Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[pnattmbtc]

I'm not so sure I can go along with that. He offered to let things continue as they were, up to a point. But after that point was reached there was no longer any way God could do that.

[Nic Samojluk]

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?

Excellent illustration. We use such symbolic language all the time and nobody tries to interpret it in a literal manner. The Bible is full of symbolic language and theologians quite often make the mistake of reading into it a literal interpretation. This was the mistake of Nicodemus who attempted to avoid a symbolic meaning into the new birth because this would imply that he needed to be spiritually born again.

A similar incident took place when Jesus told his followers that they needed to eat his flesh and drink his blood. The crowd who was looking for more free bread and fish from the Lord, turned back and made fun of the Master with the excuse that eating the flesh of this Rabbi was a ridiculous idea, when in fact Jesus was referring to his words of life.

Even today, Catholics insist that we actually need to eat the physical flesh and drink the blood of Jesus. Some passages of Scripture need to be read in a literal manner while other are symbolic in nature. We need to discover the difference.

[Nic Samojluk]

Do I understand you to mean that forgiveness is the remission of debt is without cost? Perhaps you are overlooking the fact that forgiveness does not mean cancellation of debt without cost at all, the forgiver BEARS THE COST himself!!!

Some years ago there were two building projects in the city of Loma Linda. A new elementary school was being build and an expansion of the Loma Linda University Medical Center was taking place to make room for the Proton Center and the New children’s Hospital.

The elementary school project was in need of soil in order to raise the level of the low lying land, and the LLUMC project had an excess of dirt as a result of the excavation. The LLUMC management decided to donate the dirt to the school project. The soil was free; it was a gift; nevertheless the transport of the dirt cost $50,000 U.S. Dollars.

Likewise, the forgiveness granted sinners is free, but the delivery of this pardon cost the Son of God a life of service and the death on the cross. The delivery of said forgiveness would have cost much less if the Jewish leaders had cooperated with God’s original plan for Israel.

[Nic Samojluk]

So then, what you are saying to is that Christ's death was totally unncessary, and therefore we had/have no need of Him!!!

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Pnattmbtc

He had sinned. The point is that God can forgive sin without Christ's having to die to enable Him to do so.

Amen. You made great points in that whole post so amen to all.

For what it is worth, here is how I have come to view what happened.

Satan being the beloved angel who actually taught the other angels and was looked up to. If someone in that high of a rank started speaking lies they would believe him. So if he started saying "God will kill you if you do not follow him" they would question God.

If God were to simply say, "that isn't true, I wouldn't do that!" Do you think they would just believe Him? Probably not, so the only thing He could really do was to present evidence. The cross wasn't just for us, but for the universe. It "destroyed the works of the devil", his work was the lies he spread throughout the universe.

God was simply showing that it is sin that destroys, and not Him. This was made clear at the cross, and showed Satan to be a liar.

All sins can be forgiven, but the problem is we can reach a point where we won't be able to acknowledge that we have a problem. Gods only choice at that point is to let us go. Which is "the wrath of God".

The angels above and all the universe have been watching the controversy play out. They have seen the evidence, and the scriptures were written so that we too could see the evidence and come to our own conclusions.

Great explanation and excellent reasoning! Thanks.

[Nic Samojluk]

I don't think that you would disagree with me saying that it would not be the same level of understanding of goodness and sin, and evil. Knowing about something and first hand experience is two different things.

But, to refute your point that evil was merely is fluke... then from God's perspective it could have been avoided all together.

When I write a software, I make sure that that the flukes don't happen. I know what the software can potentially do, and I avoid these pitfalls by creating procedures that would stop the crash. Good software writers do that. They plan... they don't merely put something out and then debug it as it goes.

Likewise, think about the blind man coming to Jesus. It's a simple demo of what I'm saying. Was it because of sin that the man was blind? No, the bigger picture was so that through the miracle of God people would believe.

Evil has a certain purpose in God's plan, and likewise evil had a purpose of uplifting good... evil is always the other side of free will. In order to contain it, one must understand the consequences. Without humanity experiencing evil, can they truly understand the meaning of good and evil as diametrically opposite? It's like trying to explain colors to blind person.

I'm not saying that God created evil. I'm saying that God foreseen all possible ends of the story, and He chose the one that has evil in it, because it works out for the best.

I would never have chosen to submit my children to painful experiences on purpose to teach them a valuable lesson and I have a hard time accepting the notion that God would do that!

[Nic Samojluk]

In a sense it was paid to the fire. The fire which is to claim the life of its victim is set free and the fireman pays for it with his life.

When someone plays with matches and his house burns down we might say that the man paid a high price for his foolishness. Of course, we all admit that this is to be interpreted in a figurative way. There was no actual exchange of money and insisting on a literal reading of what was stated would make no sense.

Likewise, we need to recognize that the Jewish mind had a proclivity for symbolism. We need to read the Bible with this in mind if we want to understand its message correctly. We use symbolic language all the time, and Jesus was no exception to this rule. We need to be careful if we want to avoid the mistake made by Nicodemus who attempted to interpret the new birth in a literal manner.

[fccool]

Quote:

So what caused Jesus' death here? It says that Christ "felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race." Is this an arbitrary (imposed) punishment? Or is it a natural consequence? It sounds to me like a natural consequence. Given it's a natural consequence, the penal substitution idea doesn't make sense. Where would be the connection be between Christ's feeling anguish because of guilt and the wicked feeling it?

I understand what you are trying to say, but is this in fact what she is saying? She is clearly explaining the classic penal substitution view in these quotes.

You are trying to contextualize the "felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race." , yet you ignore the point of literally transferring sin and experiencing the wrath of God.

RED.081.002

The mission of Christ's earthly life was now nearly accomplished. His tongue was parched, and he said, "I thirst." They saturated a sponge with vinegar and gall and offered it him to drink; and when he had tasted it, he refused it. And now the Lord of life and glory was dying, a ransom for the race. It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon him as man's substitute, that made the cup he drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God. Death is not to be regarded as an angel of mercy. Nature recoils from the thought of dissolution, which is the consequence of sin.

2SP.085.003

There must be the shedding of blood, for death was the consequence of man's sin. In the slain victim, man was to see for the time being the fulfillment of God's word: "Ye shall surely die." The flowing blood also signified an atonement, and pointed forward to a Redeemer who would one day come to the world and die for the sins of man, thus fully vindicating is Father's law.

RED.082.002

As man's substitute and surety, the iniquity of men was laid upon Christ; he was counted a transgressor that he might redeem them from the curse of the law. The guilt of every descendant of Adam of every age was pressing upon his heart; and the wrath of God, and the terrible manifestation of his displeasure because of iniquity, filled the soul of his Son with consternation. The withdrawal of the divine countenance from the Saviour, in this hour of supreme anguish, pierced his heart with a sorrow that can never be fully understood by man.... He, the sin-bearer, endures judicial punishment for iniquity, and becomes sin itself for man.

I don't understand how you can read this and still think that she did not believe or teach penal substitution?

[Nic Samojluk]

Sure you can. Because God permits things doesn't mean He intends for them to happen. Otherwise we'd have to conclude that God wanted the Holocaust to happen, that He wants children to be abused, women to be raped, etc.

[pnattmbtc]

I understand what you are trying to say, but is this in fact what she is saying? She is clearly explaining the classic penal substitution view in these quotes.

You are trying to contextualize the "felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race." , yet you ignore the point of literally transferring sin and experiencing the wrath of God.

[fccool]

I would never have chosen to submit my children to painful experiences on purpose to teach them a valuable lesson and I have a hard time accepting the notion that God would do that!

It's not about whether you and I think, or find hard to believe. What we feel and think does not always reflect the reality. What was the purpose of Abraham going through the emotional anguish of going through with God's command to slay his son? Even though Abraham knew that God could resurrect him... nevertheless it would have been a painful experience for that exact purpose.

Likewise, God knew what would have happened to Job if he let Satan have his way... nevertheless it was a lesson for Job and his friends, and Satan.

[fccool]

I'll quote the DA version, which is more familiar, and I'm more familiar with....

To be it seems clear that this is describing the effect of sin upon Christ's mind. When we read the Psalms, we see similar descriptions. Christ was going through great mental agony, for sure. But what was the cause of that agony? Was it that God was doing something to Him to punish Him to make Him feel that way? Or was it the effect of sin, tempting Christ to feel things about God that weren't true?

[fccool]

Quote:

Jesus said to pray that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. If everything that happens is God's will (which must be the case if the only things that happens are what God intends to happen, which appears to be what you're suggesting), then God's will is *already* being done here, and Jesus' prayer request doesn't make sense.

This is a faulty logic. Jesus prayer was not merely wishing for God's will to come about. Based on your logic, God's will is not being done in heaven due to Satan's fall and the spiritual war... but this was not the case.

This prayer is not a mere wish, but a portrayal of trust and confidence... just like Job initially portrayed trust and confidence:

Job 42:2 I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted.

I don't think you understand the full depth of a paradox of saying that

1) God is in full control

2) It's not God's will to let certain things happen... but He has to do it

I would argue that it's His will to let certain things to transpire, and that's exactly why these transpire. If it was not His will that these things would happen, then they would not happen. It was God's will that Jonah would go and preach, and Jonah eventually did... against his will (that's why he was angry with God in the end... he knew that people would repent and that God would forgive them). God's will prevailed. God was more concerned with thousands in Nineveh than with Jonah capricious attitude... yet the lesson was likewise for Jonah.

Did God know that Jonah would run? Yes. Would God rather Jonah run? No! Did he cause Jonah to do what God's will was even to the point of not letting Jonah commit suicide? Yes!

God's will is perfect, and it will prevail... and God is able to use our evil to bring about good. Of course, it was not plan A for us to sin, but I would like to point out that it was in fact inevitable... otherwise all of the talk about Christ's sacrifice being planned before the earth was even created is in fact meaningless.

19 but with the precious blood of Christ, (A) like that of a lamb ( without defect or blemish. 20 He was destined © [a] before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of the times (D) for you

God knew what was going to happen, and He went through with creation of both Satan and humanity knowing for sure that both will fall.

[teresaq]

Amen. You made great points in that whole post so amen to all.

For what it is worth, here is how I have come to view what happened.

Satan being the beloved angel who actually taught the other angels and was looked up to. If someone in that high of a rank started speaking lies they would believe him. So if he started saying "God will kill you if you do not follow him" they would question God.

If God were to simply say, "that isn't true, I wouldn't do that!" Do you think they would just believe Him? Probably not, so the only thing He could really do was to present evidence. The cross wasn't just for us, but for the universe. It "destroyed the works of the devil", his work was the lies he spread throughout the universe.

God was simply showing that it is sin that destroys, and not Him. This was made clear at the cross, and showed Satan to be a liar.

All sins can be forgiven, but the problem is we can reach a point where we won't be able to acknowledge that we have a problem. Gods only choice at that point is to let us go. Which is "the wrath of God".

The angels above and all the universe have been watching the controversy play out. They have seen the evidence, and the scriptures were written so that we too could see the evidence and come to our own conclusions.

yes, you made it easy to understand...

[teresaq]

Quote:

So what caused Jesus' death here? It says that Christ "felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race." Is this an arbitrary (imposed) punishment? Or is it a natural consequence? It sounds to me like a natural consequence. Given it's a natural consequence, the penal substitution idea doesn't make sense. Where would be the connection be between Christ's feeling anguish because of guilt and the wicked feeling it?

I understand what you are trying to say, but is this in fact what she is saying? She is clearly explaining the classic penal substitution view in these quotes.

You are trying to contextualize the "felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race." , yet you ignore the point of literally transferring sin and experiencing the wrath of God.

RED.081.002

The mission of Christ's earthly life was now nearly accomplished. His tongue was parched, and he said, "I thirst." They saturated a sponge with vinegar and gall and offered it him to drink; and when he had tasted it, he refused it. And now the Lord of life and glory was dying, a ransom for the race. It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon him as man's substitute, that made the cup he drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God. Death is not to be regarded as an angel of mercy. Nature recoils from the thought of dissolution, which is the consequence of sin.

2SP.085.003

There must be the shedding of blood, for death was the consequence of man's sin. In the slain victim, man was to see for the time being the fulfillment of God's word: "Ye shall surely die." The flowing blood also signified an atonement, and pointed forward to a Redeemer who would one day come to the world and die for the sins of man, thus fully vindicating is Father's law.

RED.082.002

As man's substitute and surety, the iniquity of men was laid upon Christ; he was counted a transgressor that he might redeem them from the curse of the law. The guilt of every descendant of Adam of every age was pressing upon his heart; and the wrath of God, and the terrible manifestation of his displeasure because of iniquity, filled the soul of his Son with consternation. The withdrawal of the divine countenance from the Saviour, in this hour of supreme anguish, pierced his heart with a sorrow that can never be fully understood by man.... He, the sin-bearer, endures judicial punishment for iniquity, and becomes sin itself for man.

I don't understand how you can read this and still think that she did not believe or teach penal substitution?

it seems to me in how we read them...

[fccool]

I've watched Inception yesterday. I'm a fan of Nolan's psychological films... such as "Memento". It was a well crafted and extremely complex story, yet even within all of its complexity was placed a very simple and explicit premise. And even though my wife did not get all of the details, which I ended up explaining to her the rest of the day... the basic premise was done in a way that would be understood by a child.

Why is it then there such ambiguity when it comes to interpretation of Biblical premise? Why is it necessary to guide people through the maze of "key texts" before one finally understands something? When I read or watch a narrative... I have no trouble understanding. But we turn the religious dogmas into convoluted and at times incoherent mess, and then expect people to understand our reasoning based on few lines of words? It always puzzled me.

[Nic Samojluk]

God sacrificed himself in the death of Christ. If this hadn't happened, God could not have forgiven mankind and therefore the whole world would have perished.

[Nic Samojluk]

From God's point of view, the things are already determined. There's nothing that you can do that God already have not seen you do, thus your future is laid out. It will not change. From that perspective, there's nothing wrong about determinism that is inconsistent with free will.

[Guest]

God and Christ knew from the beginning, of the apostasy of Satan and of the fall of Adam through the deceptive power of the apostate. The plan of salvation was designed to redeem the fallen race, to give them another trial. Christ was appointed to the office of Mediator from the creation of God, set up from everlasting to be our substitute and surety. Before the world was made, it was arranged that the divinity of Christ should be enshrouded in humanity. "A body," said Christ, "hast thou prepared me" (Hebrews 10:5). But He did not come in human form until the fullness of time had expired. Then He came to our world, a babe in Bethlehem. {1SM 250}

[Guest]

The message of the Bible is consistent with the notion that our future is contingent on our response towards God’s revelation of his love.

Amen

[fccool]

Quote:

This affirmation makes no logical sense. If every act and thought of mine is already known, then I do no have truly free will and true choice.

How is it that you are missing this point? I don't understand what's so logically hard about it???? I'm tired of breaking it down, but I will again.

Out of all possible choices you make 1... you can't make 2 choices at once. You can choose to sin or not to sin, but in the end, when you look back at it you will only going to choose 1 thing. Because you choose only 1 thing does not limit your free will. You will choose that 1 thing.

A simple example. I know you like red delicious apples. I lay 3 kinds of apples on the table. I know that based on your preferences you will chose red delicious. I know that for a fact, because when given that choice you take the red delicious apples, you take coffee and not tea, and you don't refuse because you think it's impolite. Do you not have a choice because of my foreknowledge? How hard is that?

God's foreknowledge is much deeper. Not only He knows every position of every electron in the universe, he knows where these will be 1000 years from now... and He knows the exact place these were every micro-second. God is the ultimate knowledge of things as we know it.

Not only he expected sin, He knew for sure... He knew for sure that Christ would have to come as the last resort for humanity... before the world was ever created...

foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world,

what does that mean to you? Explain to me how God can know for sure the outcome of some events and be unsure of other? How can that be inconsistency be explained? Either He knows the future or He does not. Either He knows that Peter will fail Him even though Peter says that he will not... or He does not.

[Guest]

That's true, he knows the end from the beginning.

[Nic Samojluk]

God does not see the future because He perfectly causes the future. God knows the future, because He knows where every molecule in this Universe is going to be. The events of the end times are not merely a possibility. These are certain for that reason. The events of the end time involve decisions of millions of people who have to choose a certain way.Likewise, the death of Christ was certain... and it involved decisions of millions of people to choose in a certain way.

[Nic Samojluk]

Peter had other choices, and as a moral agent he objected to such view of events. Yet, God knew Peter better than Peter knew himself. God knew the choices that Peter would make.

[fccool]

Quote:

God often portrays emotion as He conveys it to human beings. It's independent from the foreknowledge as any would expect. If wife knows that her husband is cheating on her... it makes no difference what she knows in advance. Knowing in advance does not reduce the pain and anguish of seeing the actual act.

Quote:

After the fact explanations do not always reflect reality. Joseph of old attributed to providence his sale as a slave by his brothers. We should not conclude from this that God instigated the cruel treatment he received from his brothers. God can use evil and transform it into a blessing, but we should not conclude that God planned it that way.

I don't conclude that He planned it. I conclude that He foresaw it and planned around it, while using the circumstances. I also conclude that He did not decide to intervene and prevent the act seeing that in the end it will save the entire nation. Thus it was a part of His plan.

Quote:

If God can read the future in its smallest details, then it would make no sense for him to plan the best alternative action for humans and it would make no sense for God to predict a glorious future for God’s chosen nation and for the city of Jerusalem, which is evident from many prophecies in the Old Testament.

There are conditional prophecies, but it does not mean that God does not foresee outcomes.

If my parents know the outcome of my test before I come home, and then tell me:

- an A gets you ice cream and F get's you grounded... What do you have?

It's an object lesson for my sake. It's mere verbalization of punishment and reward and it does make sense. You would argue that my parents doing that would be illogical .