Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[John317]

Could God have saved anyone without the death of Christ?

If not, why was it necessary?

Couldn't Jesus have simply died a natural death, maybe in his sleep?

And what would have happened to Moses, Enoch, and Elijah if Jesus had either decided He wouldn't die or if Christ had sinned?

[fccool]

Very good questions, John.

I'll elaborate, because I think that these three certainly connect to the idea of atonement that does not come by death of substitution.

Could God have saved anyone without the death of Christ?

First we have to ask what does the death of Christ represent? Let's rewind a bit to the Bronze Serpent:

Quote:

"From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the Land of Edom; and the people became impatient on the way. And the people spoke against God and against Moses, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food."

"Then The Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. And the people came to Moses, and said, "We have sinned, for we have spoken against The Lord and against you; pray to The Lord, that he take away the serpents from us." So Moses prayed for the people."

"And The Lord said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live." (Numbers 21:4-9 RSV)

The concept of atonement is not substitutional death. It's repentance and sign of God's forgiveness.

Was it necessary for Moses to make the Serpent so that people would be saved? God could have thought any other way He wanted, but this was the BEST WAY.

Likewise with the salvation. The cross is not a symbol of death and blood shed, but rather a symbol of God's forgiveness and mercy... just like the Bronze Serpent. It did not represent substitutional sacrifice, but it represented forgiveness with God not slapping back for people who slap Him on the face... thus offering a second chance.

When we read Hebrews, and quote : "For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness." completely out of the context of the covenant, then it would makes sense that someone absolutely had to die to pacify God's justice.

But you have to quote it in the context of the covenant. Let's take Cain's example. Did He repent? Why didn't God punish Cain as per Mosaic covenant, but punished Him in other way... to the point of preventing other people killing Him? Why?

Israelites agreed to the blood covenant, and it was to be an object lesson.

Quote:

For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.

Applies in the context of that passage which talks about Mosaic covenant.

Quote:

But instead, those sacrifices actually reminded them of their sins year after year. 4 For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

First, Christ said, “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings or burnt offerings or other offerings for sin, nor were you pleased with them” (though they are required by the law of Moses). 9 Then he said, “Look, I have come to do your will.” He cancels the first covenant in order to put the second into effect. 10 For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time.

Hebrews was written to Hebrews in the context of the Mosaic law. It explains Christ's sacrifice in these terms. We make the cleansing to be the ritual itself, rather than God who teaches an object lesson through his work of forgiveness. Likewise, many Jews were carried away with the ritual that would "earn them righteousness" rather than looking at God who was righteousness.

The death of Christ was necessary as much as animal sacrifices or the fruit of the forbidden tree was necessary. It was all a part of God's plan to bring about perfection even in light of the choice to sin.

Yet, I don't think that it warrants the interpretation that Christ had to die in that manner to earn us salvation (in terms of death on the cross being a substitutional death for us that Father demanded of Him). Christ was killed by rebellious Jews who pulled Roman strings. He was not killed by a priest in a ceremonial ritual.

We have to make a distinction between forgiveness, which the sacrifice is a symbol of, and salvation which comes by recognition, repentance and obedience. There are salvation conditions that did not include sacrifice of anyone.

1) Build an ark and live

2) Look at the serpent and live

3) Repent and live etc. etc. etc.

In either case, God does the forgiving and cleansing work... not the blood or death which symbolize something, but are of themselves shadows of something bigger.

If not, why was it necessary?

It was necessary for God to demonstrate His love and forgiveness through non-resistance, and perfect life in human body. The ultimate expression of love is to love someone in spite of them stomping on your face and screaming to kill you. I want to follow a God like that. If he did not resist these evil people... I know He is willing to forgive me and teach me His ways.

Couldn't Jesus have simply died a natural death, maybe in his sleep?

You are thinking of Jesus death in terms of debt payment. Atonement does not mean debt payment. It means reconciliation. Somewhere down the road, it was twisted into meaning re-payment through blood.

Thus your hinting that a blood has to be spilled is ironic , because the doctrine of blood atonement teaches exactly that. Blood had to be spilled. If Jesus would be water-boarded and drowned... that would not be enough in the minds of atonement by blood interpretation (if we ignore the prophecies that this will happen). It HAD to be through some bloody way.

In all of this we ignore the fact that the act of love was not death. Christ did not want death, but He resisted temptation to escape it. In a way it was a statement "I'm staying here no matter what, and pleading for you to believe me"

Yet as soon as we see the Christ baby, we think "sacrifice for our sins". That's not the substance of sacrifice. The substance of sacrifice is forgiveness on part of God, which death of Christ is a symbol of. That's the sacrifice without which we would be doomed.

[fccool]

I don't understand what your response has to do with what I said. Please explain. ...

I'm hoping the doctrine of the atonement will be continued to be discussed here.

Again, I've not said anything about being unable to repent if confronted, so do not understand what motivated your response.

You are right, it can be a bit jumping around, but I believe that our view of atonement is directly connected with our view of sin, and our view of how God works in this world. Thus why the thread kind of went off different tangent. But, we'll stick to atonement.

[karl]

Was the purpose of Jesus' death to win salvation for us?

Or was the purpose of His death to win us to salvation?

[pnattmbtc]

Or, "What was the problem that the death of Christ solves?"

[karl]

Or, "What was the problem that the death of Christ solves?"

What WAS or IS or both?

[fccool]

Was the purpose of Jesus' death to win salvation for us?

Or was the purpose of His death to win us to salvation?

I don't think that winning would be a proper way of presenting the concept, although I understand your point.

When my wife is gone, and I do the dishes, laundry, and clean the house... and upon her coming back she is so touched that I "win" her kiss.

What was my sacrifice? It was me doing the dishes, laundry, and cleaning the house. That in effect was a payment for her kiss (love, or repentance so to speak).

When you ask a question of winning... who are we won from? Is it Satan? Is it sin? Is it death?

I contend that God wants our choice! So in terms of winning, he is campaigning for our choice.

Yet, in light of the present doctrine of atonement it's not the concept of winning, but the concept of trade. God trades our death for the death of His son... to pacify His own anger and wrath.

If you think in terms of "Let us make... do ... whatever", then God paying to himself is sort of silly.

It would be along the lines of you owing me money and asking me to forgive the debt, and then me, after saying that someone has to pay for it...pulling out the exact amount out of my pocket and saying:

Hey, you don't have the money, but my right hand does! Well what do you know? Now the right hand gives it to me, and we are even! Thank the right hand for repaying your debt!

It would be silly. The bigger picture is that I am forgiving the debt, and not that my right hand had to pay it off

God has to communicate to us things in a way that we can understand, but it does not mean that this communication represents literal reality.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

Was the purpose of Jesus' death to win salvation for us?

Or was the purpose of His death to win us to salvation?

I contend that God wants our choice! So in terms of winning, he is campaigning for our choice.

I agree.

"Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live : turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"

[John317]

Let's contrast two different views of God's forgiveness:

1) First, the God of the Koran, Allah, forgives sin without any blood atonement. The Koran doesn't portray Jesus as having come here to die. In fact, it denies that Jesus died on the cross.

2) Then there's the God of the Bible, Yahweh, who tells us that "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins." Acts 2: 23 says that it was done "by the determinate counsel [predetermined plan] and foreknowledge of God," and Acts 3: 18 says that it was God who "fulfilled" "those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of all His prophets."

Right from the beginning, through the sacrificial system, God taught Adam and Eve about the necessity (?) of the death of the coming Messiah. They looked forward in faith to the death of the Messiah just as we look back in faith to His death.

I have a hard time believing that God sent His only Son to die when He could have saved us in some way that didn't involve His Son's death. I have to believe that Jesus' death shows how much God was willing to give up in order for me to have salvation.

[SivartM]

If I forgive someone, I don't have to kill myself to do it. Why would God have to?

[karl]

John.

God could have permitted us to live without dying Himself, but that would not have meant our salvation. That would have been mere existence - the walking dead.

God determined that He could only induce every sentient being in the universe to submit 100% to Him in faith (continuously throughout all eternity) by sacrificially demonstrating a) The totality of His love, and demonstrating The total, suicidal, homicidal, GODicidal malignity of sin.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Let's contrast two different views of God's forgiveness:

1) First, the God of the Koran, Allah, forgives sin without any blood atonement. The Koran doesn't portray Jesus as having come here to die. In fact, it denies that Jesus died on the cross.

The Koran doesn't have the principle of Jesus coming to save us at all, does it? That is, if we're going to contrast the Koran with the Bible in regards to the subject of salvation and Jesus Christ, why limit this contrast to Christ's death?

Quote:

2) Then there's the God of the Bible, Yahweh, who tells us that "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins." Acts 2: 23 says that it was done "by the determinate counsel [predetermined plan] and foreknowledge of God," and Acts 3: 18 says that it was God who "fulfilled" "those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of all His prophets."

Right from the beginning, through the sacrificial system, God taught Adam and Eve about the necessity (?) of the death of the coming Messiah. They looked forward in faith to the death of the Messiah just as we look back in faith to His death.

I have a hard time believing that God sent His only Son to die when He could have saved us in some way that didn't involve His Son's death. I have to believe that Jesus' death shows how much God was willing to give up in order for me to have salvation.

I don't think the point is being made that Jesus' death wasn't necessary in order for us to have salvation. Rather the point being made has to do with the reason as to why this death was necessary.

[Gerr]

Quote:

In that case you completely misunderstand my point.

You say my reasoning is not logical and contradict myself. Then please, make your point clear so that even I can understand it!

Quote:

I don't dispute that the love of God extends towards us through His sacrifice of love. The nature of the sacrifice I do question.

So what's the question?

Quote:

The original doctrine of atonement requires blood as payment to God for all of the sins humanity committed. Here's how John 3:16 is read by the doctrine of atonement:

God so loved to world, that He gave his only son as a sin offering that He required to collect from the people that owned him a debt of death, so that anyone who believed that Jesus was a blood offering will not perish, but his sins will be forgiven and he can start over by appreciating Jesus who was willing to be unjustly punished, and God who was willing to unjustly punish Jesus in our stead.

I read John 3:16 as:

For God so loved us, that He himself came down from Heaven in our form, and lived a sinless life of healing, teaching repentance, and mercy, knowing that He will be rejected and killed... so whoever believes that God is merciful and just and worthy of trust and obedience as He demonstrated again and again... will repent and receive mercy.

Sounds like the moral influence theory that I've heard before. It has some merits, but so does the atonement by sacrifice model, the redemption model, the court model, the covenant model and the others I previously mentioned. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. That's probably why the Bible uses various metaphors.

Quote:

God's sacrifice and goodness is the initiator, as I have clarified before. But OUR SALVATION begins with acknowledgment that God is good, which is followed by the repentance.

We are dealing with semantics here. From man's standpoint, perhaps you are right that salvation begins with his acknowledgement of God's goodness accompanied by repentance. From God's standpoint, I see salvation as ALWAYS first and foremost grounded in His love and sacrifice. That's what makes everything else that follows possible.

Quote:

Goodness has to be consistent with justice. No one can sit in jail for you if you commit a murder. That would be ludicrous.

Says who? You are using sinful man's concepts of goodness & justice. God says our ways are not His ways, neither our thoughts His thoughts. So if I were you, I woudln't be so rash making such statements.

[fccool]

Right from the beginning, through the sacrificial system, God taught Adam and Eve about the necessity (?) of the death of the coming Messiah. They looked forward in faith to the death of the Messiah just as we look back in faith to His death.

John,

Adam and Eve were not looking forward to death of the Messiah. To say that God thought them OT sacrificial system would be an assumption. The truth is that Bible does not give sufficient information for us to make these conclusions.

The common though is that God rejected Cain's offering because it was grain, but God did accept grain offering in Bible, so I don't believe that was the case. The matter of the attitude was the case IMO. Either way we would be speculating, and I don't want to base my faith on speculation.

I don't believe that He revealed to them detailed plan of salvation, just like He did not reveal Israel detailed plan of salvation. Israel was looking and still looking forward to Messianic kingdom on earth. Nobody really expected Christ to die, except for few chosen people that were prophets like John the Baptist who were to prepare the way. Nobody else understood the prophesies, so I think it was somewhat of a mystery... until it was revealed. And Paul does refer to it as mystery revealed when he talks about it to Jews.

To say that people were looking forward to death specifically as means of saving them would be an imposition. In that case we should thank Israel and Romans for doing us such a huge favor. Instead God refers to it as rejection and act of violence. So, there's more to the idea than OT style sacrificial offering.

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM: If I forgive someone, I don't have to kill myself to do it. Why would God have to?

Good question. There's a Bible answer. Don't give up until you find it.

But God didn't kill himself. You won't find that anywhere in the Bible. For one thing God didn't-- couldn't-- die.

[Gerr]

"quote=fccool]

Yet, we put Jesus in this imaginary "grave jail" instead of us... so we can live. This is not the message God wants us to hear. This is not quite forgiveness , if Jesus merely satisfied God's wrath.

Is it possible that your concept of sin vis-a-vis God's holiness needs some revision?

Quote:

That's the message of the cross! Not that two wrongs make it right!

Different strokes for different folks!!!

For the ancients, the covenant or the redemption model were probably more meaningful.

PS

So how do you explain Paul's assertion: Without the shedding of blood there is NO forgiveness of sins?

[teresaq]

PS... there is no Biblical basis for my idea, because I don't believe that the idea of sin being a natural urge we inherit by birth is Biblical concept. That would mean that drug addicts should birth drug addicts. That's not the case.

[pnattmbtc]

SivartM: If I forgive someone, I don't have to kill myself to do it. Why would God have to?

Good question. There's a Bible answer. Don't give up until you find it.

But God didn't kill himself. You won't find that anywhere in the Bible. For one thing God didn't-- couldn't-- die.

This doesn't make much sense. If "You won't find that anywhere in the Bible," then it's not the case that "There's a Bible answer."

[John317]

Quote:

Let's contrast two different views of God's forgiveness:

1) First, the God of the Koran, Allah, forgives sin without any blood atonement. The Koran doesn't portray Jesus as having come here to die. In fact, it denies that Jesus died on the cross.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: The Koran doesn't have the principle of Jesus coming to save us at all, does it? That is, if we're going to contrast the Koran with the Bible in regards to the subject of salvation and Jesus Christ, why limit this contrast to Christ's death?

The Koran does have Allah sending Jesus to help save us, yes. But in the Koran, Jesus is not the son of God, but a mere man and a servant of God, a prophet, and no more. [The Koran says that Jesus will return and that at some time in the future, Jesus will die and be resurrected. However, there's no explanation why this will happen.]

But the point I'm making is that Allah is portrayed in the Koran as forgiving sin without the necessity of blood. Why this difference? Why didn't-- or, rather, why couldn't-- the God of the Bible simply forgive like Allah says he does?

[pnattmbtc]

Sounds like the moral influence theory that I've heard before. It has some merits, but so does the atonement by sacrifice model, the redemption model, the court model, the covenant model and the others I previously mentioned.

What do you understand these to be? How about Christus Victor?

In particular, do you understand "atonement by sacrifice" model to be "penal substitution"? Also, do you understand the court model to be along the lines of Western justice? (i.e., like a Western court, based on retributive justice)

[pnattmbtc]

It comes to me that a key question in this discuss is what is it that caused Jesus' death?

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM: If I forgive someone, I don't have to kill myself to do it. Why would God have to?

Quote:

John3:17: Good question. There's a Bible answer. Don't give up until you find it.

But God didn't kill himself. You won't find that anywhere in the Bible. For one thing God didn't-- couldn't-- die.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: This doesn't make much sense. If "You won't find that anywhere in the Bible," then it's not the case that "There's a Bible answer."

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

SivartM is asking: since God is forgiving toward sinners, why did Christ have to die?

At least I'm assuming that's his question. My answer to this question is that the Bible contains the answer. It's also in the Spirit of prophecy.

[teresaq]

SivartM: If I forgive someone, I don't have to kill myself to do it. Why would God have to?

[fccool]

Quote:

Says who? You are using sinful man's concepts of goodness & justice. God says our ways are not His ways, neither our thoughts His thoughts. So if I were you, I woudln't be so rash making such statements.

Sure, but He does reveal His character which is unchanging. I'm not speaking about "human legal system". God set up Israel's legal system, and it does not seem to me that one can suffer death for someone else's rejection of God. The punishment was death, unless pardoned.

[John317]

Quote:

fccool: Adam and Eve were not looking forward to death of the Messiah. To say that God thought them OT sacrificial system would be an assumption. The truth is that Bible does not give sufficient information for us to make these conclusions.

The common though is that God rejected Cain's offering because it was grain, but God did accept grain offering in Bible, so I don't believe that was the case. The matter of the attitude was the case IMO. Either way we would be speculating, and I don't want to base my faith on speculation.

I don't believe that He revealed to them detailed plan of salvation, just like He did not reveal Israel detailed plan of salvation.

You evidently don't believe that Ellen White was given visions by God and that she wrote the truth about these things in Patriachs and Prophets, etc.

There are many Christian scholars who've never read anything by Ellen White, yet on the basis of the Bible alone, they are in fundamental agreement with what Ellen White wrote concerning the Fall and the institution of the sacrificial system. See, for instance, the commentaries by Adam Clarke and Matthew Henry.

Many Bible scholars and students see a hint in Gen. 3: 15 of God's promise of a Savior to Adam and Eve.

Do you believe God never gave Adam and Eve any hope of ever returning to their Eden home? What about Enoch? What was Enoch inspired to say in Jude 14, 15? Do you believe it's apocryphal?