Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

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

???

I don't want the purpose. That presupposes that God killed the animal. I want to know why you think God killed the animal.

Did you not read my post? I don't understand what's not clear here.

The text says that God provided Adam and Eve a garment. For some reason you conclude from this that God killed an animal. Why couldn't God have gotten the skin from an animal that was already dead?

I've also pointed out, twice, that the Hebrew word for "skin," IIRC, does not imply that an animal had to be killed.

[pnattmbtc]

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

G: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?

[fccool]

Quote:

If it (Cain's offering) was not for a sin offering, why did Abel bring a lamb?

Able brought "brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock." Any indication that I'm missing that it was in fact a lamb?

Do we assume that apple was what Eve ate too? , or that serpent looked like a modern snake?

[Gerr]

Quote:

What? Abel brought a lamb because he was a shepherd. Cain was a farmer. The rejection of the offering was not because of what was offered, but because of how it was offered. Abel gave his sacrifice with faith, so it was accepted. Cain didn't, so it was rejected.

Ok, so Cain did not show faith, THAT'S WHY HE BROUGHT FRUIT INSTEAD OF THE PRESCRIBED SACRIFICIAL ANIMAL!!!

Quote:

Quote:

G:That's what makes the contrast in the narrative meaningful.

p:That "sin lies at the door" has nothing to do with why the offering was made

G:Says who? See my comment above.

It's clear from the narrative, as I pointed out.

Well, what I'm saying is clear to me from the narrative.

Quote:

Quote:

p: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.

G: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.

As I recall, she commented that Cain's offering was not offered with the right attitude. There's nothing in the Scripture text which states, or implies, that Cain's offering was rejected because it was not a lamb, right? As Teresa cited, grain offerings were also accepted.

Quote:

Was Cain poor? Please read that reference again.

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

p:Why do you think God killed an animal?

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

p: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.

G:I suggest you go back and study it again.

Why? Have you studied the Hebrew word used here?

Quote:

Creation, including the animals, was fresh from the Creator's hand. Why would an animal die if not that Someone killed it?

Cain and Able had been alive for years. How many animals would have been killed in earth's history up to this time that Cain and Able made their offering. Thousands? Millions?

Let's see. People lived to almost a thousand years before the flood. Do you think that in 20-50 years animals started dying like flies? That in that same time span, animals that were once tame and friendly, were suddenly preying on one another? Why the objection that God killed the animal Himself for sacrifice?

Besides, are you forgetting that the event where God provided animal skin for clothing to Adam & Eve took place at the Fall long before Cain & Abel were born?

[Gerr]

Quote:

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

???

I don't want the purpose. That presupposes that God killed the animal. I want to know why you think God killed the animal.

Did you not read my post? It was for the purpose of SACRIFICE!!!

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

The redemption model shows how someone once free is sold or conquered into slavery. He cannot pay for his own liberty. Someone else has to buy him back, the nearest of kin.

If we are slaves to sin, the who was the payment made out to based on that view? Sin?

Sin comes alive through the law. The debt incurred is to the law. So from that standpoint, the debt paid is to the law. Justice demands that debts be paid.

[Gerr]

Perhaps, but how many instances can you cite where God or Christ did something that did not have some deeper significance?

Quote:

and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters

God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.

God called the expanse "sky."

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas."

But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded.

Sometimes God does what's needed, because it's needed... without any underlying spiritual lesson.

You'll be surprised how many deeper lessons one can derive from your quotas.

[fccool]

Sure, just like I said... we can derive a spiritual lesson from David picking up 5 stones, but it does not mean it would be a valid one

PS... can you show me a place in the Bible that we see Abel sacrificing a lamb as a sin offering?

[Gerr]

Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground. ....and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. Gen 4:2,4 ESV.

Abel became a shepherd, while Cain cultivated the ground.....Abel also brought a gift—the best of the firstborn lambs from his flock. NLT

Now Abel was a keeper of sheep....Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. NKJ

And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. ...And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. KJV

PS

And who is to say the homiletic applications are not valid ones? But I would agree with you that it would not be wise to build doctrines on such applications.

[Gerr]

This is not a direct response to any particular post. I thought I had written it previously but I could not find it.

In one sentence, Paul uses FOUR different metaphors to bring the plan of salvation into greater light. It should make us wary about being dogmatic about one particular view.

Quote:

For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified [legal/court model] by his grace as a gift, through the redemption [ransom model] that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward [Gk - exhibi publicly - moral influence theory] as a propitiation by his blood [satisfaction model], to be received by faith. Rom 3:22-25 ESV

[Nic Samojluk]

I don't have any doubt that without Christ's death and resurrection, no human being would have been saved.

[Nic Samojluk]

I think that another important point to think about when considering all of this would be the example of forgiveness that God asks us to emulate.

Let's consider for a second what it would mean to emulate the same forgiveness that God extends to us through "substitutional atonement".

It would mean that we are not to forgive unless the debt to us is paid in some way. Either by the offender, or by an innocent volunteer. This is not the type of forgiveness that is asked of us... we are to forgive without expecting anything back.

God would not ask us to do something He would not do.

Excellent point! True forgiveness implies forfeiting the right to collect a payment. Forgiveness is negated when the creditor insists on receiving the payment for the debt which had been forgiven.

[Nic Samojluk]

Karl,

Some very good points, but it takes the "microscopy of the words" to make some people believe that such is the case.

This issue is important because God's character and the nature of forgiveness is portrayed, and how we are to forgive each other as per:

Quote:

Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

If we take the substitutional death as means to forgiveness... then how are we to forgive each other? Do we demand payment from someone before we forgive (if not from the offender, then from the innocent volunteer), or do we just forgive in spite of all of the damage?

Good thinking! Thanks for the crystal clear argument!

[Gerr]

Sorry. Apples & oranges. You are comparing one sinner insulting/sinning or incurring against another sinner to a Holy Creator insulted by His creature! We are able to forgive one another without requiring payment because any debt incurred has been paid at the Cross.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

John: For one thing God didn't-- couldn't-- die.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Yes, which means that the legal theory of the atonement is inadequate to describe what took place. It required the death of one equal to God, but if Jesus’ divinity did not die, then the price for our redemption was never paid.

Jesus Christ was equal with the Father, and Jesus Christ died. It didn't require that deity die.

Where is your Bible evidence that deity had to die?

I was responding to the Christian argument that only one equal to God could pay the penalty for sin. The legal model of the atonement states that sinners deserve eternal death, which means that no mortal could pay the penalty.

This theory seems to suggest that because Jesus was immortal, his death could pay such penalty. If this theory is correct, then three days in the tomb could not pay the eternal death penalty, and much less if the divinity of Jesus did not die.

[Gerr]

"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]

But there's no conditional clause at all in the rest of the chapter.

[Nic Samojluk]

This is precisely why in Revelation we find the enigmatic statement pointing to the Lamb which was slain from the foundation of the world.

Quote:

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. [Rev. 13:8]

And look at how Ellen White did explain the true and deep meaning of the cross:

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}

When you add this to what Peter said in Acts 2: 23 and 4, it's clear that Jesus had to die a violent death.

[fccool]

Quote:

Sorry. Apples & oranges. You are comparing one sinner insulting/sinning or incurring against another sinner to a Holy Creator insulted by His creature! We are able to forgive one another without requiring payment because any debt incurred has been paid at the Cross.

Gerry,

First of all, thank you for the clarification of the "being a shepherd". The YLT gets me in trouble at times, and such was the case as it translates "keeper of the lifestock", which most of the time does refer to a shepherd.

As far as the above statement goes...

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.

Let me understand your analogy correctly:

We have insulted God through disobedience, thus we owe Him (the judicial entity) a justice sentence of death. Jesus, pays this "debt", or a death sentence, by dying instead of us... thus repaying the debt to the father on our behalf.

If I'm missing something, please explain...

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.

If we don't, then we might as well say that Father forgave the rest by receiving Christ's willing sacrifice as a token on our behalf an thus forgiving the rest.

Either way, the concept of justice AS SET BY GOD HIMSELF (eye for eye, and tooth for tooth was not merely something Moses made up). If you killed someone, your death was required.

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.

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.

And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, just as God also in [not because of] Christ forgave you.

The above signifies that God forgave us IN Christ. I don't want to latch on to words, but it's fairly clear here that In does not quite mean "because Christ paid the debt". Also notice a similitude... just as... NOT BECAUSE, BUT JUST AS. It's more than feeling of gratitude. It's moral example of doing it because it's the right thing to do.

There's a clear difference of loving someone because they've done something for you, and loving someone because you are in love with who they are!

You can read it again, and again. We are to forgive JUST LIKE God forgiven us... APPLES TO APPLES.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: I don't have any doubt that without Christ's death and resurrection, no human being would have been saved.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Do you mean that Enoch, Elijah, and Moses, plus all the faithful of the Old Testament would have to be punished with eternal death in the event the Jewish leaders failed in carrying out Satan's determination to have Jesus killed?

Were those men sinners? Were they children of the first Adam? Upon what basis were they saved?

John 3: 16 applies to every man, including Enoch, Elijah and Moses.

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

The lives of the partriarchs in heaven were based on the promise of what Christ would do in the future. What they had in heaven prior to Christ's first coming was conditioned on Christ's fulfilling what He had covenanted with the Father to do, which was to give His life a ransom for [anti] many. Matt. 20: 28. Who were "the many"? Enoch, Elijah, and Moses were indeed included among those "many" for whom Christ gave His life as a ransom.

This is proved by such texts as Rev. 5: 19 and Romans 5: 12-19. Jesus Christ is the only way ANY man has eternal life. If He had failed the test, or had decided not to accept the "cup," ALL humanity would have perished.

We need to understand that all sinners deserve eternal death and would reap the eternal consequences of sin if it weren't for Christ. That includes Enoch, Elijah and Moses. They didn't earn salvation any more than we do, but their salvation was on the basis of God's grace received through faith in the future coming of the Messiah.

So the answer is yes: all mankind would have perished without Christ's coming to earth, living a perfect life, dying, and being resurrected.

The patriachs who were taken to heaven had good reason to be very interested in Christ's experience on earth.

When, on the the Mt. of Transfiguration, Elijah and Moses spoke to Christ about His approaching death, they knew that their own lives depended on what Christ did.

[Nic Samojluk]

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

I do disagree with a shallow reading of what Joseph stated. On a deeper level, what Joseph was trying to convey to his brothers was: “I have already forgiven you for the cruel way you treated me. Let’s forget this, because the Lord transformed an evil design into a blessing for all of us.”

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Do you mean that Enoch, Elijah, and Moses, plus all the faithful of the Old Testament would have to be punished with eternal death in the event the Jewish leaders failed in carrying out Satan’s determination to have Jesus killed?

....I think that it is unwise and dangerous to make forgiveness and the plan of salvation contingent on the evil intentions and acts of Satan en his followers. ....

Our salvation doesn't depend on the evil that Satan and his followers did in killing Jesus Christ but on Christ's willingness to come here and live a righteous life and die for us.

Christ's death didn't make God more willing to forgive or more loving, so God's character wasn't conditioned upon Christ's death. 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.

[John317]

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?

[Gerr]

Quote:

Notice that those actions are expressed in the past tense. This makes me think that all this is in reference to God’s suffering as a result of sin and rebellion and not necessarily about the suffering of Jesus on the cross.

If you were the prophet and you were presented a vision of something that is future. Several days later or maybe even much later, when you write do you write in the future or past tense? In Rev 21:1-2 "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." ESV. John doesn't write in future tense. When Daniel in 7:9 describes the judgment scene, he speaks in the past tense.

[pnattmbtc]

Ok, so Cain did not show faith, THAT'S WHY HE BROUGHT FRUIT INSTEAD OF THE PRESCRIBED SACRIFICIAL ANIMAL!!!