coat of animal sacrificed?

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. God wants us to know that the life-giving transfusion comes from Him, not from an animal.

Seems logical that the same is true regarding the covering of man.

[Gerr]

Quote:

It was rejected because of Cain's attitude. The Jews understood this from early on (and EGW comments in this regard as well).

And how was this attitude manifested? By bringing a fire of his own kindling. If it (Cain's offering) was not for a sin offering, why did Abel bring a lamb? That's what makes the contrast in the narrative meaningful.

That "sin lies at the door" has nothing to do with why the offering was made,[color:blue]

Says who? See my comment above.

Quote:

but to the anger in Cain's heart because Abel's offering was accepted wheres Cain's was not. Abel's offering was accepted because it was made in faith.

And I say that Can's offering was rejected because he did not bring what was prescribed. I can cite from several non-SDA commentaries, the SDA commentary, including EGW, that it was rejected because he did not bring what was prescribed. But feel free to believe what you may.

Quote:

Why would a merciful, loving God kill an animal to provide them with clothing if clothing was the ONLY issue?

Why do you think God killed an animal?

Quote:

No cotton? No bark? No wool? I looked at 16 commentaries, most of them make reference to animal sacrifice in providing the skin clothing.

It's been awhile since I studied Gen. 3:21, but my recollection is that the word used does not necessitate the death of an animal. Also, even if the animal were dead, there's nothing to suggest that God killed the animal. There's no reason God couldn't have used an animal that had just died.

I suggest you go back and study it again. Creation, including the animals, was fresh from the Creator's hand. Why would an animal die if not that Someone killed it?

Quote:

Quote:

And some specifically refer to it being symbolic of their need for a robe of righteousness.

This seems like a fitting symbol, but there's no reason to equate a robe of righteousness with God's killing an animal.

Did I say, animal skin = robe of righteousness? I said it was SYMBOLIC of their need for righteousness!!!