Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. (Matt. 5:38-45)

True indeed! The concept of grace destroys the idea that debts must be paid. Eternal life and salvation are treated in the New Testament as gifts. No one offering a gift demands payment for it. Demanding a payment for a gift would destroy the true meaning of what gift is.

[Nic Samojluk]

No law exists of itself, but is the extension of the will and mind of its creator. To say that the law demands something is to say that God demands something. You can't separate the two. It doesn't make any sense. It would be making God beholden to some concept which He Himself invented as if it were a separate entity from Himself.

You can't say that the sacrifice of Christ was not to satisfy God, but simply to satisfy the demands of the law, because the demands of the law are the demands of God. If the law demands satisfaction before God can forgive, then God demands satisfaction before we can forgive. But if we accept the principle that Jesus Christ was the revelation of the Father, everything about Christ's life and teachings demonstrated in the clearest way the exact opposite of this idea. NOT "eye for eye" but "turn the other cheek." NOT satisfaction, but forgiveness. *This* is what divine justice is.

Great comments and excellent reasoning. The notion that God’s justice demanded that an innocent party provide the payment for a debt makes no legal sense. Punishing the innocent for the crime of the guilty compounds the injustice instead of solving the legal problem.

When the Prodigal Son came back home, the father did not demand that his brother be killed before he could forgive his wayward but repentant son. The father did not say:

“Wait, before we celebrate, we need to satisfy the demands of justice. Where is my other son? We must kill him and then I will have the authority to forgive you your sins.”

Such a concept tends to destroy the notion of unmerited grace which is offered to us a a gift. No one requires a payment for a true gift.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

This is what the LORD Almighty says: "Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another."(Zech.7:9)

True justice, divine justice, is administered by means of mercy and compassion, not the insistence of paying debts.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Ver. 13. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.”82

In reality, the people were subject to another curse, which says, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in the things that are written in the book of the Law.” (Deut. xxvii: 26) To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” As then both he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took opon Him such another, and thereby relieved us from the curse. It was like an innocent man’s undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, “He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth.” (Isa. liii: 9; 1 Peter ii: 22) And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it.Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. XIII. Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. (27). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

Was Chrysostom wrong?

First of all, thank you for your response! I appreciate the opportunity to delve into this further. I've not studied the primary sources myself, but have relied on other scholars who have, so welcome the opportunity to learn.

My understanding on what Chrysostom wrote is that his point was that Christ exchanged one curse for another. Our curse was that of not continuing in all things written in the law. Christ's curse was to hang on a tree. Chrysostom said that Christ exchanges this second curse for the first, and this was like an innocent person undertaking to die for another who is sentenced to death. I'd have to think about it some more, but my first reaction to this is that he is right, his idea is rather like that.

However, he didn't express the penal substitution idea, which is that we deserved to be punished by God for our sins, but Jesus paid the price, so that God was legally entitled to forgive us.

Quote:

But this understanding is less than a thousand years old. It first appeared in 1097 in a theological treatise by Anselm of Canterbury. Its Latin title, "Cur Deus Homo?" which means "Why did God Become Human?" states its purpose. Why did God need to become incarnate in Jesus? Anselm answers his questions with the following argument:

Because of our disobedience to God, we are all sinners.

Forgiveness requires that compensation be made. For God to forgive sin without payment would imply that sin doesn't matter very much to God. The price of our disobedience must be paid...

The problem is not with Anselm's argument--its logic is impeccable. The problem is that it is not what Paul meant when he made "Christ crucified" central to the gospel. Substitutionary sacrifice was foreign to his thought....

It is bad history because it projects back onto Paul an understanding of the death of Jesus that did not exist in his time. (First Paul p.128-129; Borg and Crossan)

Borg is a Lutheran, and Crossan a Catholic, so they do not have a bone to pick as an Eastern Orthdox (EO) writer would. That is, that they admit to the lack of historicity in the penal substitution idea, although its central to the thought of their respective churches, gives them more credibility, as they are not simply defending the position of their own church, as an Eastern Orthodox writer would be.

We see several points being made:

1.This understanding (penal substitution) is less than a thousand years old.

2.It projects back onto Paul an understanding of the death of Jesus that did not exist in his time.

Regarding EO thought:

Quote:

While a substitutionary aspect of the Atonement is not foreign to Orthodoxy, a satisfactionary aspect is. Doctrinally this model can not be traced back prior to Anselm's publication of Cur Deus Homo in 1097 AD, yet it is the predominant underlying understanding of the Atonement for both Protestants and Catholics. Substitution can be found to some degree in the writings of the Church Fathers, but Satisfaction can not. Furthermore, the early Church Fathers almost overwhelming held to what you might call the Christus Victor model. This is an important point because the two models have fundamentally opposing understandings of who God is in His nature and of what the Atonement accomplished.(don't know who this is)

Now it's an undeniable fact that penal substitution is not a part of EO thought. What is the reason for this? There has to be some reason. The reason they themselves give is that this thought was not taught by the Early Fathers, but by Anselm, who wrote this after they split from the RC church. This reason makes sense in terms of logically being able to explain why penal substitution isn't a part of their thought. Indeed, it's hard to think of another explanation.

[pnattmbtc]

I see in Scripture TWO kinds of justice advocated. 1) Civil justice which is mainly retributive. You can find this in Dt 19:15-21 - the lex talionis. 2) Personal justice - go the second mile, turn the other cheek. This IS restorative. "Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should RESTORE him in a spirit of gentleness." Gal 6:1 ESV.

We would have chaos if civil gov'ts practiced #2. Those who have no scruples would take whatever they want and do whatever they want without fear of RETRIBUTION. Therefore civil gov'ts have to dispense justice/punishment that fit the crime.

[pnattmbtc]

Of course, he has BOTH problems!!! He broke the law - the legal aspect. He also broke a heart - the relational one. Yes, man was deceived, but A&E were not totally ignorant of God's character. Lucifer had the same two problems. You cannot fix one without fixing the other. Can you fix the relational aspect while the guilty party CONTINUES to flout the law? And can you make anyone obey the law without fixing the relational part? Impossible!

I agree you can't fix one without fixing the other. This means that fixing the relational problem fixes the legal one. So fixing the relation problem is sufficient.

This is what I've been saying.

How is the relational problem solved? Answering this question explains how the legal problem is solved since, as you correctly point out, you can't fix the one without fixing the other.

[Nic Samojluk]

Had Peter proceeded to kill and eat, I believe God would have probably stopped him as He did when He held up Abraham's hand that was about to descend on his son with a knife. God gave Abraham what seemed like a heinous command. It was not consistent with His previously revealed will. But He had an object lesson in mind, just as He did with Peter.

Well said! Most Christians interpret this incident to mean that there was a legal need for Jesus to die for the sins of the world. I see it differently. For me it means that there was no need for a sacrifice. Killing the innocent to satisfy the criminal act of the guilty makes no legal sense, it rather compounds the inequity created by the criminal act.

If a child is abducted, sexually violated, and killed. It would make no legal sense to say: “We need to kill another innocent child to make things right.” Every time God’s chosen nation got enslaved by their enemies, God sent a savior to free them from their enemies. The people repented of their sins, listened to the message of the one sent by God to free them, and they succeeded in defeating the ones who had enslaved them.

This was true about Moses, Gideon, Samson, King David and so on. God sent his own Son for the same reason: to save them from their sins and from their enemies. Had the Jewish leaders accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah and rightful King, the story of liberation from their enemies would have been repeated. To suggest that God sent Jesus because he wanted him killed is to misrepresent the true intent of the Lord.

God did not alter his merciful plan for his chosen nation. He wanted to free them from their enemies, but the condition of repentance could not be overlooked. Such a requirement had always been in force before God could free them from their enemies. When the Jewish leaders refused to repent, this led them to kill the one sent to free them both from sin and from their enemies.

[Gerr]

quote]

True indeed! The concept of grace destroys the idea that debts must be paid. Eternal life and salvation are treated in the New Testament as gifts. No one offering a gift demands payment for it. Demanding a payment for a gift would destroy the true meaning of what gift is.

Absolutely not!!! "Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means!". "Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!" "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith [or by this mercy? Or by this forgiveness?] By no means! On the contrary, WE UPHOLD THE LAW!"

[pnattmbtc]

Thanks for all these texts from the Bible and your timely comments which illustrate what God requires. Not the payment of debts, but rather the display of mercy.

Thank you for your comments. Thanks to Gerry as well for his contributions. I hope we can have a nice discussion. There's much to learn, regardless of our viewpoint.

[Gerr]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

How can God be merciful and still uphold His law?

If there is NO PENALTY for sin, then ALL SINNERS including Satan & his followers go scot free.

[Nic Samojluk]

Nic, please, if you want to discuss this, open up a topic. Please remain silent on this. As I've been pointing out, you're simply hurting your own cause by these sorts of comments. You're speaking about things you don't know about. If you open another topic, we can discuss this.

There is a lot I admire you for, but not for insisting that I keep silent on this. I do have a right to respond to your comments. There are certain things which need to be said publicly. A good example is when Paul publicly reprimanded Peter. I was reprimanded for quoting Ellen White in support of my personal view of the atonement. I have the right to quote Ellen White because I believe that she was used by the Lord to build his church.

I also believe that she was wrong in making us believe, and in allowing her husband to make us believe that she was not dependent on human sources for what she was writing. This was wrong and it must be publicly admitted if we want people to grant us some credibility.

The Lord did not sanitize the Bible for us. We have the dreadful accounts of crimes and immorality in the book of Judges, and we have the faults of God’s men recorded for posterity together with their virtues. I do not reject the inspiration of King David in spite of his crime. I do not reject the inspiration of Ellen White in spite of her denial of dependency of other authors.

I have no interest in opening another thread on this. I mentioned what I said in passing because someone objected to my use of Ellen White. I had the right to do this and this would have been the end to this were in not by the fact that you disagreed with me and wanted to prevent me from responding.

I am glad we seem to agree on the atonement, and I wish we would agree on this side issue as well, but it seems that this is not the case. Each one is entitled to his views.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic

Perhaps you have not taken the time to examine all the evidence which is available today regarding this issue. You would do well to take the time to do this. I have no desire to delve again into this. I have done my assignment already and feel no need to persuade you about your ignorance of the facts of the case.

As to who is being ignorant on this subject, is easy to see by looking at what's being said. Once again, if you wish to open up a topic to discuss this, I'd be happy to do so with you. I'm sure John would be also. Please don't discuss it here.

You have some interesting thoughts on the atonement I'd like to hear more about. Please don't allow yourself to become sidetracked.

Who is to blame for this side issue? Me or the one who reprimanded me for my quoting Ellen White in defense of my view of the atonement? I believe that I have the same right to use the writings os Ellen White as anybody else.

I consider her to be an authority in spite of her dependance on other sourcess. What is wrong with this? Likewise, I do have the right to quote the Psalms in spite of David's crime.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Do not forget that Ellen White also said:

God never commands us to do anything which we cannot do when empowered by his words. The same power which brought the universe and everything in it into existence is at our disposal when we have the will to obey his commands.

You are confusing OC commands with our ticket to heaven....

Can you elaborate! My understanding is that our ticket to heaven is a gift, and that God's power connected with our ability to do what the Lord commands is also a gift. Do you disagree with this?

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Great answer. I love it!

Bad answer....Easily disproved.

Where is the evidence?

[Nic Samojluk]

Another interesting point is that many appear to conceive of the law as if it were a separate entity which existed of itself. It's as if God doesn't want to punish Christ so we can go free, but the big, bad law makes Him do it. This is not recognizing that the law simply represents the will and mind of God.

Yes, indeed! Excellent comment!

[fccool]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

How can God be merciful and still uphold His law?

If there is NO PENALTY for sin, then ALL SINNERS including Satan & his followers go scot free.

Gerry,

What is the penalty for trying to defy gravity by jumping from the skyscraper claiming that "humans can't fly" is not true? Do you get off scot free?

[Nic Samojluk]

Most presentations I've heard, and taught to hand out do not start with "All have sinned". The start with Adam sinned ...

The ones that did not involved unreasonable logic like:

1) Have you ever stole anything?

- Yes....?

What does that make you?

- I don't know...

It makes you a thief...

Have you ever lied?

- Yes....?

What does it make you?

- A liar?

You are catching on fast

Basically, one would be ascribed a certain lifestyle of unrighteousness based on few bad decisions. Do you believe God does that to us?

PS. I don't dispute the need for God's direction, but merely the logic that underlines the above "witnessing technique"

Excellent reasoning! Thanks!

[Nic Samojluk]

The scriptural idea of justice is not one of retributive justice which is at odds with mercy, causing God a conflict which must be met by His killing His son, but one of restorative justice which is manifest by mercy and compassion. Christ made this abundantly clear by His life and teachings. What did He teach we should do when wronged? Insist upon a debt being paid? No. He taught that we should freely forgive. He taught our forgiveness should be like that which we have received. How did Christ forgive? He forgave freely. We see this clearly with the paralytic and the woman caught in adultery. He didn't insist that a debt be paid, but freely forgave.

Another great posting! By the way, I wish you would choose another easier to remember pseudonym. Every time I have to spell your adopted name I have to make an effort to spell it right!

[Gerr]

Quote:

The justice of the OT was restorative, not retributive. The idea was to restore the covenant community to a state of shalom. Remedies were sought to bring this about. The thought was not primarily to punish the offender, but to bring restoration to the community; to make right that which has been made wrong.

There is nothing restorative about the law of the talion. However, you are correct that there was as attempt to restore shalom in the community. Nevertheless, there was the threat of excommunication (penalty) from the congregation of Israel for the incorrigible, just as there was in the NT church.

Quote:

We may conclude, based on Amos’s teaching—and the rest of the Bible’s—that genuine justice serves life. God’s justice in the Old Testament centers not primarily on retribution but on salvation. God’s justice does not punish so much as correct. The justice of God saves, manifesting God’s fidelity to the role as the Lord of the covenant. God created the earth and its inhabitants for harmonious relationships. God continually acts, even in the midst of human rebellion, to encourage those relationships.

The Old Testament does not treat justice primarily as a legal concept. Justice tends to merge with “steadfast love,” “compassion,” “kindness,” and “salvation.” Justice has to do with how a loving creator has made the world. To be just means to live according to the creator’s will, to be in harmony with God, with fellow human beings, and with the rest of creation—and not to rest until everyone else also finds such harmony.

That's why we can't separate the legal from the relational aspect of the Plan of Salvation.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Gerry,

What is the penalty for trying to defy gravity by jumping from the skyscraper claiming that "humans can't fly" is not true? Do you get off scot free?

The penalty is - he would get splattered on the ground. If there is no penalty for jumping off, there would be no injury.

[pnattmbtc]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

How can God be merciful and still uphold His law?

If there is NO PENALTY for sin, then ALL SINNERS including Satan & his followers go scot free.

Only if sin is innocuous.

That is, if there is no natural consequence to sin (it's like parking in the wrong spot, punishable by a fine), then if there were no penalty, one could sin and get off. However, if it's like running a red light (very dangerous; you might hit someone or get hit), then one wouldn't get off scot free, even if there wasn't a legal penalty. The legal penalty serves as a deterrent to avoid the other more serious penalty.

The only way God can uphold His law is by providing a remedy for sin.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

There is a lot I admire you for, but not for insisting that I keep silent on this. I do have a right to respond to your comments.

Sure, you can respond, but if you're going to make negative comments about Ellen White, please do so on another thread.

Quote:

I was reprimanded for quoting Ellen White in support of my personal view of the atonement. I have the right to quote Ellen White because I believe that she was used by the Lord to build his church.

This is because you made negative comments about her, which you shouldn't have done. It weakened your case. You should be able to see why. If someone says something negative about X, and then quotes X, one looks like a hypocrite, selectively quoting. Especially in regards to a figure who is recognized by the church to be a prophet. You can't expect to selectively quote from Ellen White and not be reprimanded for it.

Quote:

I do not reject the inspiration of Ellen White in spite of her denial of dependency of other authors.

I'm glad to hear this. Perhaps you've been misunderstood. I apologize if I misunderstood you. It sounds like I may have. If all you're saying is that Ellen White borrowed from other sources, that's no problem. However, the extent of the borrowing has been hugely overblown, as the study by David Conklin shows. There have been accusations that have been a tempest in a tea cup.

Let me reiterate my apology if you're accepting Ellen White as an inspired prophet, and I've misunderstood what you were wanting to say.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Another great posting! By the way, I wish you would choose another easier to remember pseudonym. Every time I have to spell your adopted name I have to make an effort to spell it right!

Sorry about that! Some right "pnat" for short. By the way, it comes from "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." (from The Wizard of Oz).

[fccool]

Quote:

The penalty is - he would get splattered on the ground. If there is no penalty for jumping off, there would be no injury.

Jumping off > crime

splattering > natural consequense

sin > crime

death > natural consequese

Would you agree that if left to our own devices of rejecting God... all of human race would eventually die off as a natural consequence?

[fccool]

Quote:

Sorry about that! Some right "pnat" for short. By the way, it comes from "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

Any deeper underlying subtext? Or do you use it arbitrarily. I'm just curious.