Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[fccool]

I though that this would be a good topic on its own:

Present substitution atonement view goes something along these lines:

1) Adam sinned and thus humanity inherited his sinful nature making them unable to resist sin.

2) God gave the law which demonstrates that everyone is a sinner, and the penalty is death.

3) God sent His son (or son volunteered... either way) to take the blame upon himself and suffer God's rejection instead of us... commonly referred to as Christ literally became sin and died because of all of the load. He alone could do it on behalf of whole humanity, because He was the only sinless human on the planet.

4) God accepts this as the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of humanity, if we choose to accept it... our sins are forgiven... therefore Jesus took the punishment that we deserved by suffering the death. So, through his literal blood we come to God and he does not judge us based on our acts of transgression.

I believe that this is a wrong take on "atonement", and nature of both God and Christ. There are several issues to wade through.

1) Justice is not portrayed in such scenario. Quite the contrary, what we have is injustice. One person can not pay the price for other prerson's breaking of the law. That's injustice by definition. God would not deal injustice, or circumvent His own law in order to play favorites.

2) The blood never cleansed anything... neither in OT, nor NT. It demonstrated and taught an object lesson... that the innocent will suffer because of transgression of God's law. It was a punishment for the person who was going to sin to perform this act. The sin was not magically transferred to the blood, as many would contend. There's nothing magic about the sin that it can go somewhere else. Sin is an act of transgression. You can't transfer it anymore than you can transfer a spoken words or turn back the time.

Thus, the sacrifice rites were the OT ways of acknowledgment of non-intended wrongs, confession, and repentance. On top of that, these did not cover the intentional sins like breaking Sabbath, and sexual immorality and idolatry... punishment for which were clear cut death. If sins were committed, the transgressors were brought before the court and were at complete mercy of God at that point. They could not simply get off by making an offering. It was literally "eye for an eye, and tooth for tooth".

I would encourage you to do research on the purpose and structure of the OT law, and which sins could be atoned by sacrifice.

3) Read Ezekiel 18 and you'll get the point about personal responsibility. The penalty for the described sins is literal death sentence. Not from old age either. Also note that God did not demand the same action from Gentiles, because He did not enter into a blood covenant with them. Any Jew could exit the country and covenant at any time they wanted and go on doing these things like Gentiles did without receiving a death penalty. But it was an agreement between God and the nation of Israel that they keep ALL OF THE LAW, not just 10 commandments, as long as the covenant was in effect. Penalty for some of the severe transgression was death that could not be atoned by the animals.

The concept of repentance without atonement in Ezekiel 18 is yet another way that Jews would atone for their sins, which was acceptable to God. In that chapter the concept is described quite well. If one sin all his righteousness if discounted, if he repents and does good deeds instead... his sins are forgotten.

Quote:

But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

That was the case for the NT Jews, and non-Jews alike. Take the story of Jonah. The people in Nineveh were wicked, yet true repentance did serve as a form of atonement based on grace of God. I don't believe that God looked several thousand years forward to Christ's death and counted that to them as righteousness. The message was "Repent and live!", without blood sacrifices or rituals, but true act of genuine sorrow and repentance for violent ways.

Modern Christians would be up and arms at this concept of atonement noting that this is us earning salvation... NOT QUITE! Nineveh deserved death, but they prayed and hoped for forgiveness. God saw a genuine change and he gracefully let them off the hook when they deserved death. The doctrine of substituted atonement is not here (the way most of Christianity explains it).

____________________________________________________________

Now, let's look at what's going on with Christ. There are couple of things we have to understand first though before we dive into it:

1) Christ and God and Spirit are the same entity. They may have separate persons and functions, but they are ONE GOD.

2) When we transgress any law, there's a legal concept of "damaged party". In case of humans, we can return what we've stolen. In case of God, we have to pay in some other way... death is one way of doing it... sometimes immediate.... sometimes eventual, based on severity of the law broken. Either way, God is a damaged party.

3) In our legal system, the damage party may demand retribution, or they may choose to settle outside of the court or forgive the damages all-together. Happens a lot of times. Likewise, it's up to God to either forgive the damage, or to demand the repayment and justice.

If God chooses to forgive, then He himself in fact "eats up" the damages caused by us. He takes the responsibility for these so to speak. Knowing that Christ is part of One God, ... the sacrifice is not God punishing Christ instead of us, but God punishing himself instead of us. He chooses to "eat up" the damages based on our genuine acknowledgment and repentance. So, He does the forgiveness ... not based on blood, but BASED ON OUR REPENTANCE, just like in case of Nineveh.

The present view of atonement pictures Christ that came to "die for our sins" in a sense of pacifying God's wrath. IT'S WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Here's what I believe a more accurate way the atonement concept should be presented. I've already hit on major points of it.

Christ was not killed by the Father, but by conspiring and power-hungry humans driven by Satan. The bigger picture is Satan vs God, which is the reason for Christ's death, not because God needed and demanded blood.

One may point out the "proof-text" of demanding blood, but you have to understand that both OT and NT were built around the object lessons of sacrificial system, rites of which are useless if God's grace is out of the picture. God could forgive without sacrifice, and in case of genuine repentance, but the PURPOSE OF THE SACRIFICE was not to transfer sins to blood. If you think alone these lines, you are missing the point. The purpose was to demonstrate that SIN BRINGS ABOUT DEATH! ... even when it's unintentional.

Christ triumph over death is a symbol of immortal God that does not desire "tooth for tooth" and violence and death but is willing to forgive those who genuinely repent and stop causing death and suffering.

Christ's death is a symbol of what happens to us when we live such life by means of repentance and seeking God's ways of non-violence obedience to the universal law.

The whole point is that righteous eventually live, but unrighteous and wicked eventually die.

Additionally, Christ's death as a symbol of offering for the "unintentional sins which are through weakness of the flesh" is for us to have confidence of getting up and trying again and developing new habits.

We need to stop dwelling on blood and death, and start dwelling on life and repentance.

[Gerr]

Quote:

We need to stop dwelling on blood and death, and start dwelling on life and repentance.

"without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Heb 9:22 ESV.

"he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption." Heb 9:12 ESV.

"how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God." Heb 9:14 ESV.

"... we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus." Heb 10:19 ESV.

"Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal ." Heb 13:20 ESV.

" God sent him to die in our place to take away our sins. We receive forgiveness through faith in the blood of Jesus’ death. This showed that God always does what is right and fair, as in the past when he was patient and did not punish people for their sins." Rom 3:25 NCV

"Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God." Rom 5:9 ESV.

"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace." Eph 1:7 ESV.

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." Eph 2:13 ESV.

"and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." col 1:20 ESV.

" I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Rev 7:14 ESV.

[SivartM]

Gerry, what does blood represent? Or are we literally cleansed/justified/forgiven by a liquid?

[Gerr]

Gerry, what does blood represent? Or are we literally cleansed/justified/forgiven by a liquid?

Gen 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

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. Lev 17:14 For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.

Deut 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.

John 6:54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

[SivartM]

So should we focus more on the symbol of blood or the life it represents?

[Guest]

"without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Heb 9:22 ESV.

"he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption." Heb 9:12 ESV.

"how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God." Heb 9:14 ESV.

"... we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus." Heb 10:19 ESV.

"Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal ." Heb 13:20 ESV.

" God sent him to die in our place to take away our sins. We receive forgiveness through faith in the blood of Jesus’ death. This showed that God always does what is right and fair, as in the past when he was patient and did not punish people for their sins." Rom 3:25 NCV

"Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God." Rom 5:9 ESV.

"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace." Eph 1:7 ESV.

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." Eph 2:13 ESV.

"and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." col 1:20 ESV.

" I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Rev 7:14 ESV.

_______________________________________________________________

Gen 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

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. Lev 17:14 For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.

Deut 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.

John 6:54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Well, I guess the blood means something after all.

[Gerr]

So should we focus more on the symbol of blood or the life it represents?

Can you really separate the two? Can you separate the symbol of the Cross from what it represents? If the Bible writers could not get away from using both, why then should I?

[SivartM]

I don't think we should get rid of either. But which should we focus more on? Just like we are supposed to focus more on the cross than the sanctuary while not abandoning it, I think we should focus more on the meaning of the cross than on the cross itself.

[Gerr]

Gerry, what does blood represent? Or are we literally cleansed/justified/forgiven by a liquid?

If blood/liquid cannot cleanse, how can another person's life?

[Gerr]

I don't think we should get rid of either. But which should we focus more on? Just like we are supposed to focus more on the cross than the sanctuary while not abandoning it, I think we should focus more on the meaning of the cross than on the cross itself.

Nobody focuses on a piece of wood, but when one thinks of the Cross, ALL kinds of meanings and mental images go with it! That's why we use symbols. They are shortcuts to realities far deeper than many words could express.

[fccool]

Gerry,

I suggest you to read the entire post over again. I can take a different approach if you will.

1) The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.

Quote:

Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: “Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat meat. 22 For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. 23 But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.’ 24 Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but followed the counsels and the dictates of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

Quote:

I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens, for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine. If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine, and all that is in it. Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?

Quote:

"The multitude of your sacrifices - what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts? Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations - I cannot bear your evil assemblies."

Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.

How does He do that? Sin is not something that you can literally take and carry. It's not a substance. It's a record.

The reconciliation does not begin with blood. It begins with repentance. It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out. I think you can agree with that. I hope so, at least.

Redemption does not start with sacrifice. It starts with REPENTANCE.

Read over the Jonah story. You won't find the sacrifice. Read the story of the prodigal son, the parable of the debtor whos debts were forgiven (yet he failed to forgive his). The repentance has no origin in blood. Blood is a type.

The etymology of atonement and atone:

L1550s, from adv. phrase atonen (c.1300) "in accord," lit. "at one," a contraction of at and one. It retains the older pronunciation of one. The phrase perhaps is modeled on L. adunare "unite," from ad- "to, at" + unum "one."

The concept of atonement is not substitutional death, but rather reconciliation. Here's directly from Encyclopedia of Judaism:

Quote:

(Heb. kapparah). A state of reconciliation between the sinner and the offended party prior forgiveness of the Sin. Judaism views the sinner as one spiritually alienated from God, from his fellow-man, or from his ideal self. Atonement, in the religious sense, means a reversal of the alienation caused by sin whereby the offending party is restored to spiritual "at-one-ment" (i.e., unity) and ultimately forgiven. Atonement, in Jewish teaching, can only be achieved after a process of Repentance which involves recognition and admission of the sin, feelings of remorse, restitution to the offended party, and a resolve not to repeat the offense.

Furthermore, the exercise of human freedom is central to atonement. Just as man is free to sin, so he is free to repent, and it is for him to take the initiative in seeking atonement.

Atonement at heart is not the concept of the sacrifice, but the concept of repentance and forgiveness that the sacrifice symbolic of.. in case of Jesus' death.

Jesus blood does not heave any mystical powers. It's made of the same components as our blood was (at least pre-resurrection). Merely bleeding does absolutely nothing in form of typifying the essence of the resurrection. Jesus Death is a symbol of God's forgiveness. A sign that he is willing to atone (reconcile with us)... not through violence, but through life and love.

God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son (part of Himself) that whoever believes in him (the concept of repentance here), shall not perish (concept of Divine Retribution).

The concept of atonement IS NOT IN SACRIFICE AND BLOOD. It's in forgiveness followed by the repentance. Somebody can't repent on your behalf. I don't want to minimize Christ's sacrifice, but sacrifice was not merely death and blood.

Sinless life is a living sacrifice to God. That's the whole theme of the Bible.

Nineveh did not sacrifice anything outside of their pride and their violent ways. No blood was spilled. Al contre, they stopped spilling blood. So, there's a concept of atonement that has repentance at its heart, just like the rest of the Biblical narrative. Read Hebrews 10 in context for example

Quote:

1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:

“ Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,

But a body You have prepared for Me.

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin

You had no pleasure.

7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—

In the volume of the book it is written of Me—

To do Your will, O God.’”

8 Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them ” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body (not merely through death and suffering in context) of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,

16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,”[c] 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”[d] 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

Blood of Christ is a TYPE... a SYMBOL. His blood is the same as ours as far as composition goes. But His life was not. His sacrifice was OBEDIENCE in light of temptation... NOT BLOOD. If blood was all that needed, He could have simply died as a child.

[karl]

God doesn't save sins. He saves sinners. The blood saves sinners by transferring life from the Source of life to dead people (dead in trespasses and sins.) How could we be made alive by the infliction of pain and death on Another? Only if that Other IS THE LIFE and that Life is imputed and imparted to us.

The life is in the blood. We're talking transfusion here.

This is, incidentally, why our sanctuary doctrine is so important. That transfusion is an ongoing process. A living connection.

[Gerr]

Gerry,

I suggest you to read the entire post over again. I can take a different approach if you will.

You brought out too many things in one post. I only chose the one I thought most egregious. Atonement is only one among many Bible illustrations about how God saves fallen humanity. The oldest that goes back to Genesis happens to be atonement by sacrifice. And just as old is the Covenant model. Redemption, being bought back is also very ancient. So is Reconciliation, Adoption, New Birth, Grafting, and the Court system.

Quote:

Yes, the OT sacrifices of themselves could not atone for sin because they were symbols pointing to a far greater reality in the text that follows that you quoted.

Quote:

Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.

How does He do that? Sin is not something that you can literally take and carry. It's not a substance. It's a record.

Ah, but that is the mystery of sin. It is not a substance or a chemical as we commonly think of, but yet its infectious, it is just as corrosive as any acid you could think of. You can't weigh it, but it's results are too heavy for anyone to carry. No, my friend, it's more than just a record. It is etched right into our very DNA, and every fiber of our being.

[Gerr]

God doesn't save sins. .."

Did I say that God saves sins? If I did, my bad.

[Gerr]

Quote:

The reconciliation does not begin with blood. It begins with repentance. It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out. I think you can agree with that. I hope so, at least.

Redemption does not start with sacrifice. It starts with REPENTANCE.

I totally disagree with you on this. Reconciliation and redemption start with sacrifice. It started with a Covenant of Sacrifice in eternity past, with the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world! Repentance was made possible by this Sacrifice. Repentance is a RESPONSE to this Sacrifice.

BTW, if blood cannot cleanse, how can someone else's life? And if soap can clean dirt, how much more efficacious the blood of Christ?

[fccool]

Gerry,

Read the story of Nineveh and Jonah. Where was the sacrifice there?

We have: Evildoing > Warning > Repentance > Forgiveness . Where does that fit with your "sin transfer" theory? Reconciliation here begins with a warning, which leads to repentance. It does not begin with a sacrifice. It never did. The sacrifice is on the side of those who are willing to forgive, which is in case with God. We can't sacrifice anything that we don't have in exchange for our wrongdoings. Sacrifice is on the side of God when he decides to forgive us... even for murdering His son. Otherwise, Romans and Jews causing the death of Christ would be a noble thing.

Sin is NEVER portrayed as a "Mystical thing", unfortunately we portray it that way, just like we portray blood to be a mystical thing. That's the problem with taking poetic language that talks in metaphors and apply it literally using our Relegioneese verbiages. If you drink acid... it will corrode you, not sin . The act of drinking acid is sin, but it's not the sin that does the damage, but THE ACID .

Never in the Bible we see that sin corrupts DNA. God did that as punishment... not sin. Sin is an act. If sin corrupts DNA, then righteousness should restore it? Then the children of the righteous would be less prone to sin, and the evildoers have an excuse... IE... I'm a man, I have no choice but to do evil because of the sin in me. Sin is not a virus, or a sexually transmitted disease. It's a choice! You can't transmit a choice, that would be injustice by definition.

"Sinful nature" has nothing to do with us being born sinful. We are born with ability to do good, and a blank slate when it comes to our wrongdoings. You can't call someone sinful when someone did not get a chance to do anything yet. We are sinning in light of the universal temptation... not in light of us "not having a choice, and incapable to do good". Christ did not sin, even though he experienced the same temptation having the same body and condition as us... otherwise his sinless state would be merely a gimmick!

Likewise, you can't simply touch something and get it's sins transferred . It's silly superstition that has no Biblical bases behind it. We can't transfer our righteousness anymore than we can transfer our sins.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Read the story of Nineveh and Jonah. Where was the sacrifice there?

The Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world!!!

Quote:

Sin is NEVER portrayed as a "Mystical thing", unfortunately we portray it that way, just like we portray blood to be a mystical thing.

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work - 2 Thes 2:7 KJV

For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work - ESV (sin is lawlessness, 1 jn 3:4)

Quote:

the problem with taking poetic language that talks in metaphors and apply it literally using our Relegioneese verbiages

For every metaphor, there is a reality behind it.

Quote:

If you drink acid... it will corrode you, not sin . The act of drinking acid is sin, but it's not the sin that does the damage, but THE ACID .

fccool, sin is more corrosive than any acid you could ever imagine. So much that the prophet Isaiah could say, "The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and raw wounds; they are not pressed out or bound up or softened with oil." Isa 1:5,6 ESV.

Quote:

Never in the Bible we see that sin corrupts DNA. God did that as punishment... not sin.

If you go back to Genesis, it was the ground that was cursed and pain added to childbearing and being cut off from the source of life that was their punishment. Otherwise I could/would interpret your statement as meaning that it was God himself that put the propensity to sin in their DNA. That can't be!!!

Quote:

If sin corrupts DNA, then righteousness should restore it? Then the children of the righteous would be less prone to sin, and the evildoers have an excuse

It is precisely BECAUSE of righteousness that restoration can be effected!!! "Your body will always be dead because of sin. But if Christ is in you, then the Spirit gives you life, because Christ made you right with God." Rom 8:10 NCV. Or, as the ESV renders it, "But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness."

Epigenetics is currently a hot topic in genetics because it explains how lifestyle like druggies & drunkards can pass their tendencies on to their children, and as the Bible says - "to the 3rd and 4th generation."

Quote:

"Sinful nature" has nothing to do with us being born sinful. We are born with ability to do good, and a blank slate when it comes to our wrongdoings. You can't call someone sinful when someone did not get a chance to do anything yet.

I beg to differ. A baby's computer does not totally start with a blank slate. There is something already programmed in the hard drive. A baby is born selfish - already "bent to self" as Robert likes to say. Or as the psalmist says,

Ps 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." That is why Paul says, we "... were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." Eph 2:3 ESV.

[pnattmbtc]

Great OP, fccool. Glad you started this thread.

I'll quickly mention another problem with the traditional understanding of the atonement in Evangelical Christianity. It requires retroactively attributing to the Scripture writers concepts which did not exist at the time in which they wrote, including the meaning of sacrifice, blood and justice.

[fccool]

Ps 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." That is why Paul says, we "... were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." Eph 2:3 ESV.

[fccool]

In fact, that's the reason that Catholic baptize infants! Because they are "full of sin" when they are born and need salvation. The doctrine in itself is a Catholic doctrine, because it gives the institution of the church tremendous power over people.

Such is the case with Revelation 13 passage. NLV specifically footnotes :

Quote:

Or written from the creation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain

It does not reffer that Jesus was slain from the foundation. The writing (planning and foreseeing) was from the foundation. The Lamb was obviously not slain then. NAT translates it the same way.

[pnattmbtc]

Well, I guess the blood means something after all.

Of course it means something. Blood represents life.

[pnattmbtc]

Redemption does not start with sacrifice. It starts with REPENTANCE.

[pnattmbtc]

Jesus Death is a symbol of God's forgiveness. A sign that he is willing to atone (reconcile with us)... not through violence, but through life and love.

[pnattmbtc]

Ah, but that is the mystery of sin. It is not a substance or a chemical as we commonly think of, but yet its infectious, it is just as corrosive as any acid you could think of.

How does it infect? Isn't it by the mind? That is, sin is passed from mind to mind. Hence the solution is "the mind of Christ." The principle of sin ("me first") needs to be replaced by the principle of agape. How does this happen? This is what the atonement, and sacrifice (and new birth, etc.) is all about.

[fccool]

Quote:

Is it not the sacrifice of God through Jesus Christ? Paul tells us that the goodness of God leads us to repentance. Nowhere do we see that goodness revealed so clearly as in the sacrifice of Christ

I certainly don't want to make it seem like this is not the case. It's true in more than one way

1) God gives us life

2) God give us his word

3) God gives us (who don't have the Bible) conscience that knows right from wrong. You don't have to teach people that murder is wrong, and that theft of personal possessions is wrong. It's embedded in our moral being. He also gives us evidence in creation that manifests His loving character... thus we have no excuse.

4) On top of it all, He gives us grace and time to repent. He does not come down on us every time we sin, break the Sabbath, sleep around (all of these were death sentences in OT).

5) He gives us His son who demonstrated perfection in human form, and the ideology of non-violence, love and forgiveness that through Him (not merely through His death) we have eternal life.

I think that the present idea of atonement kind of splits God in half. Half is vengeful, the other half is merciful. So, we tend to think that Jesus is more relatable, because He is gentle and friendly, unlike the Father. That's not the case. Both, the Father and the Son embody mercy and patience. They let men choose death if they desire so, as was the case in the garden of Eden.

I think the question that kind of surrogate with the topic would be... What happens in heaven? Why won't we sin? Is it because we are incapable, or because of lack of temptation and fullness of knowledge?

The current doctrine of atonement equates or "sin nature" to hunger. I.E. We eat because we are hungry, and Christ gives us power to resist hunger so to speak. I don't think it's an accurate way to portray sin... as a natural condition, rather than a mental choice.

Likewise, I don't ever want to minimize the work of the Spirit that in effect gives us additional insight into right and wrong.

But eventually, people think that it's all about sitting back and letting God take over. When I ask what they mean by that... they are stumped. It's a theological double-speak. God works through us. He can choose to magically materialize food on the table of the hungry, but instead he sends us to do that. That goes for many things, including sharing the Gospel.

We work as God enables us to do so through "renewal of our mind" as you have pointed out.