Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[pnattmbtc]

Your explanation makes a lot of sense to me!

Thank you. I've thought a lot about it. It's difficult to change paradigms and communicate the ideas clearly to those who have other paradigms. It's also a challenge to try to figure out what's really going on.

I don't claim to have it all figured out (obviously not; since it's a subject to be studied for eternity, what could we have here, but the smallest sliver of understanding) but it's something I've thought a lot about.

[teresaq]

what difference do you see between satan and us, that Christ had to die for us, but not for satan?

[pnattmbtc]

p:The poison causes the death. Sin is the poison which causes are death.

G:So if death is JUST the NATURAL result of sin/poison without ANY further penalties, the more poison I take, i.e. the more I sin, the quicker I should die? Therefore, Satan should perish the quickest?

[Gerr]

Have you seen Kevin Morgan's work regarding the copying?

I think the extent of copying, imo, is exaggerated. If a teacher were to show a picture and ask students to describe what they saw, there would be a lot of similar words & phrases used. An outsider reading the compositions may see the similar words and phrases used in common. Wouldn't that then be interpreted as the students copying one another?

Did Mark or Luke or Matthew copy one another's work?

[Gerr]

what difference do you see between satan and us, that Christ had to die for us, but not for satan?

I have been wrestling with that question for quite sometime. There are some indications to believe that Lucifer COULD have repented and reinstated. What would have God done for atonement? I don't know. But there is no question in my mind from Scripture that Christ's death was a predestined event.

[pnattmbtc]

t:all satan had to do was repent...

G:If that is ALL that sinners have to do to be forgiven/reconciled, why then did Jesus have to die?

[Gerr]

Quote:

Your reasoning takes as an unstated premise that if a person cannot force another person to sin, then they have no culpability if the person they are trying to induce to sin actually does sin. I reject your premise. I don't think your premise makes any sense, and doubt that you yourself believe your premise.

On the contrary, if you read go over my posts again, I am argueing FOR culpability. Hence my quoting Mt 18:6. That if death is merely the natural consequence of one's own sin, then there should not be any additional accountabilty for what we do to others, i.e. punishment, hence the penal aspect of atonement.

Quote:

And there is NO retribution in God's justice system? So then, Christ's death was not absolutely necessary after all? A charade?

This was addressed to someone else, but I'll comment, as it demonstrates a problem, which is the assumption that the only reason Christ's death was absolutely necessary is penal substitution. You assent to the idea that there are many models, all of them displaying truths, but the truth of the thinking that its penal substitution which is driving everything comes out when you make statements like this.

If the argument that:

1)There is no retribution if God's justice system

implies

2)Christ's death was a charade. Christ's death was not absolutely necessary.

then it follows that Christ would not have had to die except for penal substitution. That makes all the other reasons that Christ dies simply "nice to haves."

Suppose that the inevitable result of sin really is death. If this is true, how could one become aware of this fact without its being demonstrated?

Except for a chosen few, did not everyone else die that demonstrated the fact of death? I am open to explanations as to why Jesus had to die that are better than what I have come up with. Theories telling me that He didn't have to still begs the question because He DID die!

[pnattmbtc]

p:Your reasoning takes as an unstated premise that if a person cannot force another person to sin, then they have no culpability if the person they are trying to induce to sin actually does sin. I reject your premise. I don't think your premise makes any sense, and doubt that you yourself believe your premise.

G:On the contrary, if you read go over my posts again, I am argueing FOR culpability. Hence my quoting Mt 18:6. That if death is merely the natural consequence of one's own sin, then there should not be any additional accountabilty for what we do to others, i.e. punishment, hence the penal aspect of atonement.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

what difference do you see between satan and us, that Christ had to die for us, but not for satan?

I have been wrestling with that question for quite sometime. There are some indications to believe that Lucifer COULD have repented and reinstated. What would have God done for atonement? I don't know. But there is no question in my mind from Scripture that Christ's death was a predestined event.

then perhaps this is where we need to study more-not saying i know anything by that statement...

just thoughts, not conclusions...

when adam sinned our natures were changed...satans nature may not have been changed til he made the final decision-then he was incapable of doing good, but by choice.

[teresaq]

Except for a chosen few, did not everyone else die that demonstrated the fact of death? I am open to explanations as to why Jesus had to die that are better than what I have come up with. Theories telling me that He didn't have to still begs the question because He DID die!

i cant say i understand how Christs death could be substituted for mine, but how else could He resurrect Himself if He didnt die? and if He couldnt resurrect Himself, how could we, then, ever be resurrected? on what grounds?

[John317]

Except for a chosen few, did not everyone else die that demonstrated the fact of death? I am open to explanations as to why Jesus had to die that are better than what I have come up with. Theories telling me that He didn't have to still begs the question because He DID die!

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

[i cant say i understand how Christs death could be substituted for mine, but how else could He resurrect Himself if He didnt die? and if He couldnt resurrect Himself, how could we, then, ever be resurrected? on what grounds?

Romans 3:21-26

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; [22] Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: [23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; [24] Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: [25] Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; [26] To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

NOTE: God could not forgive us and declare us justified, or right, without the "the propitiation [or mercy seat] through faith in Christ's bood." If God had forgiven us our sins without Christ's death, God would not have been righteous or just.

Romans 5:9

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

NOTE: We are put in right relationship with God by the blood of Jesus Christ. The bood signifies the infinite life [price] that God paid in order to forgive humanity for disobeying Him.

Ephes. 1:7

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Conclusion: If there had been no blood, or death of Christ, there would have been no redemption, justification, or salvation. His death proves that God's law and government is immutable. It proves Satan's charges wrong. A necessary part of this proof is that Christ lived a righteous life in human flesh, condemning sin in the flesh. God is proved to be just and can at the same time forgive sinners. Without Christ's death--shedding of his blood-- God could not have done that without causing total moral chaos throughout the universe.

[pnattmbtc]

T:what difference do you see between satan and us, that Christ had to die for us, but not for satan?

G:I have been wrestling with that question for quite sometime. There are some indications to believe that Lucifer COULD have repented and reinstated. What would have God done for atonement?

[Gerr]

Quote:

This looks to be assuming that "atonement" means "payment" as opposed to "at-one-ment."

And are you assuming that the two are mutually exclusive?

Quote:

I don't know. But there is no question in my mind from Scripture that Christ's death was a predestined event.

No, it couldn't have been predestined. Why? Because sin wasn't predestined.

Christ's death was a contingent event:

The plan to save man should he sin was made in eternity past. Once the sin became a reality, the plan was put into operation in which He was predestined to die.

Quote:

Before the need exists, the remedy is ready, but it isn't activated unless/until it's needed.

But whyt did the remedy require a sacrificial death?

[Gerr]

Quote:

The life of Christ was not the price paid to the Father for our pardon; but that life was the price which the Father paid to so manifest his loving power as to bring us to that repentant attitude of mind where he could pardon us freely.(Fifield, "God is Love")

And paid to whom?

Quote:

Regarding Satan, we are told that God offered him pardon again and again. So clearly Christ's death is not necessary in order to enable God to pardon. *We* are the ones who need the death of Christ, as the above quotes explain.

And so as Teresaq asked: What's the difference between Lucifer and us? No sacrifice needed for him had he repented, but that we need it? Why?

[John317]

what difference do you see between satan and us, that Christ had to die for us, but not for satan?

Christ's death would not have done Satan any good. Satan wouldn't have changed as a result of the death of Christ.

There was nothing God could teach or show Satan that He hadn't known before.

Also, Christ did not need to die for Lucifer to be forgiven at that point because as Lucifer he had not yet fully cast off his allegience to God. There were also many angels who once sided with Lucifer but who ultimately became loyal angels of God, and Christ didn't have to die for them in order for them to be reinstated. The reason is that they didn't become settled into rebellion against God.

However, after Lucifer completely cast off his allegience to God, and had thus become Satan, God could do nothing more for him, and at that point, he was totally lost. There was nothing more God could show him that would change his mind or character. See PP 39, 40.

It was a totally different situation with Adam and Eve. They were given a test, which, when they failed, changed their allegience immediately and permenantly. When they sinned, their natures were changed, and they were immediately in complete rebellion against God. To forgive them at that point, without the death of Christ, would have brought moral chaos to the whole universe. This is the message of Romans 3: 21-26. Christ's death demonstrated, or proved, God's righteousness, so that God might be just and at the same time justify, or save, all who put their faith in Jesus.

[pnattmbtc]

p:This looks to be assuming that "atonement" means "payment" as opposed to "at-one-ment."

Gerry:And are you assuming that the two are mutually exclusive?

[pnattmbtc]

Fifield:The life of Christ was not the price paid to the Father for our pardon; but that life was the price which the Father paid to so manifest his loving power as to bring us to that repentant attitude of mind where he could pardon us freely.(Fifield, "God is Love")

G:And paid to whom?

[pnattmbtc]

t:what difference do you see between satan and us, that Christ had to die for us, but not for satan?

J:Christ's death would not have done Satan any good. Satan wouldn't have changed as a result of the death of Christ.

[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)

_________________________

Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.

[karl]

Quote:

The life of Christ was not the price paid to the Father for our pardon; but that life was the price which the Father paid to so manifest his loving power as to bring us to that repentant attitude of mind where he could pardon us freely.(Fifield, "God is Love")

And paid to whom?

For ye are not your OWN. Ye are bought with a price.

[Gerr]

Quote:

For ye are not your OWN. Ye are bought with a price.

And WHO RECEIVED the payment?

[Stan]

that was good one Gerry....

[pnattmbtc]

The "payment" was a sacrifice, for our benefit. We were the ones who needed the sacrifice.

The sacrifice includes not just the death of Christ, but all of Christ. God so loved the world that He gave His Son. God gave us the gift of His Son, whose whole life was a life of sacrifice, given to the world, because this is what we needed.

Had Christ's death been needed as the payment of a legal debt in order to enable God to forgive, then God could not have offered Lucifer pardon again and again on the condition of repentance, as God did. Christ would have had to die to legally enable God to offer this pardon.

But the issue is not one of legal debts being paid, but of reconciliation.

Fifield explained this eloquently.

Quote:

The life of Christ was not the price paid to the Father for our pardon; but that life was the price which the Father paid to so manifest his loving power as to bring us to that repentant attitude of mind where he could pardon us freely.(Fifield, "God is Love")

The "price paid" is the sacrifice that was given.

Let's give an analogy. Say a fireman goes into a burning home to save you and your family, losing his life in so doing. He paid the price of his life in order to save you and yours. To whom did he pay this price?

[Gerr]

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, 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...

But notice how Paul syncretized, as I have pointed out in a previous post, four different concepts of what the Cross means/meant. "Justified" - the legal, "redemption" - ransom/payment of a price, "put forward" [Gk - public exhibition of divine generosity of goodness & grace] - moral influence, "sacrifice of atonement" NIV,

"propitiation" NASB, ESV, NKJ, KJV [Gk hilasterion - mercy seat, ark lid, Heb kaphar - to cover, propitiate, atone, pacify] - satisfaction/appeasement/substitution.

This shows to me the comprehensive nature of the Cross in answering the different issues involved in the Plan of Salvation with the Great Controvery backdrop.

[Nic Samojluk]

Beautiful, but there's something missing here as I see it. Sinner taken back just because he says, "I'm sorry?" Furthermore, even AFTER he says, "I'm sorry," he is still MISSING THE MARK! AND NO PENALTIES!!! That invalidates the law, not uphold it. That results in anarchy! If I were the devil, I would scream, "FOUL!!!"