Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[John317]

"In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ suffered in man's stead..."

"The power that inflicted retributive justice upon man's substitute and surety, was the power that sustained and upheld the suffereing One under the tremendous weight of wrath that would have fallen upon a sinful world. Christ was suffering the death that was pronounced upon the transgressors of God's law." SDA BC 7A 667

"Without shedding of blood there is no remission for sin. He MUST suffer the agony of a public death on the cross, that witness of it might be borne without the shadow of a doubt." Ms. 101m 1897

"In the councils of heaven the cross was ordained as the means of atonement." Ms. 165, 1899

"Christ bore the penalty that would have fallen upon the transgressor...." RH, May 23, 1899.

[teresaq]

Genesis 2:17...for in the day you eat from it you shall surely die(be put to death/executed)... God requires obedience to His commands, tthose who disobey God will be put to death.

most of your post is about what you read into the verses you site.

The Inquisition is one of the most diabolically gross abuses that ever disgraced the name of humanity. Nevertheless the Spanish writers rest the authority of this infamous tribunal upon the Word of God. {1899 PTM, PRUS 52.5}

According to a well-known Roman Catholic historian, God himself was the first inquisitor-general. In the death penalty announced to Adam and Eve, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:17), precedent is found for inflicting capital punishment on heretics, because our first parents were heretics,-they had left the true faith.

Again, the Lord turned them out of the garden of Eden; this was the confiscation of the property of heretics.

Thirdly, the Almighty made them "coats of skins, and clothed them." Gen. 3:21. This was the model of the san benito. 1 The san benitos were coarse woolen garments, in which the heretic was arrayed for the auto da fe, the name given to the ceremony accompanying the burning of the victims. These garments were brought close round the neck, and descended like a frock down to the knees. They were of a yellow color, embroidered with a cross, and well garnished with figures of devils and flames of fire, which, typical of the heretic's destiny hereafter, served to make him more odious in the eyes of the superstitious multitude. In certain cases the garment was also adorned with the picture of the wearer, burning in flames, with several figures of dragons and devils in the act of fanning them. 2 {1899 PTM, PRUS 53.1}

[teresaq]

The use of the word "day" in such a sense, meaning an indefinite period of time, is of frequent occurrence in the Scriptures. An instance in point occurs in 1Kin.2:36-46. King Solomon bound Shimei by an oath to remain in Jerusalem, under the sentence that on the "day" he went out in any direction, he should be slain. After three years, two of Shimei's servants ran away to Gath, and he went after them. It was then told Solomon that Shimei had been to Gath and returned. Solomon sent for him, reminded him of the conditions on which his life was suspended, and the oath he had broken, and then commanded the executioner to put him to death. {1897 UrS, HHMLD 130.2}

Gath was some twenty-five miles from Jerusalem. The Shimei could go there, and get his servants, return, be sent for by Solomon, and be tried and executed, all on the same day, is a supposition by no means probable, even if it were possible. Yet in his death the sentence was fulfilled, that on the "day" he went out he should be slain; because on the very day he passed out of the city, the only condition that held back the execution of the sentence was removed, and he was virtually a dead man. {1897 UrS, HHMLD 131.1}

So with Adam. He was immediately cut off from the tree of life,his source of physical vitality. So much was executed on that very day. Death was then his inevitable portion, to be accomplished within the limits of that period covered by the word "day." ...{1897 UrS, HHMLD 131.2}

[wayfinder]

Look up the meaning of the Hebrew words used in the text for "day" and "die". You will find the context to be that on the day of disobedience the guilty were to be put to death, they were not. The serpent told the woman that God would not put her to death if she disobeyed, but that she would become like the gods(elohim) knowing good and evil.

Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"

Nowhere in this verse or the context surrounding this verse, does it say anything about this being the judgment(the "you shall surly die") for eating the tree. Another reason that the death that Adam and Eve died was not the penalty for disobedience, is that if it were, then they would have paid their own debt; therefore they would not be indebted to God, because they would have paid it in full themselves. It is consistant with God's statements on disobedience of His commands that penality for disobenience is to be put to death (do a pharse search for "put to death" in the books of the Law and this will be clear).

[fccool]

From the way you explain it... I understand it that you insinuating that God indeed requires a payment of "debt" in the end? So, in fact, the debt that Jesus pays is to the Father?

[wayfinder]

That is exactly what I am saying. The debt that was incurred by our father(Adam) was left unpaid. This debt was eternal death(2nd death). If Adam and Eve paid their own debt they would not have a resurrection to life. This debt is one we cannot pay ourselves and hope for a resurrection, for obvious reasons, there is no resurrection from the 2nd death.

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life ; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,

A bond-servant is one who has another pay a debt for them that they are unable to pay. The following texts make the point of purchase of the priests(144,000) and kingdom(saints) clear.

Revelation 5:9 NAS

And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals ; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

Revelation 14:3 NAS

And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders ; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth.

Revelation 22:6 NAS

And he said to me, "These words are faithful and true "; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place

Revelation 11:18 NAS

"And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth."

[teresaq]

Look up the meaning of the Hebrew words used in the text for "day" and "die". You will find the context to be that on the day of disobedience the guilty were to be put to death, they were not. ...

i think it is much better to study the whole bible rather than limit my understanding to just one text....

[fccool]

Quote:

That is exactly what I am saying. The debt that was incurred by our father(Adam) was left unpaid. This debt was eternal death(2nd death). If Adam and Eve paid their own debt they would not have a resurrection to life. This debt is one we cannot pay ourselves and hope for a resurrection, for obvious reasons, there is no resurrection from the 2nd death.

What you are saying is that God set up a system where people could pay Him off when they sinned. It’s like God was selling indulgences long before the Catholic church ever came up with it. This is silly on several levels. First off, it implies that there is a price in God’s mind that would make sin worth it for Him. If that price was paid to God, He would be satisfied and the sin wouldn’t matter anymore.

God would NEVER put a price on that because there is no price that would make it okay for Him. It would be like me agreeing to allow a man to molest one of my children for the right price. There is NO price that I would accept for that.

Remember that it's sin that killed Christ, not the Father.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Human nature being what it is, it's obvious what would happen should God appear in the flesh. Nic's point, as I have understood it, is that it was necessary that the Jews reject Christ. I was pointing out that Christ still could have been killed in this case.

I'm not sure what Nic's take is on this.

Nic’s view is that there was no need for the Jewish leaders to take the life of the one who was sent to them to save them. They were originally free to make a choice, either to accept Jesus or reject him. They could have chosen to accept him as their promised Messiah and rightful King. Of course, once their decision was final, there was no way for them to retrace their steps. At that point, they had committed the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit and they were no longer free to make a choice because they were slaves of Satan and were forced to do his bidding.

Ooh, bad typo. I meant to say Nic's view is that it was NOT necessary that the Jews reject Christ, and that I was pointing out that Christ still could have been killed had this happened.

[pnattmbtc]

Remember that it's sin that killed Christ, not the Father.

This is a good point. I wonder if everybody agrees with it.

[teresaq]

Quote:

....Of course, once their decision was final, there was no way for them to retrace their steps. At that point, they had committed the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit and they were no longer free to make a choice because they were slaves of Satan and were forced to do his bidding.

i think i would rephrase this to say that they had no inclination to make any other choice than the one that they did...which would be the unpardonable sin...

oops. sorry.

[pnattmbtc]

This was actually Nic that said this, not me. Could you correct that please?

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

[Nic Samojluk]

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

[fccool]

This is a good point. I wonder if everybody agrees with it.

Christians agree to a certain degree yet their mentality is not up to par with the agreement.

The other day I've had a family worship with the in-laws, and after usual singing and reading of the quarterly, which ironically dealt with the same issue... I've slipped a question... "Who did Christ pay the debt to?".

There was about 15 second uncomfortable pause of deep thought, which proceeded with the mother stating that I "complicate Christianity", the brother demanding to tell me who I think He paid it to (he did not know) and my wife quickly changing the subject. They did not really care to know the truth. They only care of keeping their view intact. But, the mere asking of question creates a paradox, and they knew it. They wanted to answer "to God", but they could not because they knew that God would do no such thing.

The truth is that our church members are terrified of questions like these. Their faith rests not on who God is... their faith rests on "Bible is the truth", "E.G. White is a prophet of God", "The church is the remnant church", "The Sabbath is mark of God".

I'm not saying that these statements are not true. I'm saying that these alone is not what our faith should stand on. Even without these, God is still God. God does not need Bible to teach us the truth. He did that for centuries up until we took over with the printing presses. Likewise, God does not need E.G. White for us to truly know Him. That was certainly the case up until 19th century. Likewise, God does not need the Sabbath as the sole reminder of who He is, and for the true fellowship. I was and is the case for many believers world-wide who are unaware of the Sabbath issue.

Yet, these statements are heretical today because we put dogma above God.

[Nic Samojluk]

Nic, didn't you see post 377827? John317, the Moderator, wrote:

Quote:

Speaking as the moderator:

If anyone wishes to discuss this further, regarding Ellen White's sources, let them take it to a different thread. Thank you.

Yes, I did. I saw that post after I had reponded to your comments. I am always behind in my reading and answering. Right now I am several pages behind. I mark the place when I stop reading and I pick that spot the next time I am ready to read some more. There is no way for me to be able to read everything and be up to date on the comments being posted within the limited time I have. Besides, I am a slow reader.

[fccool]

So, when was the redemption contingency plan made... before, or after the fall of mankind?

[pnattmbtc]

If your theory is correct, then how do you explain the fact that both the Bible and Ellen White did express the death of Christ on a contingency basis?

There are many, many other texts in both Scripture and the SOP which express future events on a contingency basis as well. I quoted a few of these earlier, but they weren't commented on.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

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

Nic:Read my previous posting. If God knows precisely what choices humans will make, then why would he inspire both Bible writers and Ellen White to describe the death of Jesus on a contingency basis?

The God knows the end from the beginning is often misunderstood. The idea is that if you start down a path, God knows the end of that path. It's not saying before you start the journey that God knows what journey you will choose, but that once you choose the path, God knows the end of that path. A classic example of this are the blessings and cursing of Deuteronomy. Jer. 18 also addresses this issue.

[pnattmbtc]

Yes, I did. I saw that post after I had reponded to your comments. I am always behind in my reading and answering. Right now I am several pages behind. I mark the place when I stop reading and I pick that spot the next time I am ready to read some more. There is no way for me to be able to read everything and be up to date on the comments being posted within the limited time I have. Besides, I am a slow reader.

Ok. I didn't read your post past seeing what the topic was, as I didn't see the point, as I couldn't respond. Again, if you wish to continue the discussion, you may repost your post elsewhere, and I'll respond.

[pnattmbtc]

There was about 15 second uncomfortable pause of deep thought, which proceeded with the mother stating that I "complicate Christianity", the brother demanding to tell me who I think He paid it to (he did not know) and my wife quickly changing the subject. They did not really care to know the truth. They only care of keeping their view intact. But, the mere asking of question creates a paradox, and they knew it. They wanted to answer "to God", but they could not because they knew that God would do no such thing.

The truth is that our church members are terrified of questions like these. Their faith rests not on who God is... their faith rests on "Bible is the truth"

A couple of interesting points here. First of all is your point that the mere asking of a simple question raises a paradox. I mentioned that Stott was being honest (quoted earlier in this thread, first by John317, then repeated by me) in saying that the debt was paid to God. Many won't admit that. They say instead that it was a debt paid to satisfy the law, but this is equivalent to what Stott said (that God's righteous and loving character required a debt to be paid before He could forgive -- paraphrasing from memory), as the law is simply an extension of God's will and mind.

The second point is in regards to the response that the "Bible is the truth." I understand exactly the point you're getting at here. The idea is that the Bible is an authority which one recites as if it were a case book of law, as opposed to a means by which a Being who is very unlike us (both because of being greater -- i.e. infinite -- and better) tries to communicate to us about Himself in ways that we can understand.

A point that is often missed is that God must communicate to us where we are. We see that Jesus had this problem all the time. What He said was constantly misunderstood. He spoke of needing new wineskins to receive the new wine. I believe this has to do with our paradigm. The truth (Jesus Christ) will constantly challenge our paradigm. We have the privilege to learn to think more and more like God does, but we need to be willing to set aside our preconceived notions, and allow our paradigms to change.

Anyway your point that the faith does not rest on who God is is very well taken.

[fccool]

Quote:

The idea is that the Bible is an authority which one recites as if it were a case book of law

Or, even better, an encyclopedic knowledge on every subject. I always chuckle when we bicker about these things and throw Bible verses at each other, misunderstand what Bible is really for.

Bible points to the person of Chirst, which in turn points us to true meaning of love. I know, preaching to the choir once again, but if we really knew how to love then we would not really need law. Law is there to give us the reference, or should I say the boundaries of love.

Christ stated that the entire law and the prophets hang on two commandments that deal with loving God and loving men.

Yet we kind of get it backwards. We say that we can't love unless we keep the commandments. I believe that He likewise implies that we can't keep the commandments if we don't love. Love is the catalyst... not merely keeping the commandments. Keeping of commandments is visible manifestation of love.

Likewise, the only way to know God is in fact to understand and practice love. I don't know if any of people on this thread literally hear the voice of God, or "feel God's presence"... I don't literally experience either of those, and my guess that 99.9999% if Christians likewise don't.

We tend to humanize the relationship with God. We pray and then "listen for the answer". But it's silly. We pray and think that God would not take care of people who need it unless we indeed pray. What kind of God would He be???? God is not a 911 rescue service. He knows what's going on before we even ask.

My wild understanding that by truly understanding what love is and how to practice it, we really align ourselves with the will of God, and thus we would know what God would do in certain circumstances. But, instead, we whip out the Bible and read... well when people were sick, in the OT they poured oil on them... so let's all gather round and do that, and God is required to heal them, because that's what these people did and God did heal them" We work backwards. Not by command of God that results in something good, but by our action that supposedly will invoke God.

I.e. God becomes a giant vending machine. Put a couple quarters, push the correct buttons, and bam.. you get what you want. And if we don't, we beating on the vending machine with fury, saying "I did all that I had to do! Give me my soda!".

That's what should draw other people to us, not our doctrine, or health message, or the SOP. Without love, all of these are meaningless. These are just words on paper.

I truly believe that there are people in this world that never heard who Jesus is, yet they practice His love. So, when Jesus comes ... they will recognize him. And then there are people who keep the law to the dot, search the scripture through and through for deeper meaning... and yet when Jesus stands right in front of them they ask "Excuse me, who are you and what have you done to Christ?"

I don't think that it's our primary job to teach doctrine that results in love. Our job is to spread love as we find it in us, and that love will lead us and other to the proper doctrine.

[Nic Samojluk]

If indeed Hitler's mother knew that her son would do all of these things... for certain... would she be morally responsible for giving Him birth? Or should she better commuted abortion?

If Hitler’s mother had advanced knowledge of the future and control over conception, she would have avoided the conception of such a monster. Once conception had taken place, she would be morally responsible for the killing of an unborn baby, because she is not God with the right to take someone’s life.

[Nic Samojluk]

If she had the ability to know, before she got pregnant, that Hitler would be born if she conceived when she did, but not if she waited for some other time, say a minute later, then she would have moral responsibility for Hilter's birth. Your question involves if a morally questionable act (an abortion) should be performed to prevent evil. There would have been nothing morally questionable about God's not creating Lucifer, so your question is unnecessarily complicated. So I exchanged it to a more appropriate question, which I am answering affirmatively.

Regarding God's moral responsibility for creating evil, I'm understanding that you agree that God did set into motion a course of events which could only result in evil existing. You believe that it was inevitable, once God created Lucifer. God specifically made a choice that was certain to result in evil. However, you believe God is not morally responsible for evil because He is the creator. So, evidently, God, as creator, can do anything, without being morally responsible for the results of His actions.

Your response makes a lot of logical and moral sense! I fully agree!

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: wayfinder

The simple answer to the question of why Jesus was put to death, is that there remained a debt that must be paid before salvation would be possible.

This isn't simple! Why? For one thing, Jesus Christ never mentioned. He said a lot about His death, but never said anything about there being a debt that had to be paid before salvation would be possible. One would think He would have found some time somewhere to discuss this.

For another reason, this whole concept hadn't been invented yet.

Well said. Jesus said instead that If he was lifted up, he would drall all men to himself. The problem was not how to reconcile God to sinners, but rather how to reconcile sinners towards God.

The father of the prodigal son did not abandon his son; it was the son who departed from the immediate presence of his father and his home and went into a far away country.

There is power in the cross because we realize that only love could have moved Jesus to do what he did. It was not selfish ambition which motivated him to subject himself to torture and death at the hands of those he came to save.