Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[Gerr]

Quote:

Only if sin is innocuous.

Which it is not.

Quote:

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.

It can be argued either way from Scripture that the results of sin is either a natural consequence or a penalty. Perhaps it's like the legal-relational aspects of the plan of salvation, that it's both?

Quote:

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

And no remedy would be needed unless there are penalties involved.

[Gerr]

Quote:

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?

See my reply to pnat. Sin is not just hurting oneself or committing suicide. We pity people who commit suicide. It's one thing for a person to jump off a high building, it's another matter to push or pull or hurt another human being along with him.

[fccool]

Would you demand death for those who unknowingly hurt you?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

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

There was a deeper underlying subtext, but I only remember vaguely what it was.

I'll think about it some, and if it comes back, I'll mention it.

[pnattmbtc]

p:Only if sin is innocuous.

G:Which it is not.

[karl]

It is vital how we view God's dealing with the sin problem. If we see Him as just getting us off the legal hook (because the problem is a legal one and transgression registered on the books is the issue,) that will produce a very shallow theology. If we see Him as changing us from the inside out because our characters are the problem, that will produce a deep theology and a heartfelt need for repentance, reconciliation, submission, reformation, and total transformation.

[teresaq]

ive appreciated some of your insights, this one included...tho we may disagree in other areas.

i agree wholeheartedly! it is our heart that needs changing whether there was a heaven or not...life would be much better for ourselves if we give up our self- and other-destructive thinking.

[pnattmbtc]

It is vital how we view God's dealing with the sin problem. If we see Him as just getting us off the legal hook (because the problem is a legal one and transgression registered on the books is the issue,) that will produce a very shallow theology. If we see Him as changing us from the inside out because our characters are the problem, that will produce a deep theology and a heartfelt need for repentance, reconciliation, submission, reformation, and total transformation.

Well stated.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

I would be interested where you might find biblical evidence of one iota of self-pleasuring as being a gift of God.

[color:blue]

Everyone also to whom God has given wealth and possessions and power to enjoy them, and to accept his lot and rejoice in his toil—this is the gift of God. Eccl 5:19 ESV.

Good research, Gerry. I didn't seem to find sexual stimulation among those referred.

Joy!!

[LifeHiscost]

This was a dream. God didn't actually ask Peter to eat unclean meat.

Implied assumption. I would have to also assume when Peter said he had never eaten anything unclean, that God responded by saying, "I didn't ask you to eat anything unclean. This is what I meant."

Joy!!

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

This was a dream. God didn't actually ask Peter to eat unclean meat.

Implied assumption. I would have to also assume when Peter said he had never eaten anything unclean, that God responded by saying, "I didn't ask you to eat anything unclean. This is what I meant."

[Gerr]

Quote:

Good research, Gerry. I didn't seem to find sexual stimulation among those referred.

Joy!!

I did not know you meant masturbation. I thought you meant pleasing oneself in general.

[LifeHiscost]

This is hardly proof that God wants us to do things which are morally wrong.

When God moves or speaks in directions contrary to the consistent record revealing His character of love, it is always so men can easier see what is wrong in their own character. Just as the prophet Nathan told King David the story of a rich man who took a common man's only pet ewe and turned it into stew, rather than take one of his own flock, the righteous indignation it elicited in David against the man in the story would never have been forthcoming had Nathan been upfront with all the truthful information available. Just so, the dream of Peter to kill and eat that which had been to Peter always taboo before, was a direct command by God, not to get Peter to do that which he knew was wrong, but to help him shed some misconceptions about his bigotry toward those of another ethnicity, a position he would have found difficult to accept if God had come right out and told him to get over his bigotry.

Self justification is almost always our first defense when our greatest weakness is thrown in our face. God asks what appears to be the absurd so we can arrive at the Truth without putting up walls of self-justification that separates us from His love for us.

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

1 Corinthians 1:25 NKJV

Joy!

[Gerr]

Well said.

[Robert]

Where is the evidence?

[Robert]

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us..." Gal 3:13 ESV

Read the whole context:

10 For all who rely on the works of the law [their law-keeping] are under a curse, because it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue doing everything written in the book of the law.

If you rely on your law performance for your ticket to heaven you are placing yourself "under law" and under its jurisdiction the law expects perfection - that is - living the selfless life of Christ. What is that? "Jesus...thought not, planned not, lived not, for himself."

11 Now it is clear that no one is just [righteous] before God by the law, instead the just, by faith, will live.

To get life by law you must live Christ's life. To get life through grace you must accept your position "in Christ" by faith.

12 But the law is not based on faith; instead, the one who does these things will by them live.

The law doesn't accept good intentions. The law requires perfection in order to live. If you want heaven by law you must live Christ's life from the cradle to the grave.

13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, because it is written: Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.

Christ, as the 2nd Adam, experienced the 2nd death because God abandoned Him. This is the wages of sin.

14 The purpose was that the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, so that we could receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15 Brothers, I'm using a human illustration. No one sets aside even a human covenant that has been ratified, or makes additions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say "and to seeds," as though referring to many, but and to your seed, referring to one, who is Christ.

17 And I say this: the law, which came 430 years later, does not revoke a covenant that was previously ratified by God, so as to cancel the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is from the law, it is no longer from the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise.

[pnattmbtc]

"We turn now to a passage that uses both 'sacrifice' and 'atonement.' A summary and climax of the first three chapters of Romans, it is dense, packed with a load of freight. We(everybody, as the context of the text makes clear):

Quote:

are justified by God's grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. (Rom. 3:24-25)

One of the foundational texts of the Protestant Reformation, it is about justification by grace through faith...

We come to the phrase 'a sacrifice of atonement by his blood.' If it does not mean substitutionary atonement, what does it mean? Did Jesus sacrifice his life? Yes. He was willing to be crucified (the words 'by his blood' point to execution) because of his passion--his passion for God and for a different kind of world,, the world referred to in the gospels as the kingdom of God...

Paul's language of Jesus dying for others and as a sacrifice reveals both the love of Christ and the love of God--the character and passion of both. Christ's love and passion let do the cross--and in that we see both his love and the love of God....

Within this framework, the cross is a revelation of divine generosity....God's grace freely available to all.

We are not in a position to see why substitutionary sacrifice is not only bad history and bad anthropology, but also bad theology. What does it say about God's nature or character--about what God is like? At its heart is the notion that God is a lawgiver and judge who demands payment for sin. It emphasizes God's wrath. God's wrath needs to be appeased, placated, satisfied--choose another verb if you wish, but the need is the same. It suggests that God required the death of Jesus, that it was God's will, God's plan, that Jesus be killed.

Ponder what all of this suggests about the character of God, what God is like. Strict parent? Demanding monarch? It turns the message of divine generosity, of grace, of God's character as love, on its head. It is difficult--we would say impossible--to reconcile substituationary atonement with Paul's ways of speaking about God as known to him in Jesus, his crucified and risen Lord." ("The First Paul" by Borg and Crossan;emphasis original)

[Nic Samojluk]

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!"

The text you quoted does not negate what I stated. This is illustrated by the parable of the two debtors. The first one was forgiven a great sum of money. He turned around and demanded the payment of a small sum of money from one of his debtors and placed him in jail. By doing this he negated the true meaning and purpose of the forgiveness he had been granted.

The result was that the original creditor who had forgiven him the debt was forced to cancel the gift and put the man in jail. This means that the forgiveness was contingent on his treatment of others. This concept was reinforced by Jesus who taught us to pray: “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.”

If we apply this concept to the atonement we discover that we are offered eternal life as a gift and as long as we comply with the condition and treat others the way God had treated us, then there is no demand for the payment of the debt.

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

The penalty is imposed only if we fail to understand the true objective of forgiveness. Read my previous response to you. The penalty was imposed on the original debtor because he failed to treat others the way he had been treated when his great debt was freely forgiven.

The Lord taught us to include in our prayers the following condition for forgiveness: "Forgive us our debts the way we forgive our debtors." If we forgive our debtors the way we have been forgiven, there will be no demand for the payment of the debt.

[Nic Samojluk]

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

[karl]

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.

That is exactly what is being preached from pulpits around the world by substitutionary theologians. They preach there is no penalty for sin because Jesus took care of the penalty.

You have brought up one of the biggest holes in forensic theology. If Christ's death, apart from anything we do, takes care of the sin debt WHY DOESN'T IT TAKE CARE OF THE SIN DEBT FOR SATAN? Didn't Jesus pay a big enough price?

[Nic Samojluk]

It the natural consequence of sin is death, it's unnecessary and redundant to say there's a legal penalty attached to it, as well as clouding the issue. It would be like saying there's a legal penalty of death for those who jump off buildings. What would that even mean?

Your comment makes a lot of sense to me. It would be equivalent to saying: “There should be a death penalty for those who commit suicide.”

[Nic Samojluk]

It is vital how we view God's dealing with the sin problem. If we see Him as just getting us off the legal hook (because the problem is a legal one and transgression registered on the books is the issue,) that will produce a very shallow theology. If we see Him as changing us from the inside out because our characters are the problem, that will produce a deep theology and a heartfelt need for repentance, reconciliation, submission, reformation, and total transformation.

Yes, indeed! The parable of the two debtors illustrates this quite clearly. The first debtor was firgiven his enormous debt, but there was an unspecified condition. He was expected to treat others the way he had been treated. When he failed in doing this, the forgiveness was cancelled and he was placed in jail and the requirement that he pay his debt was reinstated.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

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.

That is exactly what is being preached from pulpits around the world by substitutionary theologians. They preach there is no penalty for sin because Jesus took care of the penalty.

You have brought up one of the biggest holes in forensic theology. If Christ's death, apart from anything we do, takes care of the sin debt WHY DOESN'T IT TAKE CARE OF THE SIN DEBT FOR SATAN? Didn't Jesus pay a big enough price?

Good question!

[Gerr]

Let me rephrase the question.

How can a loving Judge uphold the law that demands the life of the transgressor? If He does not enforce the law , he has just invalidated it. Anarchy!!! If the Judge allows the transgressor to go scot free without penalties on ANYONE'S part, then He must also let Satan back in. What does that say about the character of the Judge?