Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[fccool]

John,

To discount my point you would have to show me that

3. in the place of, instead of, (which is more precisely expressed by anti; hence the two prepositions are interchanged by Irenaeus....).... Since anything whether of an active or passive character which is undertaken on behalf of a person or thing is undertaken 'on account of' that person or thing, huper is used.

Is the prevalent and intended use for this preposition. And that it's used in terms of "substitution"... I.E. "Instead of".

There's a clear difference between doing something on behalf of someone, and doing something instead of somebody.

When I do something on your behalf. Here's the semantic usage of the idiom likewise:

Quote:

1.

in / onbehalf of, as a representative of or a proxy for: On behalf of my colleagues, I address you tonight.

2.

in / on (someone's) behalf, in the interest or aid of (someone): He interceded in my behalf.

Both carry the underlying tone of a favor. They don't carry the underlying tone of substitution, especially a penal substitution... or "Instead of".

If you look at English etymology:

Quote:

1400–50; late ME; ME bihalve, earlier as adv. and prep. with the sense “near(by),” orig. as prep. phrase bi halve on one side; see be-, by, half

Ironically it carries the same context "on one's side".

Likewise, it does not carry the context of "anti", although these two propositions are very similar.

Galatians 3:13 - most translations don't make a mistake of translating "in our place".

Likewise, the literal meaning of Philemon 13 does not carry the context of "Instead of" or "anti"... it carries the context of "for you, in your behalf"... just like the word is used in most cases... read any literal translation:

Quote:

ASV:

13 whom I would fain have kept with me, that in thy behalf he might minister unto me in the bonds of the gospel:

Quote:

YLT:

13whom I did wish to retain to myself, that in thy behalf he might minister to me in the bonds of the good news,

The context is very clear. You could not be here, I wish he would minister to me "in your behalf". He is not saying, "I want him, instead of you" , but this is what you are trying to read into the meaning of these

Likewise you read the ransom idea as in "kidnapped", or held hostage.

Quote:

Matt. 20: 28 and Mark 10: 45:

"The Son of man came... to give His life a ransom for [anti] many."

Who was the ransom paid to? You contend that it was to the Father (?), but that would be theologically incorrect. Perhaps it's to sin(?), but sin is not a material entity you can bargain with.

This verse is the most quoted and the most misunderstood. People like to quote it in support of substitution penalty, but it obviously does not carry that context. The context of that passage is a life of service and the result of such life. I don't believe that it carries the tone substitutional penalty that was required by God.

[fccool]

Just to make the "ransom" and "instead/for" concept clear:

If I would walk up to you and say, John... I work for the central intelligence and I came across some information that reveals you to be ex-Soviet spy (illustration), if the Government finds out... it will retroactively convict you to death.

You have two choices, you can either die yourself, or you let me write your name instead of yours and die instead of you.

To accept that offer

1) You have to participate yet in another wrong

2) You have to absolutely have no care or love for humanity

3) You have to care about yourself more than you care about other

4) There has to be some manipulation of justice system involved

Knowing you, I don't think you would accept such offer.

But, if a train would be coming your way, and the guy would jump in front of it, after trying to get your attention for a while... and as a result of such act you lived... you would be forever grateful to such guy with no guilt string attached (perhaps with less guilt), but with gratitude of his heroic act... and perhaps it shows the bystanders an important lesson of watching out for the train, and staying away from the train tracks.

Which one better describes Jesus' death? Both carry the meaning of "dying in place of" ... but the ramifications are VERY DIFFERENT in both cases.

[karl]

Don't focus in too microscopically on the words. Christ is our substitute, no doubt about it. In what way, though? Does He substitute His death or His life?

We are crucified with Christ. He is not crucified instead of us.

We are raised to the newness of His life. We are covered with His life and we are transfused with His life. This is where the substitution is.

We must die. We should not preach that Jesus paid it all so we're off the hook. We should preach that Jesus paid it all, so we're ON the hook for all.

"If anyone will lose his life for my sake, he will surely find it."

[fccool]

Karl,

Some very good points, but it takes the "microscopy of the words" to make some people believe that such is the case.

This issue is important because God's character and the nature of forgiveness is portrayed, and how we are to forgive each other as per:

Quote:

Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

If we take the substitutional death as means to forgiveness... then how are we to forgive each other? Do we demand payment from someone before we forgive (if not from the offender, then from the innocent volunteer), or do we just forgive in spite of all of the damage?

[Nic Samojluk]

Gerry, what does blood represent? Or are we literally cleansed/justified/forgiven by a liquid?

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

Gerry, what does blood represent? Or are we literally cleansed/justified/forgiven by a liquid?

Gen 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Lev 17:14 For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.

Deut 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.

John 6:54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Amen, brother!

[Nic Samojluk]

So should we focus more on the symbol of blood or the life it represents?

[Nic Samojluk]

Gerry,

I suggest you to read the entire post over again. I can take a different approach if you will.

1) The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.

Quote:

Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: “Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat meat. 22 For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. 23 But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.’ 24 Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but followed the counsels and the dictates of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

Quote:

I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens, for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine. If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine, and all that is in it. Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?

Quote:

"The multitude of your sacrifices - what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts? Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations - I cannot bear your evil assemblies."

Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.

How does He do that? Sin is not something that you can literally take and carry. It's not a substance. It's a record.

The reconciliation does not begin with blood. It begins with repentance. It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out. I think you can agree with that. I hope so, at least.

Redemption does not start with sacrifice. It starts with REPENTANCE.

Read over the Jonah story. You won't find the sacrifice. Read the story of the prodigal son, the parable of the debtor whos debts were forgiven (yet he failed to forgive his). The repentance has no origin in blood. Blood is a type.

The etymology of atonement and atone:

L1550s, from adv. phrase atonen (c.1300) "in accord," lit. "at one," a contraction of at and one. It retains the older pronunciation of one. The phrase perhaps is modeled on L. adunare "unite," from ad- "to, at" + unum "one."

The concept of atonement is not substitutional death, but rather reconciliation. Here's directly from Encyclopedia of Judaism:

Quote:

(Heb. kapparah). A state of reconciliation between the sinner and the offended party prior forgiveness of the Sin. Judaism views the sinner as one spiritually alienated from God, from his fellow-man, or from his ideal self. Atonement, in the religious sense, means a reversal of the alienation caused by sin whereby the offending party is restored to spiritual "at-one-ment" (i.e., unity) and ultimately forgiven. Atonement, in Jewish teaching, can only be achieved after a process of Repentance which involves recognition and admission of the sin, feelings of remorse, restitution to the offended party, and a resolve not to repeat the offense.

Furthermore, the exercise of human freedom is central to atonement. Just as man is free to sin, so he is free to repent, and it is for him to take the initiative in seeking atonement.

Atonement at heart is not the concept of the sacrifice, but the concept of repentance and forgiveness that the sacrifice symbolic of.. in case of Jesus' death.

Jesus blood does not heave any mystical powers. It's made of the same components as our blood was (at least pre-resurrection). Merely bleeding does absolutely nothing in form of typifying the essence of the resurrection. Jesus Death is a symbol of God's forgiveness. A sign that he is willing to atone (reconcile with us)... not through violence, but through life and love.

God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son (part of Himself) that whoever believes in him (the concept of repentance here), shall not perish (concept of Divine Retribution).

The concept of atonement IS NOT IN SACRIFICE AND BLOOD. It's in forgiveness followed by the repentance. Somebody can't repent on your behalf. I don't want to minimize Christ's sacrifice, but sacrifice was not merely death and blood.

Sinless life is a living sacrifice to God. That's the whole theme of the Bible.

Nineveh did not sacrifice anything outside of their pride and their violent ways. No blood was spilled. Al contre, they stopped spilling blood. So, there's a concept of atonement that has repentance at its heart, just like the rest of the Biblical narrative. Read Hebrews 10 in context for example

Quote:

1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:

“ Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,

But a body You have prepared for Me.

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin

You had no pleasure.

7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—

In the volume of the book it is written of Me—

To do Your will, O God.’”

8 Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them ” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body (not merely through death and suffering in context) of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,

16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,”[c] 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”[d] 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

Blood of Christ is a TYPE... a SYMBOL. His blood is the same as ours as far as composition goes. But His life was not. His sacrifice was OBEDIENCE in light of temptation... NOT BLOOD. If blood was all that needed, He could have simply died as a child.

Wow! I thought that I was the only one having this kind of understanding about the death of Christ and about his blood. My only response is: Praise the Lord.

[Nic Samojluk]

God doesn't save sins. He saves sinners. The blood saves sinners by transferring life from the Source of life to dead people (dead in trespasses and sins.) How could we be made alive by the infliction of pain and death on Another? Only if that Other IS THE LIFE and that Life is imputed and imparted to us.

The life is in the blood. We're talking transfusion here.

This is, incidentally, why our sanctuary doctrine is so important. That transfusion is an ongoing process. A living connection.

Transfusion of spiritual life--not literal drops of blood. Literalism regarding the blood of Jesus Christ belongs to Rome.

[fccool]

The blood is not the literal transfusion, but only a symbol of it. When we sinned, the death came into the world as a result of the source of life (God) withdrawing His "feeding tube". No matter how hard we try to crack the code of death scientifically, unless God will plug the "feeding tube" back... there's no immortality in sight.

Sure, sin can cause death... in case of murder, or abuse of one's body, but no matter how well you take care of your body you will die because God does not provide the immortal life source that we once had (tree of life). He promised to restore it at our resurrection, and that's what Christ's resurrection is a token of.

Thus blood is a symbol of divine life source that will be restored physically and is restored spiritually. Death is not merely non-existence. Death is a separation from God, who stops giving you life.

[pnattmbtc]

I guess, my concern was your issue of the inevitability of specifically death on the cross. I believe it would be important point to make.

Would death by stoning be enough to demonstrate God's love?

This seems like a question like "Have you stopped beating your wife recently?" That is, it's a yes/no question which, if I answered it, would imply that I agree with the unstated assumption implicit in the question. But I don't.

[Nic Samojluk]

I totally disagree with you on this. Reconciliation and redemption start with sacrifice. It started with a Covenant of Sacrifice in eternity past, with the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world!

[wayfinder]

Revelation 13:8 NAS

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain

It depends on the order in which it is translated, was the Lamb slain before the laying of the foundation of the world or were the names written in the Book of Life before the laying of the foundation.

[Nic Samojluk]

In fact, that's the reason that Catholic baptize infants! Because they are "full of sin" when they are born and need salvation. The doctrine in itself is a Catholic doctrine, because it gives the institution of the church tremendous power over people.

Such is the case with Revelation 13 passage. NLV specifically footnotes :

Quote:

Or written from the creation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain

It does not reffer that Jesus was slain from the foundation. The writing (planning and foreseeing) was from the foundation. The Lamb was obviously not slain then. NAT translates it the same way.

[fccool]

I hardly think so. It's not a trick question. Either God loves us apart from anyone dying, or He does not. If we view Christ's death as a requirement, and not as expression of love... then eventually God's love is painted in a conditional manner. I will love you IF.

Sure, He planned the Calvary and He sent Christ knowing the outcome, but I don't think that the mode of death is what we should be mindful of...

Ironically with our Passion plays (and movies), that's the part that we concentrate on the most - Christ's death as a penalty that we deserve... and that supposed to drive us to repentance.

None of my friends understand the concept, so I have to really deconstruct it before they can get it... yet by deconstructing it, I inevitably go against the church doctrine. So, when they would hear the idea that Christ took the punishment that we deserved and thus we now "owe" God something... that's a guilt driven approach that now contradicts my deconstruction of it. My mother in law uses it all the time. But, I bought that ugly shirt for you, why are you ignoring my goodness by refusing to wear it . So you see, the act of giving something becomes driving factor that I should respond to. Not because God is loving, forgiving, just, because He created us, he sustains our life... but because you are sinner, and He died for your sins .

CROSS ONLY POINTS TO GOD CHARACTER ... it's a communication symbol, just like words are a communication symbol. It's a real life parable, a movie, a book, a poem. WE SHOULD NEVER MAKE AN IDOL OF THE CROSS, but we do! CROSS IS NOT BIGGER THAN GOD .

So there's this impenetrable wall of Catholic dogma (ironically created for control by guilt) that we have to deal with:

We are born sinners, but God asks us to make righteous choices that are enabled by the Spirit.

Just in this one sentence we have Augustinian, Calvinist , and a bit of Hinduism Karma concept involved. So now, instead of eating the meat... I have to dwell on the basics so that I can explain it clearly:

1) Sin is not Karma... can't be physically passed on.

2) Spirit works through us and convinces the world through us

3) For any type of free-will doctrine to work, the doctrine of total depravity can't hold. You can't have both. Either we are totally evil at birth and can't make a choice on our own... in which case God predestines sinners for hell and heaven, or we have a clear choice and ability to Choose God. It can't be both.

All of these are what we have to filter through, because all of these have implications on how we view evangelism, how we view salvation, how we view Holy Spirit, how we view law, and how we view each other.

[fccool]

T

Quote:

he Bible states that in all their afflictions he was afflicted. We as parents suffer when our children suffer, even though we are imperfect in the way we love. God is perfect, and his pain when we sin and depart from the right path is commensurate with his love, which is infinite; therefore, God did suffered infinitely and there was no legal requirement for the most innocent being in the universe to suffer more than that.

The Lord did not demand that the innocent die. Jesus had the right to forgive sins before his death on the cross, and he has the same right today. He did not acquire the right to forgive our sins following his death on the cross. This is why he said to the paralytic, “your sins are forgiven” before he had a chance to shed a drop of blood at Calvary.

Very good I should write this down.

[Nic Samojluk]

Father sends His Son (Himself in human form essentially) to reconcile with humans KNOWING that they will kill Him and reject Him.

[pnattmbtc]

I hardly think so. It's not a trick question. Either God loves us apart from anyone dying, or He does not. If we view Christ's death as a requirement, and not as expression of love... then eventually God's love is painted in a conditional manner. I will love you IF.

[pnattmbtc]

But there IS a transaction in salvation. Not between God and Satan or between God and some Intergalactic Senate or between God the Father and God the Son. The transaction is between God and each sinner. God trades us His abundant, obedient, giving, eternal life for our trashed, selfish, rebellious, and temporary lives.

I think of this in these terms as well. I think Paul did also, which is what led him to write as he did.

[Nic Samojluk]

Could God have saved anyone without the death of Christ?

If not, why was it necessary?

Couldn't Jesus have simply died a natural death, maybe in his sleep?

And what would have happened to Moses, Enoch, and Elijah if Jesus had either decided He wouldn't die or if Christ had sinned?

My dictionary defines forgivenes as the deliberate decision to forfeit the right to exact the payment of a debt. I God could not offer forgiveness to sinners unless someone paid the penalty for sin, then the forgiveness is not genuine. If you say to the one who owed you a sum of money: "I forgive you." You have forfeited the right to collect on the debt.

[Nic Samojluk]

Then there's the God of the Bible, Yahweh, who tells us that "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins."

[Nic Samojluk]

If I forgive someone, I don't have to kill myself to do it. Why would God have to?

Great response!

[pnattmbtc]

Wow! I thought that I was the only one having this kind of understanding about the death of Christ and about his blood. My only response is: Praise the Lord.

This isn't a new thought at all. It's at least as old as the 1890's. I'm trying to remember where I saw it, but I can't. I was thinking maybe it was Fifield (whom I quoted earlier), but it could have been Jones or Waggoner; it was one of those I'm pretty sure. The idea was of using blood transfusion as a metaphor for how the life of Christ saves us, along the lines of what's being explained.

Everything that happens to us happens in our minds. So basically God is seeking to communicate information to us in a way that we can understand what He's saying, so that our thinking/thought process/decision making process/paradigm changes, so that we become friends of His, awe-inspired by His character and principles, as opposed to enemies of His, and hating Him (sometimes unwittingly).

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Father sends His Son (Himself in human form essentially) to reconcile with humans KNOWING that they will kill Him and reject Him.

Yes to almost everything with the following possible exception: The Lord may not have actually known in advance that the Jewish nation would reject him as the promised Messiah and their rightful King.

Otherwise, it would make no sense for Jesus to try so hard to convince them that he was the true Messiah. Notice how Jesus piled miracle over miracle, including the bringing of Lazarus from the tomb in order to show them that he had real power not only over illness and disease, but even over death itself.

In addition, it would make no sense for Jesus to weep over Jerusalem when he realized that his own chosen nation was rejecting him. He cried over them—not over his own suffering. His disappointment reveals to me that Jesus had hopes that his people would accept him as their rightful King.

This is why some Bible translators have rendered the text found in Isaiah 53:10 on a contingency basis.

Quote:

But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

The word “if” suggests that the future of the Messiah was not set on cement, but it was rather contingent on human response. In the Bible we have many prophecies describing a glorious future for the nation of Israel and for the city of Jerusalem. Even Ellen White states that said city could have become the capital of the entire world had the Jews accepted Jesus as their rightful King.

I agree completely, and thought about making the same point. But we already had one can of worms open, so I thought, "Why open another one?" But I'm glad you made these points, and agree with them, and think you expressed them quite clearly.

[pnattmbtc]

3) For any type of free-will doctrine to work, the doctrine of total depravity can't hold. You can't have both. Either we are totally evil at birth and can't make a choice on our own... in which case God predestines sinners for hell and heaven, or we have a clear choice and ability to Choose God. It can't be both.

One could say something like we have a nature which, apart from divine assistance/intervention, would drive us to evil, but God assists/intervenes for all (starting from the womb), so that it becomes possible for each person to choose one way or the other.